Wright writes.....

[t-b-g]

16 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

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. 

 

When I first started modelling, a kit that was easy to build was just what I wanted. I have a few locos that I built, just as you do now, in a couple of days. I think my record was about 12 hours for a GEM NLR 0-6-0T. One 4 hour evening for the body, one evening for the mechanism and one evening to add a few details and paint it. It still runs on Narrow Road, although it has virtually no detail under the footplate, such as brakes, sanding gear. Very much a "layout loco". It even has one wheel with only 4 spokes but nobody notices until I point it out.

 

My NuCast J6 was a Christmas present one year, when I was about 16 or 17 years old. It was finished (including painting) by 6pm on Boxing day.

 

Nowadays, perhaps somewhat perversely, I find an easy to build kit, quickly put together straight out of the box, just doesn't give me the same satisfaction any more. I much prefer a loco that I have really taken my time over and on which I have improved, altered or replaced parts to make it as good a model as I can produce.

 

So I will always look at my early K2 build and know that I could do so much better now.

 

 

 

 

[zr2498]

36 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

 

Liking this photo of the bridge with plenty of traffic! Thanks Tony

Dave

[MarkC]

51 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

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. 

Sometimes kit manufacturers aren't consistent either. Some Jidenco offerings had valve gear which were very oversized, yet their Midland steam railmotor, which wasn't actually a bad kit, body-wise, had a power bogie whose valve gear was too flimsy for most folk to get working. My railmotor has been set aside awaiting its power bogie for over 25 years for that very reason, but I've now bought one from John at LRM; I look forward to building it in the near future. It looks very good.

 

Mark

[Woodcock29]

1 hour ago, MarkC said:

Sometimes kit manufacturers aren't consistent either. Some Jidenco offerings had valve gear which were very oversized, yet their Midland steam railmotor, which wasn't actually a bad kit, body-wise, had a power bogie whose valve gear was too flimsy for most folk to get working. My railmotor has been set aside awaiting its power bogie for over 25 years for that very reason, but I've now bought one from John at LRM; I look forward to building it in the near future. It looks very good.

 

Mark

The Jidenco/Falcon Brass LYR steam railmotor was the same. I had to scratchbuild half the valve gear because it was too flimsy and half the holes had broken out.

Andrew

Edited May 2, 2021 by Woodcock29
Typo

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, MarkC said:

Sometimes kit manufacturers aren't consistent either. Some Jidenco offerings had valve gear which were very oversized, yet their Midland steam railmotor, which wasn't actually a bad kit, body-wise, had a power bogie whose valve gear was too flimsy for most folk to get working. My railmotor has been set aside awaiting its power bogie for over 25 years for that very reason, but I've now bought one from John at LRM; I look forward to building it in the near future. It looks very good.

 

Mark

 

The thing with Jidenco is that the kits were drawn by a number of different people, who clearly had hugely varying degrees of skill and ability. The best ones were actually quite good. The worst were almost unbuildable, certainly not without major input from the builder.

 

The etching process could have an impact too.

 

I have seen two etches from the same artwork where one was over etched to the point where some components were too flimsy to use and the other was fine. 

[robertcwp]

4 hours 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 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...

 

 

I have one of those and it works very well.

 

20170416_165837_m by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

When I first started modelling, a kit that was easy to build was just what I wanted. I have a few locos that I built, just as you do now, in a couple of days. I think my record was about 12 hours for a GEM NLR 0-6-0T. One 4 hour evening for the body, one evening for the mechanism and one evening to add a few details and paint it. It still runs on Narrow Road, although it has virtually no detail under the footplate, such as brakes, sanding gear. Very much a "layout loco". It even has one wheel with only 4 spokes but nobody notices until I point it out.

 

My NuCast J6 was a Christmas present one year, when I was about 16 or 17 years old. It was finished (including painting) by 6pm on Boxing day.

 

Nowadays, perhaps somewhat perversely, I find an easy to build kit, quickly put together straight out of the box, just doesn't give me the same satisfaction any more. I much prefer a loco that I have really taken my time over and on which I have improved, altered or replaced parts to make it as good a model as I can produce.

