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

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Regarding what's not available RTR (and thankfully no moans on here because of it - unlike elsewhere in some cases), there used to be (is there still?) a whole 'industry' of different parts/kits/adaptations/bits and pieces/etc., enabling the 'modeller' to change, say, a tender, or make a different sub-class of loco and so on. I recall grafting-on cast metal extensions to make a BR Standard high-sided tender from one off a WR 9F. Yes, the joints showed (slightly, but disappeared after weathering) but it was the done thing way back then. 

 

I know Crownline's 'postcard-turning' display at shows was packed with all sorts of most-useful bits (I still have some). The sort of stuff that encouraged 'personal', creative and inventive modelling. 'The RTR boys don't make exactly what I want/need, but no matter, I'll change it myself'.

 

Granted, much in the way of adaptation long ago was needed to, say, change a Tri-ang B12/3 into a B12/3, but it did allow the development of modelling skills all round. 

 

I wonder if we're (the generic 'we're') in (collective) danger of becoming so RTR-dependent that the likes of suggesting making a different tender (a smaller Stanier one for a 'Jubilee'?) is met will howls of anguish from some quarters because it would be far too difficult.

 

Regarding tenders, I know that SE Finecast will sell all the range of tenders as separate items; as used to Crownline, and, I assume, now PDK. 

 

There were many diesel adaptation kits as well. Have most of these disappeared now because of the increase in RTR options?

 

Just some thoughts on a very dull Sunday morning........................

Well, as you know Tony, I'm certainly not afraid to build / adapt to create the loco, coach, building (etc) I need. Below is my chosen route for creating a Jub with a Stanier 3500 gallon tender.

 

165690614_3500galltender.jpg.1614b9caea1e0b34a6fbe8bb4569aa26.jpg

 

But, here are the 'buts'. This has cost me over £50. To which I need to add wheels - another £10. I then need to build the thing and paint it. 

 

Re painting, John (Dunsignalling) has already rather eloquently outlined the pitfalls (although in this case I will be painting the loco body at the same time)

 

Re cost, you can easily pick up a 'pre-owned' whole Jubilee for less than £100 so if (say) the tender has a value of one third of that then, on that basis, I've already 'blown' my tender budget.

 

But the biggest factor for me is time. Whilst I thoroughly enjoy making stock, and I shall be making up this tender in the next few months, all the time I'm making it I'm NOT going to be making the layout it will be running on! And as you know it's rather a big layout. 

 

That's where RTR comes in, for me. The more options you have, the more you can concentrate on those parts of your layout that there'll never be an RTR solution for. Sorry to bang on about Jubilees (well I'm not really; fascinating class) but without this tender type available, you immediately eliminate 50 locos of the class. For a class seen over a wide spread of the LMS / LMR system, how does that compare with the effort taken to produce the W1 in original form RTR?

Edited by LNER4479
  • Like 9
  • Agree 3
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Regarding what's not available RTR (and thankfully no moans on here because of it - unlike elsewhere in some cases), there used to be (is there still?) a whole 'industry' of different parts/kits/adaptations/bits and pieces/etc., enabling the 'modeller' to change, say, a tender, or make a different sub-class of loco and so on. I recall grafting-on cast metal extensions to make a BR Standard high-sided tender from one off a WR 9F. Yes, the joints showed (slightly, but disappeared after weathering) but it was the done thing way back then. 

 

I know Crownline's 'postcard-turning' display at shows was packed with all sorts of most-useful bits (I still have some). The sort of stuff that encouraged 'personal', creative and inventive modelling. 'The RTR boys don't make exactly what I want/need, but no matter, I'll change it myself'.

 

Granted, much in the way of adaptation long ago was needed to, say, change a Tri-ang B12/3 into a B12/3, but it did allow the development of modelling skills all round. 

 

I wonder if we're (the generic 'we're') in (collective) danger of becoming so RTR-dependent that the likes of suggesting making a different tender (a smaller Stanier one for a 'Jubilee'?) is met will howls of anguish from some quarters because it would be far too difficult.

 

Regarding tenders, I know that SE Finecast will sell all the range of tenders as separate items; as used to Crownline, and, I assume, now PDK. 

 

There were many diesel adaptation kits as well. Have most of these disappeared now because of the increase in RTR options?

 

Just some thoughts on a very dull Sunday morning........................

