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

30 minutes ago, Dylan Sanderson said:

Good afternoon everyone, a little help if I may!

 

I'm absolutely over the moon with Hornby's A2/2s, I have both 501 and 505 and they're incredible. They'll look even better once they've been shipped over to Mr Foster for him to work his magic on!

 

But, 505 has a glaring issue that seems common on the A2/2. The cab/firebox/running plate fit is all wrong, and looks frankly awful, ruining an otherwise superb model, as pictured below. Does anyone know how this issue can be rectified? 

 

501 has the same issue, but luckily is no where near as bad and is acceptable (although not perfect)

 

I'm not a confident modeller at all, so I hope the solution doesn't require lots of disassembly and hacking!

 

Stay safe and happy modelling,

 

DylanIMG_8036.jpeg.6c1baa245aed27d1ab73f53170dade9a.jpeg

IMG_8040.jpeg

IMG_8041.jpeg

IMG_8042.jpeg

Hi Dylan

 

like you I am no expert when it come to overcome fitting problems to RTR model locomotives 

 

But on your model there is a definite gap between the cab and the firebox it might just need very carefully  a bit of pressure clicking it back together  which would level up the can as well.

 

I have ordered 60501 and hopefully it should  arrive tomorrow so it will be interesting to see what that model looks like as there have been quite a few complaints about its build quality.

 

Regards

 

David

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Paddy said:

Bit of a funny shade of green too...  Shame Hornby cannot stamp out these wee construction issues.

 

Kind regards

 

Paddy

 

Hi Paddy,

 

The green actually looks pretty correct in real life, but of course the camera quality and the computers do alter the images somewhat. But as with all Hornby Brunswick green, once brought out with Weathering, it looks bang on. I refer you to Tom Foster's brilliant A3 which I believe was done using TCut.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Dylan Sanderson said:

Good afternoon everyone, a little help if I may!

 

I'm absolutely over the moon with Hornby's A2/2s, I have both 501 and 505 and they're incredible. They'll look even better once they've been shipped over to Mr Foster for him to work his magic on!

 

But, 505 has a glaring issue that seems common on the A2/2. The cab/firebox/running plate fit is all wrong, and looks frankly awful, ruining an otherwise superb model, as pictured below. Does anyone know how this issue can be rectified? 

 

501 has the same issue, but luckily is no where near as bad and is acceptable (although not perfect)

 

I'm not a confident modeller at all, so I hope the solution doesn't require lots of disassembly and hacking!

 

Stay safe and happy modelling,

 

DylanIMG_8036.jpeg.6c1baa245aed27d1ab73f53170dade9a.jpeg

IMG_8040.jpeg

IMG_8041.jpeg

IMG_8042.jpeg

 

Mine is like that as well, worse on the right hand (fireman's) side than the other side.  I've had a poke around but can't offer a solution.

 

IMG_3909.jpg.ac418e734f21493a75d5a29305bd6b5d.jpg

 

 

The cabside doesn't seem to be glued to the running plate (on mine); I can push the running plate downwards relative to the cabside, which is the opposite direction to the way I want it to move, but I can't move the running up to meet the bottom of the cabside.  The cab seems to be firmly attached (glued) to the firebox, and the whole construction in that area seems to be more complex than it appears, involving separate mouldings for the interior etc.  Rather than risk breaking the cab side (it's quite thin), I've left it for now but would be interested to hear if anyone else has come up with an answer.

 

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dylan Sanderson said:

Good afternoon everyone, a little help if I may!

 

I'm absolutely over the moon with Hornby's A2/2s, I have both 501 and 505 and they're incredible. They'll look even better once they've been shipped over to Mr Foster for him to work his magic on!

 

But, 505 has a glaring issue that seems common on the A2/2. The cab/firebox/running plate fit is all wrong, and looks frankly awful, ruining an otherwise superb model, as pictured below. Does anyone know how this issue can be rectified? 

 

501 has the same issue, but luckily is no where near as bad and is acceptable (although not perfect)

 

I'm not a confident modeller at all, so I hope the solution doesn't require lots of disassembly and hacking!

 

Stay safe and happy modelling,

 

Dylan

 

 

 

Pleased to hear that you are happy with them.

I have made comments on the Hornby thread on these and I do not share your view.

I feel that they are a giant leap backwards in standards, made worse for me by the optimistic promotion before hand. Wishy washy colour that appears worse in some lighting conditions, poor lining, fixed flangeless wheel with no alternative, no front dummy coupling and various assembly faults. Not quite back to design clever but certainly built down to a price.