 

So I will always look at my early K2 build and know that I could do so much better now.

 

 

 

 

I'm in agreement with your philosophy, Tony.

 

However, in my days of professional loco-building, a 'difficult' kit to build was something to be avoided, because of the extra time (often at no extra cost) needed to complete it.

 

I think 'difficult' can mean a variety of things, as well. Can a loco be hugely-complex, even if the bits fit? Though not 'difficult' in terms of the skill needed, it would be difficult to make much money from building it. At the other end of the scale, there are the prehistoric 'dogs' where the fit of parts is poor, and the wrong materials have been used for some applications (has anyone built a McGowan 'Jersey Lily' using the white metal chassis and motion?). 

 

Returning to the K2s. There's no doubt that the LRM example makes a far better model than the Nu-Cast version, but it is more difficult to build. Though not Malcolm's fault, clearly an error had been made resulting in the holes in the coupling rods not matching those in the frames. To a less-experienced modeller, it might appear that he/she had made a mistake in the construction, rather than the error being in the kit itself. Metal-forming is not always easily-mastered by the beginners to kit-building, also. 

 

I think the advantage that this latest Nu-Cast K2 has is that all the chassis parts match exactly, and the cast pieces fit without the need for shaping complex metal forms - a serpentine footplate and a GNR cab, for instance. It's also quicker to build, and, thus, more-suited for a beginner, even though the end product might be less-crisp than the etched alternative.

 

Though hardly 'scientific', I've seen far more Nu-Cast K2s running on layouts down the years than London Road examples. In fact, apart from Malcolm's (and the one on John Redrup's display stand, which hasn't been made to work as far as I know), I've not seen any others than mine. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Jol Wilkinson]

Tony,

 

what you say is very true but there are those of us who are happy to take on the greater challenge (a more appropriate word, I think) of an etched kit. Of course if you want/need a large fleet of locos then cast white metal offers a faster but usually less (again in my opinion) attractive model. I gave up on cast w/m kits years ago having suffered at the hands of GEM LNWR kits when a younger, more impressionable modeller. I do have two M&L models in my small collection, which had better castings but even then the frames/motion/mechanism had to be completely remade or scratch built. Some w/m kits are difficult in that they need a lot of work to make them half decent. SEF and DJH would certainly appear to be amongst the better cast kits.

 

Ultimately, if time and simplicity is of the essence, then RTR is the way  to go.

 

Jol

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I'm in agreement with your philosophy, Tony.

 

However, in my days of professional loco-building, a 'difficult' kit to build was something to be avoided, because of the extra time (often at no extra cost) needed to complete it.

 

I think 'difficult' can mean a variety of things, as well. Can a loco be hugely-complex, even if the bits fit? Though not 'difficult' in terms of the skill needed, it would be difficult to make much money from building it. At the other end of the scale, there are the prehistoric 'dogs' where the fit of parts is poor, and the wrong materials have been used for some applications (has anyone built a McGowan 'Jersey Lily' using the white metal chassis and motion?). 

 

Returning to the K2s. There's no doubt that the LRM example makes a far better model than the Nu-Cast version, but it is more difficult to build. Though not Malcolm's fault, clearly an error had been made resulting in the holes in the coupling rods not matching those in the frames. To a less-experienced modeller, it might appear that he/she had made a mistake in the construction, rather than the error being in the kit itself. Metal-forming is not always easily-mastered by the beginners to kit-building, also. 

 

I think the advantage that this latest Nu-Cast K2 has is that all the chassis parts match exactly, and the cast pieces fit without the need for shaping complex metal forms - a serpentine footplate and a GNR cab, for instance. It's also quicker to build, and, thus, more-suited for a beginner, even though the end product might be less-crisp than the etched alternative.

 

Though hardly 'scientific', I've seen far more Nu-Cast K2s running on layouts down the years than London Road examples. In fact, apart from Malcolm's (and the one on John Redrup's display stand, which hasn't been made to work as far as I know), I've not seen any others than mine. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I am sure that if you look at the hobby as a whole, the number of people who want "quick and easy" far outweighs the people who want the "best loco possible".