 

Also comes down to skill level. I can't quite get plastic card carriage sides to work. So I buy etched sides. So to make a 120 i will need some good etched sides to base it on.

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

36 minutes ago, MJI said:

 

Also comes down to skill level. I can't quite get plastic card carriage sides to work. So I buy etched sides. So to make a 120 i will need some good etched sides to base it on.

 

So could I suggest Worsley Works? (no connection) They produced sides and ends for a class 100 for one of our group so I can't see why they couldn't do the 120.

 

Chas

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

  • RMweb Premium
8 minutes ago, ScRSG said:

 

So could I suggest Worsley Works? (no connection) They produced sides and ends for a class 100 for one of our group so I can't see why they couldn't do the 120.

 

Chas

Considering it but they do seem to have a few minor errors.

 

There are a few on the 119 etch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, ScRSG said:

 

So could I suggest Worsley Works? (no connection) They produced sides and ends for a class 100 for one of our group so I can't see why they couldn't do the 120.

 

Chas

I have two 120s which are Craftsman conversions of Lima DMUs. One is I believe the Craftsman demo model, which I acquired second hand.

 

A state-of-the-art RTR 120 would be much better though, eg something on a par with the recent Bachmann 117.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MJI said:

Considering it but they do seem to have a few minor errors.

 

There are a few on the 119 etch.

 

From what I understand, unless they already do the 120, then it is up to you to get it right as they will ask for drawings etc. for them to produce the etches.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

There were many diesel adaptation kits as well. Have most of these disappeared now because of the increase in RTR options?

 

Just some thoughts on a very dull Sunday morning........................

Hello Tony

 

There were some of us who use to make our own bits to convert form one type to another or variation of a class. I think my conversion was a Lima class 33 to a BRCW Bo-Bo Type 2 was the first I done. It looks rubbish compared to my Heljan class 27s but guess which one I like to run?

 

There are some fantastic RTR models these days but I am a modeller so enjoy making things. One day I might even finish something. :nono:

 

 

Edited by Clive Mortimore
  • Like 13
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

 

 

A couple of brief videos that I came across while looking for something else entirely different. I would dare to suggest that there is not much RTr to be seen!

 

I was always led to believe that the first EM gauge scenic layout to be exhibited was Buckingham and the clip from 1948 has a brief sequence of the original Buckingham layout at what I think is its first outing.

 

 

The second clip, dated 1937, appears to show a 4mm layout and the shunting would suggest an Alex Jackson type coupling. Could that possibly be an EM layout that predates Buckingham by around a decade?

 

 

 

  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

 

6 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

...Sorry to bang on about Jubilees (well I'm not really; fascinating class) but without this tender type available, you immediately eliminate 50 locos of the class. For a class seen over a wide spread of the LMS / LMR system, how does that compare with the effort taken to produce the W1 in original form RTR?

 

Always happy to see discussion of Jubilees  particularly those with the various flavours of 3500 gallon tenders.

 

post-3982-0-58976800-1304868135_thumb.jpg

 

Simon

  • Like 14
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3
  • Round of applause 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, bbishop said:

Ladies and gentlemen.   May I ask a question?  What proportion of modellers are interested in the pre grouping era?  I'm not asking if they actually model pre grouping, but interested enough to purchase a book specialising in that era.  Bill

 

If it was Great Eastern, or Great Northern or possibly GC - I might buy it , depending on the subject.

 

If it wasn't - I wouldn't

 

A case in point - I bought the first volume of the new 4 (really 5) volume Tatlow covering LNER wagons . This covers the said 3 companies' wagons. A bit of an indulgence, but occasionally useful.

 

However I am not in the market for books on LNWR or L&Y wagons, buildings, signalling or lines..

 

If it deals with stuff that survived into the 1950s, a book could be marginally useful 

Edited by Ravenser
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

 

A couple of brief videos that I came across while looking for something else entirely different. I would dare to suggest that there is not much RTr to be seen!

 

I was always led to believe that the first EM gauge scenic layout to be exhibited was Buckingham and the clip from 1948 has a brief sequence of the original Buckingham layout at what I think is its first outing.

 

 

The second clip, dated 1937, appears to show a 4mm layout and the shunting would suggest an Alex Jackson type coupling. Could that possibly be an EM layout that predates Buckingham by around a decade?

 

 

 

 

Very interesting finds. 

