Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

6 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

Great paintwork from Geoff as usual.

 

However, I must say I've never been convinced by the front end of the Wills/SE Finecast  A4 kits.  To me the best 4mm option for an A4 is the current Hornby body on a kit built chassis if heavy loads are to be hauled. Otherwise the Hornby chassis is ok, particularly if new valve gear is added.

 

One thing I'm hoping is that as Hornby are retooling the Gresley A1/A3 models they'll re-do the valve gear and end up with valve gear of the same quality as that on the A2/2s and A2/3s. Which then should allow the upgrading of the Hornby A4 chassis to that standard.

 

The Model Loco Black 5 is interesting as I note it has a rivetted tender whereas the unbuilt one I have has a flush-sided tender. So presumably they made two versions unless this one has had the normal DJH tender substituted.

 

The V2 has come up really well - Jessie might be wishing he hadn't parted with it!

 

Andrew

Thanks Andrew,

 

I have six SE Finecast A4s now (and only one - much-modified - Hornby one), so I suppose I'm aiming for 'consistency', especially as I never use the RTR one because of its lack of haulage capacity. 

 

60013 ran more trips on the 'Lizzie' (43) than any other A4 in the summer of 1958; which I've attempted to show here....................

 

 

I think it looks the part. It is, after all, a 'layout loco'.

 

Interestingly, I tried a Hornby A2/3 on LB this afternoon. I put it on a 12-car rake, seven of which were all-metal kit-builds. It took it with a little bit of slipping (prototypical?) on starting, then promptly romped away. I'm very impressed with the running and pulling power of these latest Hornby Pacifics. Much more so than the same firm's A4 (which just polished the rails!), though a DJH equivalent Thompson Pacific didn't slip at all. 

 

As someone else has pointed out, the Black Five has a substitute Bachmann tender; as appropriate for the actual loco. 

 

As has also been pointed out, the red lining is missing from the Five's footplate valance. Geoff just couldn't fit it in.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

I keep on mentioning 'layout locos' (a term first used by Iain Rice).

 

I think the picture below sums up the description most-appropriately....................

 

 

The J6 actually has sand pipes (and brakes!), but such 'niceties' aren't of importance (at least not to me) in an overall 'layout' scene such as this. 

Edited April 30, 2021 by Tony Wright
typo error

[Chuffer Davies]

32 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Frank,

 

I hope I'm not perceived as discouraging modellers from fitting as much detail as possible. 

 

However, sand pipes (whatever they're made of) are far more vulnerable to damage than wiggly pipes. Many's the time I've found them distorted after being put in and out of boxes for transit to/from exhibitions. I just found it a hassle putting a loco on a train, only to find it shorted or stuck; caused by sand pipes out of place.

 

They can also be misplaced through routine wheel cleaning. 

 

The same is true with regard to RTR locos which have sand pipes. 

 

Just in case folk think I never fit such niceties as sand pipes..........................

 

The pipes under the cab are particularly vulnerable. Far more so than the wiggly ones alongside the firebox.

 

 

In fairness, with a loco like a 'Schools' and its wide driven axles spacing, then sand pipes are highly-visible, and thus are obligatory fittings. 

 

Ian Rathbone painted both these locos. 

 

I agree, sand pipes are visible in a studio-type shot, or a loco portrait on a layout; illustrated by these two respective pictures. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony

 

 

 

  

Hi Tony,

I suppose my concern is that as an established expert if you say that you don't fit sand pipes because they are too vulnerable, then inexperienced modellers will immediately believe that to always be the case and will be dis-incentivised to attempt fitting them.  I'm therefore attempting to provide an alternate perspective just in case.

 

The models you have illustrated above are of course stunning and in these circumstances every last detail can be seen and appreciated.  I've always had a particular liking for the Schools although never had the justification for building one... 

 

We have all heard horror stories about the fragility of modern R-T-R models and how little it takes to cause fine detail to twist or drop off.  Fortunately this is far less of a problem for those of us who build our own models.  