 

I always saw those simpler kits as part of the learning process. Looking at how they went together, perhaps improving a few bits, or making more scale replacement parts, or adding details that were not included was all part of the learning process for me.

 

Nowadays I don't think there is a kit that I would worry about tackling or if there wasn't a kit I could scratchbuild something but those more primitive kits played a big part in the development of the necessary skills.

 

It is perhaps a shame that the re-release of the K2 didn't include an upgrade to the valve gear. The same number of components, assembled the same way but produced to a more accurate size and shape wouldn't make it any more difficult to build but would improve the appearance greatly.

 

Tony

 

 

[Dunsignalling]

9 hours ago, zr2498 said:

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.

I like and use the Trix cleaners, though the price of those has at least quadrupled since I bought my first one.

 

The big difference with the Lux product is that it will clean all your loco, carriage and wagon wheels, not just the driven ones. 

 

Foregoing one more r-t-r loco to provide the wherewithal to free up most of the time one would otherwise be spending in the boring drudgery of wheel cleaning for more productive or enjoyable activities seems a pretty good proposition to me.

 

John

Edited May 2, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[MJI]

 

Just found something today.

 

I am building a small WR branch as one of my small projects and I have worked out I need multiple 45xx panniers.

 

I bought a Bachmann one about 5 years ago (I think) so thought lets check the online shops.

 

Nothing new and silly SH prices.

 

Hmm kits, can't find anything apart from chassis.

 

It is now getting difficult to get things at the time you realise you want them.

 

This branch

 

Locos two common types, one is  NLA (45xx) one I have enough (NBL 22)

 

Carriages in pictures seen of the area, late GWR 60 something foot non corridors (Mousa sides used) - kitbased, late B sets (Comet), possibly some Airfix style but unsure. 1 Sunshine (Comet) BR 64ft Suburbans (Comet).

 

Wagons are also raid the pickings from Parkside, ration and Airfix, and find some still missing.

 

My other old area project, may move station as I am building a DMU seen in the area in the 50s and an ex MR 2P in same area.

 

 

[ecgtheow]

7 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I'm in agreement with your philosophy, Tony.

 

However, in my days of professional loco-building, a 'difficult' kit to build was something to be avoided, because of the extra time (often at no extra cost) needed to complete it.

 

I think 'difficult' can mean a variety of things, as well. Can a loco be hugely-complex, even if the bits fit? Though not 'difficult' in terms of the skill needed, it would be difficult to make much money from building it. At the other end of the scale, there are the prehistoric 'dogs' where the fit of parts is poor, and the wrong materials have been used for some applications (has anyone built a McGowan 'Jersey Lily' using the white metal chassis and motion?). 

 

Returning to the K2s. There's no doubt that the LRM example makes a far better model than the Nu-Cast version, but it is more difficult to build. Though not Malcolm's fault, clearly an error had been made resulting in the holes in the coupling rods not matching those in the frames. To a less-experienced modeller, it might appear that he/she had made a mistake in the construction, rather than the error being in the kit itself. Metal-forming is not always easily-mastered by the beginners to kit-building, also. 

 

I think the advantage that this latest Nu-Cast K2 has is that all the chassis parts match exactly, and the cast pieces fit without the need for shaping complex metal forms - a serpentine footplate and a GNR cab, for instance. It's also quicker to build, and, thus, more-suited for a beginner, even though the end product might be less-crisp than the etched alternative.

 

Though hardly 'scientific', I've seen far more Nu-Cast K2s running on layouts down the years than London Road examples. In fact, apart from Malcolm's (and the one on John Redrup's display stand, which hasn't been made to work as far as I know), I've not seen any others than mine. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Well here's one that has been seen previously on Wright Writes in response to exactly the same challenge as is being made now. It works!

 

[Tony Wright]

13 hours ago, ecgtheow said:

Well here's one that has been seen previously on Wright Writes in response to exactly the same challenge as is being made now. It works!

 

A lovely model.