 

It's interesting that a professional news film crew thought Buckingham GC the most worthwhile layout to film in 1948. That will probably have been its first public outing. Sobering to think you may still be running - and have exhibited - that 2-4-2T

 

I very much doubt the Manchester layout is EM . It appears to be centre stud contact, and I have a strong suspicion that anyone finescale enough to want to try EM will also have gone 2-rail. Also a layout in that advanced state really can't have been started much later than 1935 - which is getting very early indeed to think of EM. The possible use of something like AJs is easier to explain given that Alex Jackson was himself an MMRS member. Someone in the club might have attempted something on broadly similar principles pre -war which he then came up with a good solution for doing.

 

EM gauge looks to me as if it was a London area initiative. The leading advocate of a "compromise gauge of 18mm" , one F.W Chubb, was the proprietor of the Model Railway Constructor from the late 1930s . He lived in West London , and was a member of the MRC after the war , in which context he knew Peter Denny and took some of the early photos of Buckingham's stock reprinted in Peter Denny's books.

 

Other early photos are credited to M.Longridge - evidently Michael Longridge , also a member of the MRC in the late 1940s, and also working in EM , but pre war a member of Wimbledon MRC working in finescale HO. The connection and explanation is that F.W. Chubb was rapidly co-opted onto the wartime BRMSB, and used that position to push his pet solution of 18mm gauge. Michael Longridge seems to have been drafted in  to provide additional "technical support" to the BRMSB in "the smaller gauges", and the inference is that Chubb then persuaded him to give EM a shot, rather than returning to HO post war.

 

The Model Railway Constructor published a book by Longridge on "Modelling 4mm Scale Rolling Stock" (Rayler Publications London 1948). This carries a Foreward by R.J Raymond , then editor of the Constructor - still owned I think by FW Chubb - and himself a key member of the BRMSB . In this Raymond states:

Quote

... in a relatively short space of time HO gauge was displaced and today is almost non-existent...

 

The more serious modeller, however, realised that the gauge of 16.5mm was very much under scale width and also that the usual commercial wheels for OO gauge were too coarse. There has, therefore, arisen in the past three or four years [ie since 1944-5] a group of modellers who have adopted the scale of 4mm. but used the more correct gauge of 18mm ... At the same time these modellers adopted wheels of finer dimensions, and a much greater realism was obtained.

 

Among the pioneers who developed 4mm, scale on 18mm. gauge was Michael Longridge, the author of this book. His favourite prototype is the late Great Western Railway...

 

Raymond might indeed have an agenda here, but this is very early written testimony from someone at the heart of things, saying that EM modelling didn't exist pre-war.

 

(I rather wonder if the true situation is that in the final years of the war the remaining pre-war British HO modellers decided that restarting post-war in 3.5mm scale was hopeless given the supply shortages, so they evacuated into 4mm scale EM, reinforced by 4mm modellers who wanted to try something better but were never going to touch HO)

 

It is also notable that in F.W.Chubb's letters to the Constructor advocating his "compromise gauge" and in the announcements of the BRMSB, both in the early 1940s, there is no suggestion that anyone is already working in this gauge, or that there are any existing layouts built to this standard. No existing EM gauge modellers wrote to the Constructor supporting/criticising the new BRMSB 18mm standard, or saying "come on in , the water's lovely!". That I think tells very strongly against any  possibility of an actual working EM gauge layout as early as 1937. 

 

Furthermore it is of the nature of a "compromise gauge" that it can only emerge after a "gauge war" has become well-established and entrenched..... That pushes the concept of an 18mm gauge somewhere into the 1930s as a minimum

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 4
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 27/11/2020 at 22:52, LNER4479 said:

Time to revisit long firebox Jubilee?

Stanier 3,500 gallon tender to go with them (50 of the class towed them)

A 'proper' welded Stanier 4,000 gallon tender for that matter (Hornby one is a fudge as the rear is rivetted)

 

Sorry - am deeply into LMS 4-6-0s at the moment!

There is already a perfectly acceptable DJH kit of a Jubilee with a 3500 gal [Stanier] tender. The DJH reference is K323.

Edited by Arun Sharma
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 hours ago, chris p bacon said:

Just looking back at the discussion regarding tumblehomes, I found the easiest way is to build straight sided stock. :rolleyes:

510.JPG.c3d4bb1f99660054766b4906bfc84e52.JPG

511.JPG.f41f420031d0e084a20c4ce62d2706cb.JPG

 

This is one of the GN American built Pullmans. This isn't finished yet as it has some more underframe detail to add as well as bogie sides and roof vents,  but it's new owner will be doing that as he is a whizz with 3D and has his own printer.  I've also only just ordered some more screws from Phil at Hobby Holidays to fix the roof down, hence the gap.