 

You raise an interesting point with regards the transportation of exhibition loco's and their risk of damage when being packed and unpacked.  I transport mine in purpose built trays lined with foam rubber and have devised a method which ensures the minimum of direct handling possible.  This takes the form of squares of plastic sheeting cut from bin liners onto which the loco's are stood and then they are picked up by the plastic sheet and slid into their tray.   For my loco's damage in transport is rare but still more likely than when the models are running around the layout. 

 

 

You also mention the risk of damage during periodic wheel cleaning and I agree with you that this is a concern but do not have any answers as to how to avoid this.  Does anyone have a trick they can share?  Some modellers swear that they never clean their wheels but I've always felt the need to clean all wheels on every piece of rolling stock prior to any exhibition.  Shunting loco's get their wheels cleaned before the show opens on the Sunday as well.

 

Regards to all,

 

Frank

[Jesse Sim]

9 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

Great paintwork from Geoff as usual.

 

However, I must say I've never been convinced by the front end of the Wills/SE Finecast  A4 kits.  To me the best 4mm option for an A4 is the current Hornby body on a kit built chassis if heavy loads are to be hauled. Otherwise the Hornby chassis is ok, particularly if new valve gear is added.

 

One thing I'm hoping is that as Hornby are retooling the Gresley A1/A3 models they'll re-do the valve gear and end up with valve gear of the same quality as that on the A2/2s and A2/3s. Which then should allow the upgrading of the Hornby A4 chassis to that standard.

 

The Model Loco Black 5 is interesting as I note it has a rivetted tender whereas the unbuilt one I have has a flush-sided tender. So presumably they made two versions unless this one has had the normal DJH tender substituted.

 

The V2 has come up really well - Jessie might be wishing he hadn't parted with it!

 

Andrew

To be honest Andrew I’m not, with so many projects on the go and being a one man band I’m glad she’s gone to a better home and finished off. In exchange for me giving the v2 to Tony he’s going to rebuild my D2,   which he will do a far better job then I could ever have done. Although I lose out on a v2 I end up with a completely rebuilt D2 which isn’t available RTR and I’m happy to settle with a Bachmann v2. I’ve always said, I’ll exploit what the RTR boys have to offer and kitbuild the rest. 

[Ian Rathbone]

Tony, where is the Black 5 to run? The ‘MT’ classification was only used in Scotland. 
 

Best regards

 

Ian

 

 

[Woodcock29]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

As someone else has pointed out, the Black Five has a substitute Bachmann tender; as appropriate for the actual loco. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

If I'd looked closely I'd have realised that! Must have been distracted by watching the footy (Aussie rules) at the same time!

Lesson to self - look more closely at photos before commenting!

 

Andrew

Edited April 30, 2021 by Woodcock29
Added comment

[Tony Wright]

8 hours ago, Ian Rathbone said:

Tony, where is the Black 5 to run? The ‘MT’ classification was only used in Scotland. 
 

Best regards

 

Ian

 

 

Good morning Ian,

 

Certainly not on Little Bytham. When things get back to 'normal', Graham Nicholas is more than welcome to run it on Shap when it's next exhibited. 

 

According to my Ian Allan Locoshed books for the mid/-late '50s, it was a Crewe North loco (5A), so the '5MT' is incorrect, then? I didn't check on the photo I gave to Geoff for reference. Having now done so, it should be just '5'. 

 

Incidentally, mentioning one source of reference has just highlighted to me the 'danger' of believing everything written in books on the prototype. The appropriate Irwell 'Book of The Black Fives' (Part 3) never has it listed at 5A at all. Which is right, I wonder?

 

Many thanks.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Tony Wright]

11 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi Tony,

I suppose my concern is that as an established expert if you say that you don't fit sand pipes because they are too vulnerable, then inexperienced modellers will immediately believe that to always be the case and will be dis-incentivised to attempt fitting them.  I'm therefore attempting to provide an alternate perspective just in case.

 

The models you have illustrated above are of course stunning and in these circumstances every last detail can be seen and appreciated.  I've always had a particular liking for the Schools although never had the justification for building one... 