Bernard

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dylan Sanderson said:

Good afternoon everyone, a little help if I may!

 

I'm absolutely over the moon with Hornby's A2/2s, I have both 501 and 505 and they're incredible. They'll look even better once they've been shipped over to Mr Foster for him to work his magic on!

 

But, 505 has a glaring issue that seems common on the A2/2. The cab/firebox/running plate fit is all wrong, and looks frankly awful, ruining an otherwise superb model, as pictured below. Does anyone know how this issue can be rectified? 

 

501 has the same issue, but luckily is no where near as bad and is acceptable (although not perfect)

 

I'm not a confident modeller at all, so I hope the solution doesn't require lots of disassembly and hacking!

 

Stay safe and happy modelling,

 

DylanIMG_8036.jpeg.6c1baa245aed27d1ab73f53170dade9a.jpeg

IMG_8040.jpeg

IMG_8041.jpeg

IMG_8042.jpeg

Good afternoon Dylan,

 

You (and Steve at 31A) seem to models with assembly problems. 

 

Though I have no way of advising you on how to fix them, I'd be inclined to return them if the problem cannot be sorted out (you run the risk of breakage).

 

As is known, I had a pre-production sample to assess just prior to Christmas.................

 

1311662233_HornbyA226050501.jpg.e98961030723251de497224383fbb15a.jpg

 

308913457_HornbyA226050502.jpg.d5e5abbea745fd86f87681faecd8a191.jpg

 

Now, Hornby wasn't going to send me a model with assembly problems, and the bits fit on this one. 

 

It's the first time I've become aware of any issues, but it seems you are not alone. 

 

As has been discussed, the BR green comes to life with weathering. 

 

I still think these are brilliant models (and, no, I haven't been given one)......................

 

As good as anything I could do............

 

1655237980_60505THANEOFFIFE.jpg.9349a981f1db64e5ec83ec84cb0fd3bd.jpg

 

DJH/Wright/Haynes.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

  • Like 5
  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
40 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I still think these are brilliant models (and, no, I haven't been given one)......................

 

 I agree, Tony, there is an awful lot about these models which is very good - I am particularly struck by the valve gear and motion which is a lot better than any other Hornby loco I've bought.  Although a little bit disappointing I don't think mine's really so that I want to send it back.

 

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

4 hours ago, Dylan Sanderson said:

But, 505 has a glaring issue that seems common on the A2/2. The cab/firebox/running plate fit is all wrong, and looks frankly awful, ruining an otherwise superb model, as pictured below. Does anyone know how this issue can be rectified? ....

 

.......I'm not a confident modeller at all, so I hope the solution doesn't require lots of disassembly and hacking!

 

IMG_8036.jpeg.6c1baa245aed27d1ab73f53170dade9a.jpeg

IMG_8040.jpeg

IMG_8041.jpeg

IMG_8042.jpeg

 

It looks exactly like what it is - a badly assembled kit! (That's what current RTR models are).

 

As with a badly assembled kit, the only (unsatisfactory) solution would be to try and dismantle the poorly aligned components and reassemble them in their correct orientation.

 

Frankly, if this were my model it would be going straight back - but I can understand a reluctance to do this, given the uncertain supply situation that seems to be the norm, nowadays.

 

John Isherwood.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
27 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I've just come across something by accident on Youtube where someone called Sam assesses the latest Hornby A2/2.

 

He's young and enthusiastic, but he tests the products on badly-laid trackwork on the floor! I gave up running trains on the carpet when I was still in short pants. 

 

There are some assembly issues with his 60501, but I'm glad he found the performance 'exceptional'. 

 

Where I winced in disbelief was how he described the cab roof roof ventilators (which, as you know, slide) as (if I've heard correctly) 'air-intakes'! 

 

Does anyone know anything about this bloke? He admits his knowledge of the prototype is limited, but surely shouldn't someone presenting (potentially-damaging) assessments have done some homework?

 

He also compares the paint finish with a Bachmann A2 (which I think has much too-prominent lining in comparison), praising it as much better, but then zooms in on a section of the boiler where a handrail pillar is missing! 

 

Is this the way forward now with reviews? Where anyone who buys a model can tell the whole world (and expose their ignorance from time to time as well)? I know from personal experience, having reviewed hundreds of items down the years, that prior research is essential, and there's a huge responsibility to make as 'value' a judgment  as possible. 

