Tony Wright Posted December 4, 2020 Author Share Posted December 4, 2020 18 hours ago, Tony Teague said: Tony When you use a plastic RTR tender with a kit-built white metal loco, do you add weight to the tender? I find some RTR tenders are extremely light, even compared with their RTR locos and so I wondered whether the tenders might be inclined to lift or de-rail when a heavier load of kit-built coaches is placed behind them. Tony Tony, In this case, the Bachmann tender has no extra weight added. Yet, still on its original wheels (which are far superior to earlier manifestations), it runs beautifully - even with heavy loads attached. Regards, Tony. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted December 4, 2020 Author Share Posted December 4, 2020 6 hours ago, Flying Pig said: Photo 6 on this page shows the valve gear well. You're right about the valve crosshead - on the model it doesn't line up with the valve spindle. I think that's at least partly because the casting for the valve crosshead and its support is not level - it's tilted up towards the back. The valve end of the radius rod is thus too high. However, the front extension of the motion bracket appears to be too deep compared to the prototype photo and set much too near to the running plate valance. It should be much shallower and set further back in the gloom; indeed the entire bracket is rather two dimensional. The prominent and characteristic cover over the expansion link spindle held on with four bolts is also missing - I wonder if this part was lost from the kit? No more building of ex-LMS locos with outside valve for me then! Regards, Tony. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuffer Davies Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 2 hours ago, PMP said: Not sure what point you’re making, you’ve quoted the bit where I said the Hornby piston rod centre was lower. So we’re on the same page as far as I can see. Hi, apologies for not fully explaining the point I was making.... If the Hornby’s slide bars were positioned correctly then the connecting rod would foul the bottom slide bar as it would on the prototype without the milled slot. I’m not sure which compromise I prefer, wrongly positioned slidebars or a chamfer, neither is ideal. I’m going to attempt to reproduce the slide bar’s slot when I build my replacement EM chassis but I’m not 100% confident I’ll be able to pull it off. If it doesn’t work I’ll go for the chamfer. Frank 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PMP Posted December 4, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 4, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Tony Wright said: In my opinion, if there is a finer RTR model steam-outline loco out there, I've yet to see it! Who'd have thought a Thompson Pacific (in any form) would receive that accolade? Regards, Tony. Obviously not having seen the Hornby Thompson I can’t comment on it, and I guess it depends on the criteria for ‘finest’. For interest how would you define the finest in this context? In terms of accuracy and performance, from my perspective (and experience of it), the imminent Bachmann 94XX will I think set a very high benchmark this year. Edited December 4, 2020 by PMP Add pic 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Michael Edge Posted December 4, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 4, 2020 46 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said: I’m going to attempt to reproduce the slide bar’s slot when I build my replacement EM chassis but I’m not 100% confident I’ll be able to pull it off. If it doesn’t work I’ll go for the chamfer. Frank No worse than LNER three bar arrangement where the con. rod goes between the two lower bars. Very few designers of either kits or rtr locos pay much attention to where the various rods have to move. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Flying Pig Posted December 4, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 4, 2020 2 hours ago, Tony Wright said: No more building of ex-LMS locos with outside valve for me then! Regards, Tony. Noooo! I didn't mean to criticise your work, Tony, as I assumed that the issues I described were features of the kit rather than your building of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 8 hours ago, Northmoor said: I dare someone to make a scale model of the string...... Surely that would require a new thread! I'll get my hat! Davey 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Izzy Posted December 4, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 4, 2020 5 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said: As already stated, the reason the Mogul has this problem is simply because the slidebars are too close together. What Dapol have got correct is the relative position of the piston rod (2 inches above) to the centre line of the driving wheels. The Hornby model has the piston rod (incorrectly) inline with the centre line of the driving wheels but the spacing of the slidebars is correct. Frank I assume Hornby have done this to provide clearance to both slidebars since even with correct spacing the connecting rod fouls the bottom bar, hence the inside chamfer on the prototype, but clears the top one. While it may be wrong it is in my opinion far better than the awful 'bent end' slidebars of the Dapol Mogul. Each to his own as usual of course. Izzy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted December 4, 2020 Author Share Posted December 4, 2020 1 hour ago, Flying Pig said: Noooo! I didn't mean to criticise your work, Tony, as I assumed that the issues I described were features of the kit rather than your building of it. Not a problem, Simon, I seek out constructive criticism, so thank you (and it's meant). As noted elsewhere, the valve gear came ready-assembled, and it's fitted as designed (or, I assume so, since it didn't seem to work any other way). I suppose the kit (Model Loco) is getting on a bit now. I know they were produced for the firm in Carlisle by DJH, and came at a premium price. I've built one of their 9Fs, and a 'Duchess' (both of which - and the Black Five? - are now available from DJH). So, please (one and all), if you see something worth pointing out in my modelling (or anyone's), don't think of it as 'criticism'. Regards, Tony. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuffer Davies Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 3 hours ago, PMP said: Obviously not having seen the Hornby Thompson I can’t comment on it, and I guess it depends on the criteria for ‘finest’. For interest how would you define the finest in this context? In terms of accuracy and performance, from my perspective (and experience of it), the imminent Bachmann 94XX will I think set a very high benchmark this year. This is the first I've seen of it. It certainly looks fine from this picture. At first glance the only compromise I can spot are the wheel centres. The Dapol Mogul's wheel centres are correct in comparison. Inaccurate wheel centres are my pet hate which is why I spotted them immediately. Sadly this loco is too modern for Hungerford so I'm not tempted. Thanks for showing this. Frank 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted December 4, 2020 Author Share Posted December 4, 2020 3 hours ago, PMP said: Obviously not having seen the Hornby Thompson I can’t comment on it, and I guess it depends on the criteria for ‘finest’. For interest how would you define the finest in this context? In terms of accuracy and performance, from my perspective (and experience of it), the imminent Bachmann 94XX will I think set a very high benchmark this year. As I said, Paul; it's my opinion. I reckon the Thompson A2/2 I have here (and it's going back to Hornby next week) must be the most 'accurate' model of THANE OF FIFE I've seen in many a long day. It's so accurate that it can never be anything other than 60505 and cannot be anything but representative of the loco late in its life, in 1959. I call that top marks for research. As for its running; I don't think I'll ever be critical again of an RTR Pacific's haulage capacity. But you'll all have to wait until next week to see what I mean................. Regards, Tony. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted December 4, 2020 Author Share Posted December 4, 2020 1 minute ago, Chuffer Davies said: This is the first I've seen of it. It certainly looks fine from this picture. At first glance the only compromise I can spot are the wheel centres. The Dapol Mogul's wheel centres are correct in comparison. Inaccurate wheel centres are my pet hate which is why I spotted them immediately. Sadly this loco is too modern for Hungerford so I'm not tempted. Thanks for showing this. Frank Interestingly, Frank (well, at least to me), The Hornby Thompson Pacific's wheels (including the bogie's!) are absolutely spot-on in appearance (well, as near spot-on as RP25s allow). Regards, Tony. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cravensdmufan Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 15 minutes ago, Tony Wright said: So, please (one and all), if you see something worth pointing out in my modelling (or anyone's), don't think of it as 'criticism'. Hello Tony, Well considering that you have mentioned it, here goes ........ For a long time I have admired your excellent Little Bytham layout in both video and still photograph format. But I always get the impression that the ballast looks too clean and uniform in colour - even in the sidings. Strange I know, but track is always the first thing I tend to look at on exhibition layouts. Best wishes, Vivian 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium thegreenhowards Posted December 4, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 4, 2020 4 hours ago, Tony Wright said: Thanks Frank, Most-enlightening. I did find the loco(s) light on its feet, and on anything other than a 'modest' load (20 wagons, some weighted kit-builds) it just slipped. I found it ran quite slowly (even on an ancient H&M 'Clipper'), and I took some moving footage (which will appear in BRM's digital form). In fact, it performed better than other RTR locos of late and is extremely quiet. Regarding the body/chassis separating; I did find it annoying to find that the slidebars are a loose fit in the cylinder ends and that the cylinders are not actually attached to the frames! Still, as I say, it looks a very fine model. Another (very) fine model I'm assessing right now is Hornby's forthcoming A2/2. I've been sent a pre-production (proving) model (a perk of having been involved - in a modest way - with the loco's development). I'm writing a report for BRM (which will appear next week in digital form). So, if anyone is interested, please watch this space from next Tuesday/Wednesday. In my opinion, if there is a finer RTR model steam-outline loco out there, I've yet to see it! Who'd have thought a Thompson Pacific (in any form) would receive that accolade? Regards, Tony. Tony, I've just received January’s BRM digitally (3 or 4 days ago) . Is this a special edition? Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Headstock Posted December 4, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted December 4, 2020 (edited) Dia 45 BG update, underframe gubbins and bogie detail is now complete. The bogies, underframe and body have all been screwed on for the first time, without any problems. There are a couple of features of the underframes that are unique to this particular diagram. Battery boxes are mounted on both sides as opposed to more usual single sided layout and the all steel construction allowed for the absence of queen posts and angle iron, or needle beams and turnbuckles. While I was awaiting an order from Dart Castings, I decide to have a go at making my own roof. It has turned out OK, so I will probably stick with it. I also need to dig out the shim brass for the vac pipe attaching points along the solebar. Edited December 5, 2020 by Headstock I forgot 20 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertcwp Posted December 4, 2020 Share Posted December 4, 2020 Interesting comments about the Dapol GWR mogul. I have two. They may not be perfect but they are good enough for me and in a different league to the old Mainline/Bachmann one with the awful split chassis. Here is one of mine on test: https://youtu.be/DlCOiaUvMjc The train it is hauling is about 8' long - all Bachmann 16t mineral wagons plus brake van. I doubt it will pull a great deal more, unlike a Bachmann Austerity which will shift a train twice as long, but the haulage capability is fine for my purposes. 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PMP Posted December 4, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 4, 2020 2 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said: This is the first I've seen of it. It certainly looks fine from this picture. At first glance the only compromise I can spot are the wheel centres. The Dapol Mogul's wheel centres are correct in comparison. Inaccurate wheel centres are my pet hate which is why I spotted them immediately. Sadly this loco is too modern for Hungerford so I'm not tempted. Thanks for showing this. Frank You’re welcome I agree re the wheel centres, it’s a common Bachmann design feature. There’s more pics here if of interest https://albionyard.net/2020/11/27/Bachmann-94xx-pannier-review-35-025/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PMP Posted December 4, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 4, 2020 2 hours ago, Tony Wright said: As I said, Paul; it's my opinion. I reckon the Thompson A2/2 I have here (and it's going back to Hornby next week) must be the most 'accurate' model of THANE OF FIFE I've seen in many a long day. It's so accurate that it can never be anything other than 60505 and cannot be anything but representative of the loco late in its life, in 1959. I call that top marks for research. As for its running; I don't think I'll ever be critical again of an RTR Pacific's haulage capacity. But you'll all have to wait until next week to see what I mean................. Regards, Tony. I realised ref the opinions comment, I was interested in the criteria as you obviously see a good selection of RTR models pass through in various capacities, and why you felt this one stood above all others. brgds Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted December 5, 2020 Author Share Posted December 5, 2020 8 hours ago, PMP said: I realised ref the opinions comment, I was interested in the criteria as you obviously see a good selection of RTR models pass through in various capacities, and why you felt this one stood above all others. brgds Good morning Paul, You'll have to wait until next week when my preliminary report is published. Regards, Tony. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted December 5, 2020 Author Share Posted December 5, 2020 10 hours ago, thegreenhowards said: Tony, I've just received January’s BRM digitally (3 or 4 days ago) . Is this a special edition? Andy Good morning Andy, I have no idea. I'm not part of BRM's permanent staff these days. Regards, Tony. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Tony Wright Posted December 5, 2020 Author Popular Post Share Posted December 5, 2020 10 hours ago, cravensdmufan said: Hello Tony, Well considering that you have mentioned it, here goes ........ For a long time I have admired your excellent Little Bytham layout in both video and still photograph format. But I always get the impression that the ballast looks too clean and uniform in colour - even in the sidings. Strange I know, but track is always the first thing I tend to look at on exhibition layouts. Best wishes, Vivian Good morning Vivian, All the scenic-side trackwork on Little Bytham is based on prototype pictures (admittedly, nowhere near enough). I think there are a few things to consider. One, being limestone country, the ballast (in 1958) would be limestone (parts of it are Shap granite now - pink!). Two, it represents the fastest section of main line in the country and would have been subject to the highest standards of maintenance (obviously, not the sidings). Three members of the Bytham track gang were extremely helpful in providing anecdotes and pictures when the trackwork was being laid (sadly, all have subsequently died in the intervening years). Their maintenance of the ballast was meticulous, even to the extent of their winning the 'Prize Length' during the '50s. Three, being a hard water area, any water spillage from standing locos would contain limestone sediment - naturally light. I hope the following pictures show that the ballasting is not all uniformly clean, and even on the fast lines, where locos might be stationary (then starting off and slipping), there is local staining. Obviously, not the main line, but plenty of dirt here........ Regards, Tony. 31 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Popular Post CF MRC Posted December 5, 2020 RMweb Premium Popular Post Share Posted December 5, 2020 After nearly six months solid work, the YR station is now complete above ground and has a passing resemblance to the prototype. (Courtesy LTM archives) Tim 17 41 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cravensdmufan Posted December 5, 2020 Share Posted December 5, 2020 4 hours ago, Tony Wright said: Good morning Vivian, All the scenic-side trackwork on Little Bytham is based on prototype pictures (admittedly, nowhere near enough). I think there are a few things to consider. One, being limestone country, the ballast (in 1958) would be limestone (parts of it are Shap granite now - pink!). Two, it represents the fastest section of main line in the country and would have been subject to the highest standards of maintenance (obviously, not the sidings). Three members of the Bytham track gang were extremely helpful in providing anecdotes and pictures when the trackwork was being laid (sadly, all have subsequently died in the intervening years). Their maintenance of the ballast was meticulous, even to the extent of their winning the 'Prize Length' during the '50s. Three, being a hard water area, any water spillage from standing locos would contain limestone sediment - naturally light. I hope the following pictures show that the ballasting is not all uniformly clean, and even on the fast lines, where locos might be stationary (then starting off and slipping), there is local staining. Obviously, not the main line, but plenty of dirt here........ Regards, Tony. Thank you for your comprehensive reply Tony. And for posting the excellent photos. Very interesting about the limestone, something I'd never have considered. Excellent research, and you have therefore modelled it perfectly. Best regards, Vivian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted December 5, 2020 Author Share Posted December 5, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, cravensdmufan said: Thank you for your comprehensive reply Tony. And for posting the excellent photos. Very interesting about the limestone, something I'd never have considered. Excellent research, and you have therefore modelled it perfectly. Best regards, Vivian Thanks Vivian, Though I've never modelled anything 'perfectly'. The actual ballast Norman Solomon used was N Gauge limestone (I think the perceived wisdom with regard to this is that one uses the next scale down ballast, otherwise it can look like boulders). It was generally toned down slightly on application to make it less 'white', and then he and I stippled various brown/grey acrylics over it in sidings and where locos might stand from time to time. Quite a bit of the model ballast sold is crushed granite, which turns green when soaked with water/PVA; rather unrealistic in my view. Much of the ballasting one sees is often too 'clumpy' (a mistake in using the 'correct' scale stuff) and often untidy. I know today (and in more recent years) ballasting on the real thing is done by machine, which tends to cover the sleepers. In the time depicted on Little Bytham, it would be finally put in place by the track gangs, who would ensure that none of it ended up on top of the sleepers. The ballast shoulders were also kept immaculate, and any cess or drain would be kept clear of vegetation. Rather different today.............. One thing I forgot to mention is that any pointwork on LB stains naturally. I oil it (with full-synthetic oil) at the tie bars and where the switch rails slide. In time, this picks up dirt and darkens locally. Regards, Tony. Edited December 5, 2020 by Tony Wright to add something 5 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium CF MRC Posted December 5, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 5, 2020 9 hours ago, Tony Wright said: Good morning Vivian, All the scenic-side trackwork on Little Bytham is based on prototype pictures (admittedly, nowhere near enough). I think there are a few things to consider. One, being limestone country, the ballast (in 1958) would be limestone (parts of it are Shap granite now - pink!). Two, it represents the fastest section of main line in the country and would have been subject to the highest standards of maintenance (obviously, not the sidings). Three members of the Bytham track gang were extremely helpful in providing anecdotes and pictures when the trackwork was being laid (sadly, all have subsequently died in the intervening years). Their maintenance of the ballast was meticulous, even to the extent of their winning the 'Prize Length' during the '50s. Three, being a hard water area, any water spillage from standing locos would contain limestone sediment - naturally light. I hope the following pictures show that the ballasting is not all uniformly clean, and even on the fast lines, where locos might be stationary (then starting off and slipping), there is local staining. Obviously, not the main line, but plenty of dirt here........ Regards, Tony. I fully concur, Tony, re: ballast colours. When you look at aerial photos, mainline track ballast is often very pale, with some contrast to the slightly less pale sleepers. Unless these are very new, they then weather down quickly. Local areas where engines stopped next to signals would obviously stain and goods yards were clearly not maintained to the same standard. On CF we use exceptionally fine ballast; it is so easy to be over scale in 2mm scale and that also applies to things such as roads and greenery. (Photo Barry Norman, courtesy MRJ). However, someone has also said that our track is too clean, amongst other things... Tim 12 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now