 

We have all heard horror stories about the fragility of modern R-T-R models and how little it takes to cause fine detail to twist or drop off.  Fortunately this is far less of a problem for those of us who build our own models.  

 

You raise an interesting point with regards the transportation of exhibition loco's and their risk of damage when being packed and unpacked.  I transport mine in purpose built trays lined with foam rubber and have devised a method which ensures the minimum of direct handling possible.  This takes the form of squares of plastic sheeting cut from bin liners onto which the loco's are stood and then they are picked up by the plastic sheet and slid into their tray.   For my loco's damage in transport is rare but still more likely than when the models are running around the layout. 

 

 

You also mention the risk of damage during periodic wheel cleaning and I agree with you that this is a concern but do not have any answers as to how to avoid this.  Does anyone have a trick they can share?  Some modellers swear that they never clean their wheels but I've always felt the need to clean all wheels on every piece of rolling stock prior to any exhibition.  Shunting loco's get their wheels cleaned before the show opens on the Sunday as well.

 

Regards to all,

 

Frank

Good morning Frank,

 

Though it's kind of you to mention it, I'm always suspicious of the term  'established expert'. I've come across far too many of the species, often self-proclaimed, and, in my experience, most are best-avoided. 

 

All I try and explain (and advise?) are the methods which work for me. 

 

I like your 'packing' arrangements; rather more (much more) sensible than mine, though mine must have worked in the main. Counting up the number of shows attended by the likes of Fordley Park, Leighford, Stoke Summit and Charwelton, plus occasions when my locos have guested on the likes of Biggleswade, Gamston Bank and others, the total amount must be approaching 175 - maybe more. Yet, most locos survived without too much damage. 

 

It's my view that a slightly different (even fundamentally different) approach is needed for those who take their creations to shows. Without being careless, one cannot be too 'precious' with regard to ones creations. The odd ding, dent, scraped-off paint and detail damage is inevitable, no matter how careful one might by. Regarding the odd bit of missing paint, a touch from a 'Sharpie' works wonders.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Dunsignalling]

39 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Ian,

 

Certainly not on Little Bytham. When things get back to 'normal', Graham Nicholas is more than welcome to run it on Shap when it's next exhibited. 

 

According to my Ian Allan Locoshed books for the mid/-late '50s, it was a Crewe North loco (5A), so the '5MT' is incorrect, then? I didn't check on the photo I gave to Geoff for reference. Having now done so, it should be just '5'. 

 

Incidentally, mentioning one source of reference has just highlighted to me the 'danger' of believing everything written in books on the prototype. The appropriate Irwell 'Book of The Black Fives' (Part 3) never has it listed at 5A at all. Which is right, I wonder?

 

Many thanks.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

BR Database has 45235 at Crewe North from February 1953 to May 1962, both in their own table and the SLS one also included in the entry.

 

John

[LNER4479]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Ian,

 

Certainly not on Little Bytham. When things get back to 'normal', Graham Nicholas is more than welcome to run it on Shap when it's next exhibited. 

 

 

Thanks - look forward to it!

[JeremyC]

11 hours ago, Ian Rathbone said:

Tony, where is the Black 5 to run? The ‘MT’ classification was only used in Scotland. 
 

Best regards

 

Ian

 

 

When building my model of an (LNER) N15 I noticed from photographs that they were classified as MTT (presumably Mixed Traffic Tank). Interestingly both this and lining seems to have been applied to the locos of this class regardless of whether they were vacuum brake fitted or not.

https://www.railscot.co.uk/img/31/922/

69211, unfitted - (no ejector pipe leading to smokebox)

Edited May 1, 2021 by JeremyC

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

Thanks - look forward to it!

Let's hope it won't be too long, Graham,

 

Though the Wigan Show has gone again for this year.

 

Being 5A-allocated, the Black Five would certainly have got as far as Carlisle. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Apart from a few bits of detail to add (and painting by Geoff Haynes), the new Nu-Cast K2 is now complete...................

