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

24 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?

 

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

 

Not very appropriate.

 

19 minutes ago, micklner said:

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 !!.

 

Comparing Kirk and Hornby Gresley's is totally pointless, its like saying who was the nicest dictator, Hitler or Starlin.

,

 

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

24 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Not very appropriate.

 

 

Comparing Kirk and Hornby Gresley's is totally pointless, its like saying who was the nicest dictator, Hitler or Starlin.

,

 

I got the impression you were praising Kirks , perhaps not !!! :blink::D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Comparing Kirk and Hornby Gresley's is totally pointless, its like saying who was the nicest dictator, Hitler or Starlin.

 

 

Wouldn't it be best to ask if Kirk or Picard was the best?

 

;-)

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
  • Funny 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 hours ago, mattingleycustom said:

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

Hi Glenn

 

They work on my layout and I enjoy running my trains with them.

 

At times a working and fun layout seem to be frowned on here. 

  • Like 4
  • Agree 7
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Porcy Mane said:

 

Why?

 

Its not a very good analogy.

 

How about

 

There once was a beautiful swan named Gresley Carriage, fair and golden was Gresley carriage and good at paddling. The model railway folk were slovenly when it came to the cleaning of their glasses but coveted the beauty of the Swan that they could not own. In their spite, they asked the dark Wizard of the Midlands and the wicked Witch of the western region, to create two ugly ducklings that they would worship as false Gresley's. With the help of fake news, they would claim they were the offspring of the beautiful Swan and the people bowed down before them.

 

The reign of the first ugly duckling was long and spindly like a spider. The reign of the second ugly duckling was even more terrible than the first. It blotted out the light with its brutish flat sided bulk and blinded its acolytes to its true appearance. It adorned itself with pointless fake detail and gobbled up the money of the grateful masses who couldn't see it's ugliness.

 

The legends record that a small few kept the faith and that one day a true daughter or son of the beautiful Swan will be born and harmony will be restored to the land of model railways.

 

1 minute ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Glenn

 

They work on my layout and I enjoy running my trains with them.

 

At times a working and fun layout seem to be frowned on here. 

 

Only if its yours Clive.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Glenn

 

They work on my layout and I enjoy running my trains with them.

 

At times a working and fun layout seem to be frowned on here. 

 

3 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

 

Only if its yours Clive.

 

Evidence of what I was on about. Unless it meets your standard it is not worth anything but a negative comment.

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

  • RMweb Premium
5 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Glenn

 

They work on my layout and I enjoy running my trains with them.

 

At times a working and fun layout seem to be frowned on here. 

Fun!

Fun?

 

You're not supposed to have fun here.

 

:)

  • Like 1
  • Round of applause 2
  • Funny 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Glenn

 

They work on my layout and I enjoy running my trains with them.

 

At times a working and fun layout seem to be frowned on here. 

When I reached the age of 73 I started on a programme of changing over from  3 link and screw couplings to small tension locks. I still have some way to go and have a few converter wagons.

I am glad that I took this route as I too now find operating fun.

Bernard

  • Like 9
  • Agree 1
  • Round of applause 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The nub of this debate over the coaches seems to be about an individual's inaccuracy tolerance i.e., the level of divergence from absolute accuracy that an individual can live with. Even those who have posted above, and can't envisage they will ever run them on their own layout, appear to be in agreement when they look at one of these Kirk or Hornby coaches (and the even worse Tri-ang/ Hornby Thompsons) that however bad they know them to be they still remind them of what they are supposed to be. 

 

From there the options cover the very wide spectrum from at one end:-

  • It is a Gresley/Thompson I will have one (perhaps not even noticing the faults, even the most glaring one's)
  • Ok it has got things wrong which I do notice but I can live with these as it still reminds me enough of what it is supposed to be. (and I can have it now)
  •  -do - and one of these days I will do what I can to remove some of the errors or think about replacement if I have the funds (My current personal position on it)
  • onwards to the final level of  I will never have one as the wrong things are just too noticeable
    • then it may be that like some on here they can then make and run a better one
    • or decide that what I can have are so bad I will model something else.

And that is before the OO - EM - P4 debate commences.

 

 

Edited by john new
  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hornby gangwayed Gresley stock was a disappointing missed opportunity. They must have sold pretty well though as the have done several runs of them over the years. Most people who buy them won't notice how wrong they are because they think they look nice. The only ones I have on my layout are a couple of full brakes. I also have a buffet car which is unlikely to be used.