 

Did you make it, William? 

 

I can't remember its being seen on here before, but it's well worth seeing again.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

With the imperative of building the new K2 taking up my modelling time last week, this week I'm determined to finish off pending projects. 

 

There's the B17 chassis in EM to complete, and the making of a new chassis for the V2 seen recently to undertake....................

 

 

I put the Comet frames together this morning, checking and modifying to fit.

 

This is what Nu-Cast used to supply as a basic chassis for the V2. I'm reliably told that folk have got these to work, but I was never up to the task.

 

 

Someone must have succeeded, because here's the original chassis for the V2. All I did was to replace the original X04 motor for a Jepson. It certainly goes, if a little on the noisy side compared to more-modern drives. 

 

It's gone to a friend who'll make a donation to CRUK.

 

All I've got to do now is erect the valve gear on the replacement chassis. I installed a Portescap I had in stock. I've had it for some time; it came from a deceased modeller's estate, and was completely gummed up solid (not uncommon, I'm told). After freeing it by finger pressure, cleaning off the red 'gum' and re-lubricating it, it now runs really sweetly. It must be an old one because it's quiet!  I arranged it to drive on the rear axle to minimise the amount of metal needing removal from the body's inside to accommodate it. 

 

 

Edited May 3, 2021 by Tony Wright
to add something

[drmditch]

On 01/05/2021 at 19:22, Tony Wright said:

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. 

 

 

 

Please could I ask if the AM10 was the motor/gearbox was one you used in one of your V2s?

I ordered one from DJH but now it arrived it looks quite a small motor.

 

[stewartingram]

Some time ago, I'm sure it was on this thread, J11s were discussed. There was mention of them being used on the M&GN , can anyone recall the discussion or the id of any J11 that was seen on the M&GN? I'm looking for a renumber of the Bachmann one,for potential GE/M&Gn use (with a probable Rule 1 licence!).

 

Stewart

[Tom F]

I recently finished weathering this J17 for Tony. I found a nice reference photograph online, which Tony was happy for me to work from.

Edited May 3, 2021 by Tom F

[ecgtheow]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

A lovely model.

 

Did you make it, William? 

 

I can't remember its being seen on here before, but it's well worth seeing again.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

No Tony I didn't make it. It's way beyond my competence. If I remember correctly it was made many years ago by someone working for  Bournemouth Model Railway Centre,which I had contracted to build it. I have only ever built 2 model locos both about 40 years ago - an MPD MR 3F now replaced by the much better Bachmann models & a Craftsman MR 0-4-4T.The latter isn't too bad a model, but that may be because someone else painted it very well in MR livery. I look forward to receiving the new more or less equivalent Bachmann model to compare it with.

 

William

[Clive Mortimore]

On 02/05/2021 at 10:07, 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 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...

 

 

Hi Graeme

 

I fully agree so easy to use and works well.  Not so good on my diesels with traction tyres

[ecgtheow]

1 hour ago, stewartingram said:

Some time ago, I'm sure it was on this thread, J11s were discussed. There was mention of them being used on the M&GN , can anyone recall the discussion or the id of any J11 that was seen on the M&GN? I'm looking for a renumber of the Bachmann one,for potential GE/M&Gn use (with a probable Rule 1 licence!).

 

Stewart

Quite a few J11s were transferred to the M&GN after the LNER took over the running of the line. The table below form the M&GN Bulletin 637/6-9 shows those transferred. They were allocated to the M&GN for only a few years & by 1943 all had left, but J11s continued to visit the line in the BR era. There is  a photo of 64420 on a lengthy train of wagons at South Lynn on 01.08.1953.

[landscapes]

4 hours ago, Tom F said:

I recently finished weathering this J17 for Tony. I found a nice reference photograph online, which Tony was happy for me to work from.

Lovely work Tom

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, drmditch said:

 

Please could I ask if the AM10 was the motor/gearbox was one you used in one of your V2s?

I ordered one from DJH but now it arrived it looks quite a small motor.

 

I haven't used an AM10 in any of 'my' V2 builds.