 

He paid £171.00 (Hattons, I think) and considered that to be a lot of money. It's a good job he wasn't around when a Hornby-Dublo three-rail BARNSTAPLE cost £5 19s 6d! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Have also found his YouTube stuff accidentally as they have been thrown up by YT searches and, yes, for me he just comes across as a yappy, little ...........!

 

The staggering thing though, and I have just looked on YouTube to check the figures as I know he is popular, is that he has 96,400 followers with over 25,000 views for each short video.

 

Personally , like you Tony, once watched never again except by accident or to have a laugh!

 

Edited by john new
Typos corrected
  • Like 3
  • Agree 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
16 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I've just come across something by accident on Youtube where someone called Sam assesses the latest Hornby A2/2.

 

He's young and enthusiastic, but he tests the products on badly-laid trackwork on the floor! I gave up running trains on the carpet when I was still in short pants. 

 

There are some assembly issues with his 60501, but I'm glad he found the performance 'exceptional'. 

 

Where I winced in disbelief was how he described the cab roof roof ventilators (which, as you know, slide) as (if I've heard correctly) 'air-intakes'! 

 

Does anyone know anything about this bloke? He admits his knowledge of the prototype is limited, but surely shouldn't someone presenting (potentially-damaging) assessments have done some homework?

 

He also compares the paint finish with a Bachmann A2 (which I think has much too-prominent lining in comparison), praising it as much better, but then zooms in on a section of the boiler where a handrail pillar is missing! 

 

Is this the way forward now with reviews? Where anyone who buys a model can tell the whole world (and expose their ignorance from time to time as well)? I know from personal experience, having reviewed hundreds of items down the years, that prior research is essential, and there's a huge responsibility to make as 'value' a judgment  as possible. 

 

He paid £171.00 (Hattons, I think) and considered that to be a lot of money. It's a good job he wasn't around when a Hornby-Dublo three-rail BARNSTAPLE cost £5 19s 6d! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I've come across some of his reviews (including the one in question) but have never got beyond the first three minutes or so before giving up with uncontrollable cringing!

  • Like 2
  • Agree 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's something a little different - in both scale and transport type - from the normal fare on the thread.

 

These 1981 Ford Cargo trucks are 3D prints from Shapeways. They were made available as 1:160 scale but I asked the designer if he'd rescale to 1:148 and make them RHD and he obliged. Both are supplied as three parts (chassis, cab and body) with box van bodies that need separating and assembling. For one of them I've decided to bash it as a scaffolding truck and knocked up an open drop side body from plasticard. Scaffold poles and boards to add, and painting and glazing for both. Here they are having been cleaned and primed (in grey, white and black) but do need a little tidying up;

 

DSC_0483red.jpg.e9ea39b097f3d72b90472284af82f1cd.jpg

 

 

  • Like 12
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dylan Sanderson said:

Good afternoon everyone, a little help if I may!

 

I'm absolutely over the moon with Hornby's A2/2s, I have both 501 and 505 and they're incredible. They'll look even better once they've been shipped over to Mr Foster for him to work his magic on!

 

But, 505 has a glaring issue that seems common on the A2/2. The cab/firebox/running plate fit is all wrong, and looks frankly awful, ruining an otherwise superb model, as pictured below. Does anyone know how this issue can be rectified? 

 

501 has the same issue, but luckily is no where near as bad and is acceptable (although not perfect)

 

I'm not a confident modeller at all, so I hope the solution doesn't require lots of disassembly and hacking!

 

Stay safe and happy modelling,

 

DylanIMG_8036.jpeg.6c1baa245aed27d1ab73f53170dade9a.jpeg

IMG_8040.jpeg

IMG_8041.jpeg

IMG_8042.jpeg

 

I emphasize that I haven't handled one of these models, so I can only theorize, but if we can assume similar construction to models of related types, then my impression is that the cab simply doesn't fit the back of the boiler properly. I wouldn't be surprised if there's something preventing the upper parts of the cab front from sitting fully within the flattened-V recess in the back of boiler moulding. You can see that the bottom edges of the cab sides are lower than the bottom edges of the firebox, and that the whole cab, most noticeably the roof, is leaning backwards. I imagine that the cab and boiler are separable from the running plate once some screws are released. If you dare take it apart to that degree, you can then discover whether the can is just clipped to the boiler, screwed (perhaps involving the backhead?) or glued. If it's glued then only you can decide whether to start flexing the cab and "tweaking" the joint to see if the glue will break free. It may turn out that there's simply some flash in the upper part of the joint that can be cleaned off fairly easily, or it may be a more challenging task of carefully executed filing to improve the overall fit.