 

After building 4 of my own I said 'never again' ..... the things you do for mates....

 

 

Dave, that looks fabulous! Could you please tell us a little about the origins of the kit or the parts that you've used?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

Very interesting finds. 

 

It's interesting that a professional news film crew thought Buckingham GC the most worthwhile layout to film in 1948. That will probably have been its first public outing. Sobering to think you may still be running - and have exhibited - that 2-4-2T

 

I very much doubt the Manchester layout is EM . It appears to be centre stud contact, and I have a strong suspicion that anyone finescale enough to want to try EM will also have gone 2-rail. Also a layout in that advanced state really can't have been started much later than 1935 - which is getting very early indeed to think of EM. The possible use of something like AJs is easier to explain given that Alex Jackson was himself an MMRS member. Someone in the club might have attempted something on broadly similar principles pre -war which he then came up with a good solution for doing.

 

EM gauge looks to me as if it was a London area initiative. The leading advocate of a "compromise gauge of 18mm" , one F.W Chubb, was the proprietor of the Model Railway Constructor from the late 1930s . He lived in West London , and was a member of the MRC after the war , in which context he knew Peter Denny and took some of the early photos of Buckingham's stock reprinted in Peter Denny's books.

 

Other early photos are credited to M.Longridge - evidently Michael Longridge , also a member of the MRC in the late 1940s, and also working in EM , but pre war a member of Wimbledon MRC working in finescale HO. The connection and explanation is that F.W. Chubb was rapidly co-opted onto the wartime BRMSB, and used that position to push his pet solution of 18mm gauge. Michael Longridge seems to have been drafted in  to provide additional "technical support" to the BRMSB in "the smaller gauges", and the inference is that Chubb then persuaded him to give EM a shot, rather than returning to HO post war.

 

The Model Railway Constructor published a book by Longridge on "Modelling 4mm Scale Rolling Stock" (Rayler Publications London 1948). This carries a Foreward by R.J Raymond , then editor of the Constructor - still owned I think by FW Chubb - and himself a key member of the BRMSB . In this Raymond states:

 

Raymond might indeed have an agenda here, but this is very early written testimony from someone at the heart of things, saying that EM modelling didn't exist pre-war.

 

(I rather wonder if the true situation is that in the final years of the war the remaining pre-war British HO modellers decided that restarting post-war in 3.5mm scale was hopeless given the supply shortages, so they evacuated into 4mm scale EM, reinforced by 4mm modellers who wanted to try something better but were never going to touch HO)

 

It is also notable that in F.W.Chubb's letters to the Constructor advocating his "compromise gauge" and in the announcements of the BRMSB, both in the early 1940s, there is no suggestion that anyone is already working in this gauge, or that there are any existing layouts built to this standard. No existing EM gauge modellers wrote to the Constructor supporting/criticising the new BRMSB 18mm standard, or saying "come on in , the water's lovely!". That I think tells very strongly against any  possibility of an actual working EM gauge layout as early as 1937. 

 

Furthermore it is of the nature of a "compromise gauge" that it can only emerge after a "gauge war" has become well-established and entrenched..... That pushes the concept of an 18mm gauge somewhere into the 1930s as a minimum

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the comprehensive response.

 

I would agree with you, as since finding it I have been investigating further.

 

I have been in touch with Dave Booth, long standing MMRS member and who knew some of the Manchester EM crew and was around quite early on.

 

To his knowledge, the Alex Jackson coupling wasn't invented until 1947, when it was demonstrated to the club. So if that film is a demonstration of the coupling in use, then it dates no earlier than 1947.

 

He recalls seeing the group operating their layouts and says that they ran at scale speeds and wouldn't have been thrashing them round like that! They were 24v, 2 rail, running to scale speeds, from the start. 

 

So I would agree that the second film is either wrongly dated or if it is pre-war, it is very likely in OO and not EM.

 

What made me wonder is the similarity between the track plan of the goods yard (to the right of the main lines in one shot) to the plan of "Presson" that appeared in RM in the 1960s. The goods yard doesn't seem to have visible centre pick ups like the main lines and I wondered if it was perhaps a separate layout, attached to the main layout for the show.

