Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, Ian Rathbone said:

On the subject of transfers for the BR emblems I think the HMRS transfers are rather primitive, the Fox ones are far more detailed - and you get more time to position them. Conversely, if you model the areas of BR that used 10” numbers then I think the HMRS numbers are better as Fox’s figures are too fat, especially in 7mm.

 

A couple of weeks ago I dug out a loco that I built back in 1976, which makes it 45 years old. It’s a Wills A3 for which I scratch built a chassis and used Jamieson valve gear. I can’t remember which paint I used but looking at it now it seems more Darlington than Doncaster. On my metre of track it ran well but it could do with a decent run somewhere, unfortunately LB is ruled out as it is EM gauge, (I built it while a member of the Market Deeping Club, which had a strong EM group).

 

 

Ian R

 

Still as good as ever Ian,

 

How about giving it a blast on Retford?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

More examples of modified/weathered Hornby items running on Little Bytham.................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Loco weathered by Geoff Haynes.

 

 

 

I've weathered all of these using dry-brush enamels and enamel washes, with the excess taken off with a cotton bud.

 

I cannot confirm the accuracy of the goods rolling stock (not my area of expertise), but they look 'natural' to me. 

 

 

 

 

[Barry Ten]

On the longevity of RTR locos, I've got nothing that compares with that fine Duchess, but this is my oldest loco still running more or less as it came out of the box:

 

 

No prizes for spotting a Mainline Collett goods. The only things done to it are shortening the tender gap, replacing some lining that had scuffed, and turning the coupling rods the right way up - they'd been fitted upside down! This dates from Christmas 1979, when Pink Floyd and the Tourists were in the charts. If it hasn't been run for a while it needs a gentle warming up (during which it emits hugely nostalgic warm oil smells) but once it's going, it's very smooth and controllable, albeit a little on the noisy side.

 

I've got older models running on replacement chassis, but this is the only one that hasn't been got-at to some degree.

 

[t-b-g]

If we are talking long lived models, I think I may be able to contribute to the discussion with the first Buckingham loco.

 

In December, she will celebrate her 75th birthday. In all that time, she has run week in, week out covering an average of 2 scale miles a week.

 

I believe she is on her second motor but the gears, wheels, rods, frames and everything else, including the paint job, are original from 1946.

 

[LNER4479]

8 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

If we are talking long lived models, I think I may be able to contribute to the discussion with the first Buckingham loco.

 

In December, she will celebrate her 75th birthday. In all that time, she has run week in, week out covering an average of 2 scale miles a week.

 

I believe she is on her second motor but the gears, wheels, rods, frames and everything else, including the paint job, are original from 1946.

 

 

I think we might all have to reverently doff our collective caps to that! 

[Tony Wright]

15 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

If we are talking long lived models, I think I may be able to contribute to the discussion with the first Buckingham loco.

 

In December, she will celebrate her 75th birthday. In all that time, she has run week in, week out covering an average of 2 scale miles a week.

 

I believe she is on her second motor but the gears, wheels, rods, frames and everything else, including the paint job, are original from 1946.

 

It's in better condition than I am Tony,

 

But then it's two months younger than I am!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

From the ancient to the new..............................

 

 

Representing current RTR standards in O gauge, this is Dapol/Lionheart's latest Mk.1, just in for photography.

 

 

At the other end of the scale, we have Revolution's N Gauge 'Cemflo'.

 

Anything made 70-odd years ago would struggle to compete with these in terms of accuracy and finish, especially RTR (was there any, immediately post-War?). 

 

I wonder what standards will be like near the end of this century. 

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, LNER4479 said:

I think we might all have to reverently doff our collective caps to that! 

 

I am sure that there are plenty of older 4mm locos around but I doubt whether there are many that are still run as often and are still clocking up the same miles that they did when they were built.

[Manxcat]

 

 

Tony,

Could I trouble you to say which prototype coach this model represents please? It looks superb. Thanks.

Archie

 

 

[MikeParkin65]

31 minutes ago, Manxcat said:

 

 

Tony,

Could I trouble you to say which prototype coach this model represents please? It looks superb. Thanks.