 

However, some time ago I bought a V2 off a friend. He'd built/painted it, but his railway interests were changing and he had no further use for it.

 

Built from a Nu-Cast kit (with brass frames), it was originally powered by an X04 motor.

 

 

At the time they were the motors of choice. However, I decided to put a more-modern motor/gearbox combination into it - the DJH AM10. 

 

It ran very well; sweetly, quietly and powerfully, though not as fast as the AM9, DJH's larger motor/gearbox. I decided not to keep it (I never saw 60835), so sold it on to Andy Sparkes (most appropriately, The Green Howards on here) who's very happy with it, though he also reports its being slower than other locos - not sluggish, just not as high a top speed. 

 

I know Andy dips into here, so he might comment. He might even shoot a little video for you. 

 

Another V2 I put an AM10 in was this one below.....................

 

 

This one was built originally from a Pro-Scale kit by Allen Hammet, and became Tony Geary's property. It ran extensively on Stoke Summit and Charwelton. With both those WMRC layouts having been sold-on, Tony sold it to Gilbert Barnatt for use on his Peterborough North. 

 

Now, that caused an immediate problem. PN is DCC, and this V2 had an open framed D13 in it; a type that cannot be electrically isolated from the frames, so, thus, incompatible with DCC. Gilbert is not capable of any such conversion, so he asked Tim Easter (who does a lot of work for him), but it was beyond him, too. So, I did the conversion, as seen above; even to the extent of wiring in the chip (something I intensely-dislike!). 

 

 

Before handing it over to Gilbert, I tested it thoroughly on Little Bytham first. 25 fish vans were handled with ease. 

 

I believe Gilbert also pops in on here from time to time, so he might comment. He's never complained about it, so I assume he's happy with it.

 

You'll note that both the 'boxes in these locos were powered by a Mashima motor. Current AM10s have DJH's own motor, which runs faster. Both conversions resulted in my having to take the drivers off (with much bad language!), but the resulting much-quieter and smoother performance was worth it. 

 

Though I always put the largest motor possible in any of my own loco constructions, the AM10 is more than capable of powering a V2.

 

Regards. 

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

[CF MRC]

By way of a change, and apologies for the diversion, but a mouldy old project in north London has been making some progress of late. 

Details in the 2mm section...

 

Tim

Edited May 3, 2021 by CF MRC

[Tony Wright]

7 hours ago, Tom F said:

I recently finished weathering this J17 for Tony. I found a nice reference photograph online, which Tony was happy for me to work from.

Beautiful work, Tom (as always).

 

Thanks ever so much for weathering it for me. 

 

It looks so much more natural now......................

 

 

I can't wait to take its picture again on the MR/M&GNR section of Little Bytham. 

 

The actual loco can be seen in the top picture on page 22 of M&GN in Focus, by Beckett and Hemnell, Becknell Books, 1980.

 

Best regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

7 hours ago, stewartingram said:

Some time ago, I'm sure it was on this thread, J11s were discussed. There was mention of them being used on the M&GN , can anyone recall the discussion or the id of any J11 that was seen on the M&GN? I'm looking for a renumber of the Bachmann one,for potential GE/M&Gn use (with a probable Rule 1 licence!).

 

Stewart

Good evening Stewart,

 

As William has stated, there's a picture of J11 64420, taken at South Lynn in 1953. It's in the top picture on page 61 of M&GN in Action, by Beckett and Hemnell, Beckett Books, 1981. 

 

In the other work on the M&GN by the same authors (M&GN in Focus, page 36) there's a shot of a J11, 5222, at East Rudham, taken in 1938.

 

 

 

I occasionally run a J11 on the MR/M&GNR bit of Little Bytham. This loco was built by John Houlden, and used to run on Gamston Bank. I've fitted an DJH AM10 motor/gearbox in it for smoother, quieter running.

 

The Bachmann J11 is a very good model.

 

 

 

I had one for a time, which I renumbered, detailed and weathered. 

 

Since I had the two Little Engines J11s from John Houlden, I sold this on to a friend, who's delighted with it. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.