 

When I visited Retford shortly after Sandra had acquired it (and the house that happens to go with it) I was a little surprised to find a couple of Hornby Gresley carriages in sets on the layout. There was a set on the GC side which even included one of the old Hornby models dating back to the 1970s (that has now been banished). There was one of the newer ones in a Newcastle-King's Cross set and in the middle of a train it wasn't immediately obvious what it was and even more difficult to spot from normal viewing distance when the train is travelling at a scale 65 mph. That one is still in the set and there are a couple on the GC section. I think there are also one or two full brakes but cannot remember. The BG does seem less offensive as a model.

 

By contrast the Hornby non-gangwayed Gresley stock is very good, as are their non-gangwayed Thompson carriages.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I’m feeling a bit guilty for having kicked off ‘Gresleygate’, but I hope we all like a good debate - it certainly seems like it! Despite all the arguments either way I’m still of the same opinion....Hornby not great but better than basic Kirk.
 

I present for examination a selection of fat and not so fat a.ses. No Sophia Loren here, but(t) we have specimens from Hornby, MJT, 247, Kirk, Isinglass and Hornby BG (if you can’t tell which is which then I guess you can carry on running Hornby!). They were just the first examples which came to hand so please excuse the indifference workmanship on some. The conclusions I would draw is that the difference in turnunder is noticeable but not as extreme as the zealots would insist. I certainly think the Hornby BG (Right) is a big improvement on the older Hornby. I may have to use them for my donors in future.

 

5FB2CF52-AE8B-4787-A2DE-B9C49AF0F4F6.jpeg.f1e6eafe55995f0d166a8061431de402.jpeg
 

Can I ask a question of the Gresley experts? Is the turnunder the same on all the prototype coaches? I have been poring over photos of the real thing and it seems to me that some have significantly more turnunder than others with some being so slight as to be almost (but admittedly not quite) ‘Hornbyesque’.

 

Andy

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Phil Brighton said:

When I started my ECML layout a few years back I made a decision to use Kirk kits for the Gresley coaches and add some more details and flush glaze them. Other options were Hornby RTR and brass kits. 

Kirks basically won on price (even just a couple of years back you could get them for around a tenner on ebay - not any more). Also the variety of diagrams available is far more than RTR and the shape, I think, is better than the Hornby ones. To be honest once I have added detailing parts and metal wheels the price difference, even picking up the kit cheap is not that great so looking back I am not sure I made the right choice. I am happy with them though and have enough in the to do pile to keep me going. If starting now I think I would put brass sides on secondhand Hornby coaches as the optimum way to get a variety of coaches that look good at a reasonable price. 

 

In terms of value I did make use of the old too short Hornby Gresleys that happen to be just the right length for GNR coaches and can be picked up for next to nothing. These have sides cut myself on a Silhouette machine. They don't stand up to super close inspection but it gives me something a little different. P1011546small.jpg.b677546fad15f5a721f6f582cbb1cfbc.jpg

 

P1011547small.jpg.42f99ae87130695e6844fc70cffde4a4.jpg

 

P1011553small.jpg.0c0d3c66bf4076af1b95ab9ba0629f0c.jpgP1011552small.jpg.928679d6a5a56f008d2bf274ab05e2dd.jpg 

 

Superb modelling, made my evening.

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

  • RMweb Premium
17 minutes ago, Phil Brighton said:

When I started my ECML layout a few years back I made a decision to use Kirk kits for the Gresley coaches and add some more details and flush glaze them. Other options were Hornby RTR and brass kits. 

Kirks basically won on price (even just a couple of years back you could get them for around a tenner on ebay - not any more). Also the variety of diagrams available is far more than RTR and the shape, I think, is better than the Hornby ones. To be honest once I have added detailing parts and metal wheels the price difference, even picking up the kit cheap is not that great so looking back I am not sure I made the right choice. I am happy with them though and have enough in the to do pile to keep me going. If starting now I think I would put brass sides on secondhand Hornby coaches as the optimum way to get a variety of coaches that look good at a reasonable price. 

 

In terms of value I did make use of the old too short Hornby Gresleys that happen to be just the right length for GNR coaches and can be picked up for next to nothing. These have sides cut myself on a Silhouette machine. They don't stand up to super close inspection but it gives me something a little different. P1011546small.jpg.b677546fad15f5a721f6f582cbb1cfbc.jpg

 

P1011547small.jpg.42f99ae87130695e6844fc70cffde4a4.jpg

 

P1011553small.jpg.0c0d3c66bf4076af1b95ab9ba0629f0c.jpgP1011552small.jpg.928679d6a5a56f008d2bf274ab05e2dd.jpg 

They are absolutely beautiful. I particularly love the D.78T buffet car doing what it was converted for. 