I'm not for one minute suggesting that you should have to do this sort of thing to a brand new model "of merchantable quality" at that sort of price.

Edited by gr.king
  • Like 5
  • Agree 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 minutes ago, gr.king said:

I imagine that the cab and boiler are separable from the running plate once some screws are released.

 

Sorry, but not as far as I could see.

 

There are three small screws towards the front of the running plate, but they only hold the smokebox (which is a separate piece) in place.  The boiler/firebox/cab seems to be attached to the running plate by tabs and glue.  I agree, the problem seems to be something to do with the fit between the cab and the firebox, but on mine those two parts seem to be firmly glued to each other.

 

Note however that on the photos that Tony posted, the parts appear to be fitted together properly.

 

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

  • RMweb Gold
5 hours ago, Dylan Sanderson said:

Good afternoon everyone, a little help if I may!

 

I'm absolutely over the moon with Hornby's A2/2s, I have both 501 and 505 and they're incredible. They'll look even better once they've been shipped over to Mr Foster for him to work his magic on!

 

But, 505 has a glaring issue that seems common on the A2/2. The cab/firebox/running plate fit is all wrong, and looks frankly awful, ruining an otherwise superb model, as pictured below. Does anyone know how this issue can be rectified? 

 

501 has the same issue, but luckily is no where near as bad and is acceptable (although not perfect)

 

I'm not a confident modeller at all, so I hope the solution doesn't require lots of disassembly and hacking!

 

Stay safe and happy modelling,

 

DylanIMG_8036.jpeg.6c1baa245aed27d1ab73f53170dade9a.jpeg

IMG_8040.jpeg

IMG_8041.jpeg

IMG_8042.jpeg

 

Although that looks exaggerated isn't a bit of cab droop prototypical for those?

 

[Update: having checked a recent set of images recently published in BackTrack probably a false memory]

 

Edited by john new
Updated info added.
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

With all this talk of 'professional' loco builders/painters, there's also another branch of the hobby where 'professionals' play a big part; those who are architectural modellers. 

 

Quote

The late Allan Downes. This was a commission for Gilbert Barnatt and represents Spalding Station, but rendered in red brick. I think it's now been sold-on ...

 

Can be seen here, Tony ...

 

Quote

This trio of 'signature' buildings was made for Carlisle (Graham, see what's needed!).

 

Only too well aware, Tony - thanks! Should be good fun when I get round to it though.

 

Re building things for others (for money), I think it's ideally suited to semi-retirement when the need to earn every last shekel is not as paramount as it once was.

 

My take on it is that someone is paying me to do what I enjoy doing - making things! So I don't worry too much about hour count and pound per hour; I don't tend to build very fast anyway - I prefer to take my time to get it as 'right' as I can. I charge what I perceive to be a reasonable going market rate for the finished item. I could probably charge more ... but with higher cost comes higher expectation.

 

Possibly (probably?) makes me 'busy fool'. I prefer to think of it as a 'happy fool'. I've been called worse ...

Edited by LNER4479
  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Sandra,

 

May I be 'brutal' in my comments, please? 

 

I'd be inclined to dunk the whole loco body and the tender body in paint stripper, and go from there. Other than the poor lining (the firebox shouldn't be lined, anyway), the cabside numbers are all over the place and are probably too small. 

 

Construction-wise, the vacuum ejector pipe shouldn't turn up towards the cab (yes, I know some weren't dead straight) and there shouldn't be a clip for it on the smokebox other than at the flange. In fact, the other clip positions are nowhere near where they should be. The cab roof isn't on straight and, as discussed, the front bulkhead/coal plate on the tender should not lean backwards for this period (they were made vertical during the War). The front handrail on the tender is also far too inboard, and there are blobs of solder (or glue?) where the coal rails meet the sides. The tender side also appears to bulge at its base. 

 

Looking at the chassis, the slidebars incline upwards to the rear (the opposite of what they should be), as with Hornby's A4s. 