 

 

I started just a week ago (though during the middle of this week I was very busy with others things). All in all, about 24 hours' work, which means it went together without too much fuss and profanity.

 

A full write-up will appear in BRM soon. 

[gr.king]

Based on the above image it looks nicely straight and square, something that certainly cannot be said of some/many "slapped together" white metal locos I've seen about.

[Tony Wright]

Time for layout testing of the K2.......................

 

 

No problems whatsoever this afternoon.

 

40+ vans were handled with ease. 

 

Which brings me back to what one considers 'good value' in a drive mechanism. This has DJH's AM10 motor/gearbox combination in it, at around £80.00 made-up and ready to install. I know, to some this is an horrendous price, but for super-smooth, quiet and powerful performance, in my considered view, it's money well spent. 

 

 

[Chuffer Davies]

7 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Apart from a few bits of detail to add (and painting by Geoff Haynes), the new Nu-Cast K2 is now complete...................

 

 

I started just a week ago (though during the middle of this week I was very busy with others things). All in all, about 24 hours' work, which means it went together without too much fuss and profanity.

 

A full write-up will appear in BRM soon. 

Hi Tony,

On the whole this looks to be an excellent model, nicely made,  but for me the valve gear doesn't quite convince.  In particular the Combination Lever looks wrong, it is certainly too heavy but also is it too long because the Union Link is at a strange angle?

 

Regards,

Frank  

[zr2498]

On 30/04/2021 at 21:08, Chuffer Davies said:

 

 

 

You also mention the risk of damage during periodic wheel cleaning and I agree with you that this is a concern but do not have any answers as to how to avoid this.  Does anyone have a trick they can share?  Some modellers swear that they never clean their wheels but I've always felt the need to clean all wheels on every piece of rolling stock prior to any exhibition.  Shunting loco's get their wheels cleaned before the show opens on the Sunday as well.

 

Regards to all,

 

Frank

 

Here is a possible solution but not cheap.

https://www.lux-modellbau.de/

 

Dave

 

[Woodcock29]

26 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi Tony,

On the whole this looks to be an excellent model, nicely made,  but for me the valve gear doesn't quite convince.  In particular the Combination Lever looks wrong, it is certainly too heavy but also is it too long because the Union Link is at a strange angle?

 

Regards,

Frank  

Hi Frank

When I got my unmade kit out a couple of days ago I studied the valve gear etch and concluded its all a bit too heavy and there is scope for thinning down most of the components. On Tony's model for instance the the coupling rods are thicker below the flute than above.

 

Looking at Tony's model above I think when the valve rod is thinned down a bit it could probably be set marginally higher at the front end which would change the angle of the union link. Mind you in central position it does need to drop slightly towards the front. An alternative of course would be to purchase an etch for the valve gear from John at LRM. Something I should remember next time I order from LRM!

 

Andrew

[Dunsignalling]

8 hours ago, zr2498 said:

 

Here is a possible solution but not cheap.

https://www.lux-modellbau.de/

 

Dave

 

Excellent production. Glad to see there was no carpet involved at any stage.

 

The price seems roughly in line with the RRP of Hornby's Winston Churchill or one of their new 9Fs, which doesn't seem outrageous when set against the hours of graft and the risk of damaging ones existing locos and stock that it potentially saves.

 

I'd consider one a very prudent investment for a big layout with lots of locos/stock. One of those things that, after a while, you'd wonder how you managed without, I think.

 

John

[gr.king]

There are always those who have to look for the most expensive possible "gadget" to do a simple job. Is it so that they can then brag about having one? Maybe they should instead try boasting about the money they've wasted? I prefer to keep my money for other uses.

 

The Trix / Conrad or (possibly identical?) Gaugemaster wheel cleaners do as quick, convenient, effective and safe a wheel clean as I could possibly want, at a fraction of the price. They do not create the need to invert the loco (perhaps crushing its delicate details and watching it tie its valve gear in knots) and there's no need to start poking scrapers at the rotating wheels or trying to position live brushes by hand without causing shorts. I've never had the slightest trouble using one. Of course, if you have a fanatical objection to the cleaning of wheel treads by brass bristles, or if you are capable of devising bizarre and clumsy ways to do even the simplest jobs, then even these wheel cleaners may not be "good enough" for you...