 

That now seems unlikely.

 

The GCR 2-4-2T and 6 wheel carriages are indeed still in regular use, apart from our enforced break, which has cancelled many regular operating sessions. The loco is still in its original paint finish, almost black rather than green now. They have been out as part of a static display but as they don't run to Leighton Buzzard in the timetable, they haven't formed part of the stock when we have exhibited the layout.

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
5 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

 

Dave, that looks fabulous! Could you please tell us a little about the origins of the kit or the parts that you've used?

 

It's made from some of my own etches, the underframe detail for mine was scratch built, but Jason (who this is for) will 3D print his.  The roofs on mine were cast in resin from a master I made, but the mould was only really good enough for the amount I wanted so this one has a scratchbuilt one from plasticard. Had I known I'd require more of them I would have remade the mould.

I also made a master for the bogie sides and cast those in resin as well. 

I'm pleased with how these built up but I have yet to paint and line them, it is complicated lining so Jason has prepared some drawings for the production of some decals, but we have been unable so far to find a supplier to produce them.

600898259_2992Lining.jpg.cf6a50890144e19f9277842109120769.jpg

 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding alternative tenders.....................

 

1800698397_ModelLocoBlackFive01.jpg.9ad241b16f4c0440832b2d48a95a1abe.jpg

 

At the real risk of being shot down in flames, crashing and burning, I'd better explain.......................

 

The loco is a Model Loco Black Five. I acquired it, part-built, at a show last year for the princely some of £40.00! It included a fully-working Portescap motor/gearbox (which is now in a recently-built A3). It had been glued together, including the chassis!!!!!!! 'It came apart in my hands' with ease, and I've started rebuilding it (with solder!), fitting a DJH motor/gearbox and the correct Markits drivers (the older Romfords will find a home beneath something different). 

 

Now, although the loco was complete, the tender was not. The one in the picture is a Bachmann one (from a rebuilt 'Pat', 'Jub' or 'Scot'?). Here's the cannon fodder; will it suit a Black Five? 

 

I've got all the Irwell books on the class, so I'll have a look. I know there were loads of variations, so maybe? Obviously, repainted in lined BR black.

 

Why build something like this? Well, I saw a few working on the ECML at Retford, but my memory is that they turned left and headed for Gainsborough. Anyone know for sure? The class could certainly be seen at Peterborough and at the likes of March, so, perhaps? Unlikely on the M&GNR bit, though. 

 

They were certainly the most common motive power at Chester, and there's always Shap...................

 

 

  • Like 12
Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Now, although the loco was complete, the tender was not. The one in the picture is a Bachmann one (from a rebuilt 'Pat', 'Jub' or 'Scot'?). Here's the cannon fodder; will it suit a Black Five? 

 

They were certainly the most common motive power at Chester, and there's always Shap...................

 

 

Surprisingly (perhaps?), there was less tender variation on the '5's; so basically just a choice of rivetted or welded standard 4,000 gallon tender (I'm ignoring last few years when anything went - although I've yet to see a picture of a Black 5 towing a Fowler 3,500 gallon tender? Anyone?)

 

The Jub tender story got off to a exciting start when the new 4,000 gallon tenders built for first 50 or so were swapped more or less straight away with the Royal Scots. But the '5's ran with their new 4,000 gallon tenders right from the 'off' and never really looked back. So far as I'm aware, it's the standard LMS 4,000 gallon tender so perfectly OK for your model. Check pictures (as always!) when you come to number it to make sure it's towing a rivetted tender. Some of the later built ones had part-rivetted tenders.

 

PS - can't have too many Black 5s over Shap

Edited by LNER4479
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Regarding alternative tenders.....................

 

1800698397_ModelLocoBlackFive01.jpg.9ad241b16f4c0440832b2d48a95a1abe.jpg

 

At the real risk of being shot down in flames, crashing and burning, I'd better explain.......................

 

The loco is a Model Loco Black Five. I acquired it, part-built, at a show last year for the princely some of £40.00! It included a fully-working Portescap motor/gearbox (which is now in a recently-built A3). It had been glued together, including the chassis!!!!!!! 'It came apart in my hands' with ease, and I've started rebuilding it (with solder!), fitting a DJH motor/gearbox and the correct Markits drivers (the older Romfords will find a home beneath something different). 