 

Do you cut and shut the sides or create new ones with your silhouette cutter?

 

Also, a couple of people have mentioned flush glazing Kirks. How on earth do you achieve that? I just can’t imagine being able to cut all the windows sufficiently accurately - particularly the small ones in the sliding vents! Thankfully the O gauge ones which I’m building at the moment have recesses on the back which make semi flush glazing quite easy.

 

Andy

 


 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

They are absolutely beautiful. I particularly love the D.78T buffet car doing what it was converted for. 

 

Do you cut and shut the sides or create new ones with your silhouette cutter?

 

Also, a couple of people have mentioned flush glazing Kirks. How on earth do you achieve that? I just can’t imagine being able to cut all the windows sufficiently accurately - particularly the small ones in the sliding vents! Thankfully the O gauge ones which I’m building at the moment have recesses on the back which make semi flush glazing quite easy.

 

Andy

 


 

 

Thanks. I have some pictures on my thread that show it better than I can explain but basically I sanded down the Hornby sides and then stuck the cut side over the top. 

The flush glazing was also done using the cutter. 

Edited by Phil Brighton
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The criticism on the look of tension locks is valid, does anyone know why with modern improved plastics they are not supplied in clear? Is it too brittle or too costly versus black?

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

I’m feeling a bit guilty for having kicked off ‘Gresleygate’, but I hope we all like a good debate - it certainly seems like it! Despite all the arguments either way I’m still of the same opinion....Hornby not great but better than basic Kirk.
 

I present for examination a selection of fat and not so fat a.ses. No Sophia Loren here, but(t) we have specimens from Hornby, MJT, 247, Kirk, Isinglass and Hornby BG (if you can’t tell which is which then I guess you can carry on running Hornby!). They were just the first examples which came to hand so please excuse the indifference workmanship on some. The conclusions I would draw is that the difference in turnunder is noticeable but not as extreme as the zealots would insist. I certainly think the Hornby BG (Right) is a big improvement on the older Hornby. I may have to use them for my donors in future.

 

5FB2CF52-AE8B-4787-A2DE-B9C49AF0F4F6.jpeg.f1e6eafe55995f0d166a8061431de402.jpeg
 

Can I ask a question of the Gresley experts? Is the turnunder the same on all the prototype coaches? I have been poring over photos of the real thing and it seems to me that some have significantly more turnunder than others with some being so slight as to be almost (but admittedly not quite) ‘Hornbyesque’.

 

Andy

Given that there are various different widths of Gresley coaches viz., 9ft and 9ft3in as well as those brakes which have an even narrower guard's end, it isn't surprising that the coaches seem to vary in width. Just to complicate matters, a point I've noticed since I have designed etches and castings for 7mm Gresley coaches, is that John Edgson's Isinglass drawings do vary - especially when considering [on a transverse cross section] just where the tumblehome starts. To my eye [and it is just my opinion] John drew his coach ends one side at a time and thus some drawings appear to have a different tumblehome start position depending on which side you look at.

As a result, it is quite possible that different Gresley coaches from different designers will have differing end profiles. I wouldn't pretend that mine are perfect but I have tried to keep them consistent within the required max width.

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

3 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Glenn

 

They work on my layout and I enjoy running my trains with them.

 

At times a working and fun layout seem to be frowned on here. 

Good evening Clive.

 

'At times a working and fun layout seem to be frowned on here.'

 

Really?  

 

Little Bytham certainly works (you've operated it), and didn't we have fun? 

 

Every guest writes in my visitors' book how much they've enjoyed themselves (another way of saying they've had fun?).

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

  • Agree 3
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I’m not a prolific poster on RMWeb nor am I ever likely to be. I’m reasonably displaced from the subject railway that interests me and I use this forum to keep the fire alive.

 

I like to make models of trains as a release from work where I continually interact with dogmatic people with heavily entrenched views, therefore, online, I don’t get involved in disagreements.

 

I have read the previous two pages with such disappointment and it makes me wonder why I should continue to come here. And for those that think this type of debate is healthy and constructive criticism? Its not.

 

Thank you to Phil Brighton, a few posts above, for showing us his work and trying to remind us of what we are really here for.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

  • Like 8
  • Agree 4
  • Friendly/supportive 7
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...