 

Since it was bought for less than £100.00, I'd say you've got a bargain, especially if it runs so well, though a rebuild is called for in my view. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony,


Thanks very much for your comments. I think you’re right and it will have to be completely stripped. I will first convert it to EM gauge and then strip the body and the tender.

 

It does illustrate the problems in buying a model built by someone else. There are further problems that can’t be seen in the photo. The driving wheels have 22 spokes rather than the correct 20 and as I said to you whilst it purports to represent the engine in its final condition it has a Westinghouse pump affixed to the right hand footplate. 
 

Nevertheless it runs well and I can therefore forgive it a lot of its faults. My experience of locomotives I’ve bought already built is that they very rarely run well and some have been awful. Occasionally I’ve bought one which has been built in such a way that it is actually incapable of movement. In one instance the brake gear was actually lower than the bottom of the wheels and thus when you tried to place it on the track it actually rested on the brake rodding but it did only cost £15.00 so I shouldn’t complain.

 

Sandra

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

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I've just come across something by accident on Youtube where someone called Sam assesses the latest Hornby A2/2.

 

He's young and enthusiastic, but he tests the products on badly-laid trackwork on the floor! I gave up running trains on the carpet when I was still in short pants. 

 

There are some assembly issues with his 60501, but I'm glad he found the performance 'exceptional'. 

 

Where I winced in disbelief was how he described the cab roof roof ventilators (which, as you know, slide) as (if I've heard correctly) 'air-intakes'! 

 

Does anyone know anything about this bloke? He admits his knowledge of the prototype is limited, but surely shouldn't someone presenting (potentially-damaging) assessments have done some homework?

 

He also compares the paint finish with a Bachmann A2 (which I think has much too-prominent lining in comparison), praising it as much better, but then zooms in on a section of the boiler where a handrail pillar is missing! 

 

Is this the way forward now with reviews? Where anyone who buys a model can tell the whole world (and expose their ignorance from time to time as well)? I know from personal experience, having reviewed hundreds of items down the years, that prior research is essential, and there's a huge responsibility to make as 'value' a judgment  as possible. 

 

He paid £171.00 (Hattons, I think) and considered that to be a lot of money. It's a good job he wasn't around when a Hornby-Dublo three-rail BARNSTAPLE cost £5 19s 6d! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

My sons, particularly the 5 year old, are fans of Sam's Trains.  I strongly suspect my 5 year old is less discerning than you but my five year old can confidently identify different A4s just by their number.... I find, like you, that his knowledge isn't great but he is enthusiastic.  His IT skills are very good at editing/animating trains and he also does stuff on Train Simulator (you can find videos on that by him and a guy called "Lazerjet").  Some of what's put together in Train Simulator is remarkably good.  For example, there's a guy who posts on the Great Western Modelling group on facebook who's using the software to develop broad gauge models.  I get the sense the person has done railway modelling before. 

 

What surprises me about Sam is that he doesn't  seem to do much basic research about his model before making his video.   However, if he helps sell a few extra models, if of those who purchase a small percentage graduate from train set operators to more accomplished modellers, then great.  I think the shops, manufacturers recognise the potential value of this marketing channel and do provide samples to some of these people, in other spheres, eg fashion, you might call them "influencers."   However, the power and reach of youtube is quite telling when you consider how many people on this thread have used your rightrack video, available on youtube, as a guide to assembling models.

 

David

  • Agree 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I very rarely buy RTR locos these days , but couldn't resist the A2/2. 60501 is one of only a few locos I really recall seeing when I was a spotter, as it stood just behind us at Gateshead East Station for a good 20 minutes waiting to go on shed. It had come off at Central, presumably from York, and headed across the High Level bridge, where it was held waiting a path into 52A. I thought it was superb, as a 13 y.o knowing nothing about Gresley/Thompson wars.

My model had none of the faults others have described, though a tender door and cab roof had become dislodged. Running is excellent. the BRM Hornby thread on the loco has a plethora of observations,

 

Sam's Trains is targeted, it seems to me, at a completely different audience than Wright Writers, and more power to him for trying.  I watched his A2/2 review while I was waiting for mine to be delivered, and would like to think I was intelligent enough to pick out the useful stuff and ignore most of the "toy train" stuff and gripes about metal footplates, etc. The bits on how the loco runs were useful.

 

Incidentally, when I read Tony's post, it touched a memory, which an admittedly only quick Google search  has confirmed., A ventilator is a  mechanical machine to assist breathing, A vent, which isn't shorthand for "ventilator" , is a small opening that allows air, smoke, or gas to enter or leave a closed space. So Sam, whether he knew it or not, was nearer the mark than Tony.