 

Now, although the loco was complete, the tender was not. The one in the picture is a Bachmann one (from a rebuilt 'Pat', 'Jub' or 'Scot'?). Here's the cannon fodder; will it suit a Black Five? 

 

I've got all the Irwell books on the class, so I'll have a look. I know there were loads of variations, so maybe? Obviously, repainted in lined BR black.

 

Why build something like this? Well, I saw a few working on the ECML at Retford, but my memory is that they turned left and headed for Gainsborough. Anyone know for sure? The class could certainly be seen at Peterborough and at the likes of March, so, perhaps? Unlikely on the M&GNR bit, though. 

 

They were certainly the most common motive power at Chester, and there's always Shap...................

 

 

The Black 5s were very common in Lincoln, going to and from Grimsby, and also on the summer excursions to the coast-Mabo, Skeggy and Cleethorpes.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
31 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Surprisingly (perhaps?), there was less tender variation on the '5's; so basically just a choice of rivetted or welded standard 4,000 gallon tender (I'm ignoring last few years when anything went - although I've yet to see a picture of a Black 5 towing a Fowler 3,500 gallon tender? Anyone?)

 

The Jub tender story got off to a exciting start when the new 4,000 gallon tenders built for first 50 or so were swapped more or less straight away with the Royal Scots. But the '5's ran with their new 4,000 gallon tenders right from the 'off' and never really looked back. So far as I'm aware, it's the standard LMS 4,000 gallon tender so perfectly OK for your model. Check pictures (as always!) when you come to number it to make sure it's towing a rivetted tender. Some of the later built ones had part-rivetted tenders.

 

PS - can't have too many Black 5s over Shap

 

As you mention there were the part-welded ones with the seive boxes, common on the later builds. For the complete list I suppose you could also add the two self-weighing tenders.

 

Simon

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
10 hours ago, chris p bacon said:

 

It's made from some of my own etches, the underframe detail for mine was scratch built, but Jason (who this is for) will 3D print his.  The roofs on mine were cast in resin from a master I made, but the mould was only really good enough for the amount I wanted so this one has a scratchbuilt one from plasticard. Had I known I'd require more of them I would have remade the mould.

I also made a master for the bogie sides and cast those in resin as well. 

I'm pleased with how these built up but I have yet to paint and line them, it is complicated lining so Jason has prepared some drawings for the production of some decals, but we have been unable so far to find a supplier to produce them.

600898259_2992Lining.jpg.cf6a50890144e19f9277842109120769.jpg

 

Thanks - nice job all round! And yes, I'd say decals would be a good way to go by the look of it... Lovely looking carriages, looking forward to seeing them finished :)

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
18 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hello Tony

 

There were some of us who use to make our own bits to convert form one type to another or variation of a class. I think my conversion was a Lima class 33 to a BRCW Bo-Bo Type 2 was the first I done. It looks rubbish compared to my Heljan class 27s but guess which one I like to run?

 

There are some fantastic RTR models these days but I am a modeller so enjoy making things. One day I might even finish something. :nono:

 

 

18 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

 

Clive,

 

The ‘Tip Top’ (as we used to call 27s in the ‘80s) looks good to me. However, I don’t think much of your attempt to match the RTR paintwork on those coaches!

 

Andy

  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

Surprisingly (perhaps?), there was less tender variation on the '5's; so basically just a choice of rivetted or welded standard 4,000 gallon tender (I'm ignoring last few years when anything went - although I've yet to see a picture of a Black 5 towing a Fowler 3,500 gallon tender? Anyone?)

 

The Jub tender story got off to a exciting start when the new 4,000 gallon tenders built for first 50 or so were swapped more or less straight away with the Royal Scots. But the '5's ran with their new 4,000 gallon tenders right from the 'off' and never really looked back. So far as I'm aware, it's the standard LMS 4,000 gallon tender so perfectly OK for your model. Check pictures (as always!) when you come to number it to make sure it's towing a rivetted tender. Some of the later built ones had part-rivetted tenders.

 

PS - can't have too many Black 5s over Shap

Thanks Graham,

 

My bedtime reading last night has given me plenty of options, especially as there were frequent tender changes among class members (one even towed the LMS corridor tender for a while!). 

 

What I need to look out for as well are boiler/firebox differences, but I've found quite a few possibilities. 

 

And, if you'd like it on Shap from time to time (roll on the vaccine!), you're most-welcome.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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...