 

 

Edited May 2, 2021 by gr.king

[zr2498]

2 minutes ago, gr.king said:

There are always those who have to look for the most expensive possible "gadget" to do a simple job. Is it so that they can then brag about having one? Maybe they should instead try boasting about the money they've wasted? I prefer to keep my money for other uses.

 

The Trix / Conrad or (possibly identical?) Gaugemaster wheel cleaners do as quick, convenient, effective and safe a wheel clean as I could possibly want, at a fraction of the price. They do no create the need to invert the loco (perhaps crushing its delicate details and watching it tie its valve gear in knots) and there's no need to start poking scrapers at the rotating wheels or trying to position live brushes by hand without causing shorts. I've never had the slightest trouble using one. Of course, if you have a fanatical objection to the cleaning of wheel treads by brass bristles, or if you are capable of devising bizarre and clumsy ways to do even the simplest jobs, then even these wheel cleaners may not be "good enough" for you...

 

 

Oh dear. This is what happens when you just try and help someone with a possible option. I think this reaction especially on Tony's thread is uncalled for.

[t-b-g]

I built a NuCast K2 many years ago, when they first came out. I was a relative novice at the time and the idea of replacing parts on a kit, or altering them to make them better just wasn't on my agenda as it is now.

 

Later, Malcolm Crawley designed and built the London Road K2 and after that, mine stayed in its box as there was no comparison in finesse and accuracy and seeing them on a layout together really showed mine up.

 

I know his design has been criticised in a couple of aspects but the one he built is really lovely and runs very smoothly. Mine ran smoothly too but in looks, especially under the footplate, his looked much more like a real K2 than mine.

 

 

[Tony Wright]

12 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi Tony,

On the whole this looks to be an excellent model, nicely made,  but for me the valve gear doesn't quite convince.  In particular the Combination Lever looks wrong, it is certainly too heavy but also is it too long because the Union Link is at a strange angle?

 

Regards,

Frank  

Thanks Frank,

 

Since it's a review, I'm more or less committed to using what's supplied in the kit. 

 

When weathered, any 'chunkiness' in the valve gear will be lessened. 

 

Odd, isn't it? Time was when over-chunky valve gear was present on RTR  locos. Then, the more-recent ones had it slimmed down; almost to the point of anorexia. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[APOLLO]

I spray a touch of Electrical switch cleaner (Servisol 10) directly to the track and run the loco over it several times back and forth. Always works for me, both in OO and O, don't even need to take the loco off the track. Good cleaner / lubricant for anything electrical.

 

 

Brit15

[Tony Wright]

12 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I built a NuCast K2 many years ago, when they first came out. I was a relative novice at the time and the idea of replacing parts on a kit, or altering them to make them better just wasn't on my agenda as it is now.

 

Later, Malcolm Crawley designed and built the London Road K2 and after that, mine stayed in its box as there was no comparison in finesse and accuracy and seeing them on a layout together really showed mine up.

 

I know his design has been criticised in a couple of aspects but the one he built is really lovely and runs very smoothly. Mine ran smoothly too but in looks, especially under the footplate, his looked much more like a real K2 than mine.

 

 

Good morning Tony,

 

I agree about the finesse of the London Road K2.

 

Here's the one I built (61738) , in company with Bytham's two Nu-Cast K2s (the new one will make it three). 

 

 

I built all three - 61759 was painted by Geoff Haynes, 61738 by Ian Rathbone and 61745 by me. 

 

I think, in a 'layout' situation, the subtle (and not so subtle) differences aren't that apparent (so, yours should come out of its box). 

 

What I would say is that the Nu-Cast kit for a K2 is far easier to build than the LRM example. Easier, especially as I didn't have to make new couplings rods.

 

Regards.

 

Tony.