IMG_20210211_150556.jpg

  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

With all this talk of 'professional' loco builders/painters, there's also another branch of the hobby where 'professionals' play a big part; those who are architectural modellers. 

 

Though their creations don't have to 'work' in the physical sense, the skill and expertise required is to a very high standard indeed. A standard far beyond anything I could achieve.

 

It's been my privilege to photograph the work of a few, including.........................

 

1778505611_AllanDownesStation.jpg.933fbeeda22a35bb73013e6573a37615.jpg

 

The late Allan Downes. This was a commission for Gilbert Barnatt and represents Spalding Station, but rendered in red brick. I think it's now been sold-on, and Peter Leyland has done the buildings for Gilbert's current Peterborough North. 

 

I got on very well with Allan; he was huge fun, but any commission from him needed a tight brief and an even tighter rein. 

 

One built by a professional and one built by me. 

1545521969_wulvesford2.jpg.a3cc72d0e623ca30bece126664658cfc.jpg

My first go at a large building made for the Witham club back in 1981-2 time. It is a mirror image of Spalding with some elements missing as the station was sited on a curve and Spalding station is straight. It was painted to represent yellow brick.  One of our club members had taken a wonderful set of photos of the station. To work out the dimensions of the buildings I counted the number of bricks left to right and bottom to top. Then went outside and measured a brick. I was very pleased with the model at the time, I learnt a lot making it.

 

The figures standing in front of the station were missing their 3 tonner. 

1594296659_wulvesford3.jpg.11181e3bf444ae74ac8385960ad72aff.jpg

Based in Lincolnshire in the 1950s there would have been large numbers of RAF national servicemen being posted around the area and going on leave etc. This happy gang are possibly going home for a few days. When I first made the model I painted their kit bags blue like their uniforms. At one show a very polite gent said when he did his time in the RAF his kit bag was white with a blue stripe. He didn't say I was wrong, just what it was like in his day. Soon after a repaint at another show another chap pointed to his mate, and said something on the lines of , "Look at that detail, they even have the right coloured kit bags".

 

Edited by Clive Mortimore
  • Like 14
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a think about some of my pictures, scanned a few years ago from negs taken many, many years ago, stored in envelopes without notes. A couple of questions

 

Was Bittern here in York or Neville Hill shed ? Negs dated 8 June 1968.

 

2013-01-09-20-35-21.jpg.e33fdd3684e7280f4a5cbe03fd38ae76.jpg

 

I ask because these shots were in the same envelope, Holbeck with locos in steam, can't be 1968, probably 1967, Hardy & Sturdee were in Holbeck also. Not the above BTEG coach trip as we visited Leeds by train for the pix below.

 

2013-01-09-20-44-17.jpg.c73304da852ad7873027e2d2de7fa844.jpg

 

2013-01-09-20-41-42.jpg.481ab532de9ae188e98b6bab8958788b.jpg

 

2013-01-09-20-43-34.jpg.4dda9f9666231ed453cd1cbb00c6c3be.jpg

 

On 26 October 1968 we visited Doncaster. Wigan - Man Vic, Piccadilly to Sheffield Vic over Woodhead (E26056 out, E26051 return) and a bug box (DMU) to Doncaster. We just visited Doncaster shed that day. Deltic hunting but we saw these wonderful locos on Doncaster Shed, where I think Blue Peter was undergoing repaint.

 

Am I correct or have I got my negs mixed up, our next trip was 1 December 1968 to Crewe works. Perhaps the last shot I took on the Doncaster trip was Flying Scotsman, and the first at Crewe was Blue peter being repainted ? (or was she repainted at York / Neville Hill) - Long time ago !!

 

2013-01-10-14-26-19.jpg.55168ce0d5a4686223128278d1008b8a.jpg

 

2013-01-10-14-27-37.jpg.cacb175a72df165c7d9d976e3410f635.jpg

 

2013-01-10-14-28-07.jpg.cae740c610570ea9922ce49b3e6c04ec.jpg

 

Anyway, a couple of shots at Doncaster may be of interest.

 

2013-01-10-14-08-58.jpg.36c1af00a6c58ba2dc03fc7600cb1e78.jpg

 

2013-01-10-14-11-19.jpg.ee958b0f7734d2148370a36b507007c0.jpg

 

Flying Scotsman's spare boiler ?

 

2013-01-10-14-10-54.jpg.98ccaf283ed2455169670e7b6da9133e.jpg

 

The reason for our visit that day.

2013-01-10-14-12-59.jpg.8e1b438e0a9ffd9c88bd53297fff6cdd.jpg

 

2013-01-10-14-09-16.jpg.312cdfb64791e7864b6337143d782de3.jpg

 

Brit15

  • Like 19
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Clearwater said:

Tony and other experienced builders,

 

A couple of quick questions if I may about a Comet coach kit that I’m torturing my fingers with.  Firstly, having fixed the drop lights, solder has leaked through to the visible side.  Should I remove this before painting?  If so, what’s the best method.  Secondly, the Comet guide to coach building describes removing the “rebate”on the roof at each corner.  What do they mean by that?  Is it the bottom bit of the rail that will ultimately sit on the top of the sides?  

The sides and ends seem straight enough to me and it’s solid enough.  Nothing has fallen off when I’ve washed it although I’m sure my soldering can improve.

 

I also seem to recall a debate about how to fix roofs.  Comet suggest glueing.  Is there a better plan for aluminium?

 

Many thanks

 

David


ADA0A11E-9F74-482E-A605-F2DF276FC2A6.jpeg.ccded44af646f09392387e0d234cf6cc.jpeg

 

Hi David,

 

I could not see if you had received a reply on this yet, so I thought I would offer my view points:

 

I would  suggest removing the solder that has crept through before painting, otherwise it will result in a lumpy finish. I use a scraper, especially for this process, and this gets into the corners nicely.

 

I would suggest the instructions are referring to the part of the roof below the gutter that locates inside the coach body, in each corner. You only need to remove about 1mm on each corner, and it just helps to clear any solder obstructions in the corner joints of the body.

 

If you want the roof permanently fixed, which would add to the strength of the body assembly, then glue is the only option. I would probably use rapid araldite. However, my preference is to make the roof bolt on, but this is more work, and requires additional tools and materials. 

 

I attach a photo of my cleaning tools (one of Tony's photos taken for the book). The scraper is on the left. I think I got this from Eileen's Emporium.

 

1467978027_Photo25Cleaningtools.jpg.ffd1c3475d0b1cd101a1791ce25a2e74.jpg

 

 

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

  • RMweb Premium
22 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

 

Saint Olaves (below) is restricted to my outer curves because of the steps (and even then, they're not modelled as they should be, with the characteristic tuck-in). But to omit the front steps spoils the look of the engine, I feel, so I accept the compromise.

 

schools.jpg

 

I've managed to fit front steps to Lord Nelsons, King Arthurs and S15s and get them to squeak around the inner curve as well, but Schools seem to be a particularly challenging case.

 

Al

Yep - a lot of challenges with schools right now, all over the country :D (sorry...).

  • Like 4
  • Funny 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, APOLLO said:

A couple of questions

 

Was Bittern here in York or Neville Hill shed ? Negs dated 8 June 1968.

 

2013-01-09-20-35-21.jpg.e33fdd3684e7280f4a5cbe03fd38ae76.jpg

 

Pretty certain that's York, Brit15. The arched concrete roof is quite distinctive (post-war to repair bomb damage?) and was a feature of the museum until the rebuild which saw the present hipped roof installed.

 

1 hour ago, APOLLO said:

 

On 26 October 1968 we visited Doncaster. Wigan - Man Vic, Piccadilly to Sheffield Vic over Woodhead (E26056 out, E26051 return) and a bug box (DMU) to Doncaster. We just visited Doncaster shed that day. Deltic hunting but we saw these wonderful locos on Doncaster Shed, where I think Blue Peter was undergoing repaint.

 

1 hour ago, APOLLO said:

Am I correct or have I got my negs mixed up, our next trip was 1 December 1968 to Crewe works. Perhaps the last shot I took on the Doncaster trip was Flying Scotsman, and the first at Crewe was Blue peter being repainted ? (or was she repainted at York / Neville Hill) - Long time ago !!

Yes - that's Donny paint shop where BP is undergoing repaint. It didn't go to Crewe, as far as I'm aware - although it is of course there now (ie at the Hosking place)

 

1 hour ago, APOLLO said:

The reason for our visit that day.

 

Brit15

Can't see anything of interest? Just a couple of smelly boxes on wheels getting in the way?!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
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...