Archie

 

 

Currently less than £30 at Kernow……

 

[Tony Wright]

56 minutes ago, Manxcat said:

 

 

Tony,

Could I trouble you to say which prototype coach this model represents please? It looks superb. Thanks.

Archie

 

 

It's just a standard Hornby non-gangwayed Gresley Brake Third, Archie.

 

All I've done is to remove the ghastly couplings, fit a proper shackle and weather the roof, underframe, ends and bogies. 

 

That's all.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

[Tony Wright]

27 minutes ago, MikeParkin65 said:

Currently less than £30 at Kernow……

 

Remarkable!

 

Having built Comet equivalents, they're more expensive as kits (complete) and I can't make them as well as Hornby! 

 

It's the way it is these days......................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Barry Ten]

I've progressed my S&D passenger brake to the point where it's able to run in a train - here's a very short clip. Don't blink!

 

 

[Dunsignalling]

10 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Remarkable!

 

Having built Comet equivalents, they're more expensive as kits (complete) and I can't make them as well as Hornby! 

 

It's the way it is these days......................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

My interest in the best r-t-r coaches these days has begun to eclipse the locos, of which I confess to already having so many that quite a few seldom see the light of day. New locos have to be pretty special to really fire up my enthusiasm now. There are surprisingly few prototypes entirely outstanding from my personal wish-list, though there are several desired variants I will need to modify or build myself, unless "they" beat me to it.

 

I have recently stretched my modelling period two years earlier, into the summer of 1958, in order to accommodate an air-smoothed MN, Hornby's 35029, and some of their superb rebuilt LSWR coaches. It also means I no longer have to make excuses for Maunsell and Bulleid stock in crimson and cream livery!

 

Beyond "working up" my r-t-r purchases, "real" modelling for me nowadays is almost exclusively wagons and NPCS. They, fortunately, have always been my primary fascination, but even there, Hornby can beat me when they really try. 

 

John

Edited May 22, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Tony Wright]

These latest Mk.1 O Gauge cars from Lionheart/Dapol are rather 'tasty'.

 

 

However, shouldn't there be an internal handrail on the corridor side of this SK?

 

 

They even feature internal lighting!

 

A full review will be appearing in BRM soon...............................

 

 

[cctransuk]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

These latest Mk.1 O Gauge cars from Lionheart/Dapol are rather 'tasty'.

 

 

However, shouldn't there be an internal handrail on the corridor side of this SK?

 

 

They even feature internal lighting!

 

I don't understand this current obsession with lighting on models; I can only assume that those demanding this feature on steam / early diesel era models never saw the prototype.

 

Mk. 1 coach lighting was very dim - hence the provision of individual reading lights; even with all of the latter switched on; (a very rare event); the illumination level never came anywhere near to the glare shown in the photo of the model.

 

As for headlamp illumination - it was invisible in daylight and only showed as a weak glimmer at night - most models nowadays have headlights as bright as the floodlight on the Lickey banker!

 

 

 

Modellers get all worked-up about the tiniest detail on the models themselves, and then insist on lighting that rivals that on an illuminated tram on Blackpool promenade!

 

John Isherwood.

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

I don't understand this current obsession with lighting on models; I can only assume that those demanding this feature on steam / early diesel era models never saw the prototype.

 

Mk. 1 coach lighting was very dim - hence the provision of individual reading lights; even with all of the latter switched on; (a very rare event); the illumination level never came anywhere near to the glare shown in the photo of the model.

 

As for headlamp illumination - it was invisible in daylight and only showed as a weak glimmer at night - most models nowadays have headlights as bright as the floodlight on the Lickey banker!

 

 

 

Modellers get all worked-up about the tiniest detail on the models themselves, and then insist on lighting that rivals that on an illuminated tram on Blackpool promenade!

 

John Isherwood.

Absolutely, John - and don't get me going about lights in signal boxes...

Edited May 22, 2021 by St Enodoc

[Chamby]

2 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

I don't understand this current obsession with lighting on models; I can only assume that those demanding this feature on steam / early diesel era models never saw the prototype.

 

Mk. 1 coach lighting was very dim - hence the provision of individual reading lights; even with all of the latter switched on; (a very rare event); the illumination level never came anywhere near to the glare shown in the photo of the model.

 

As for headlamp illumination - it was invisible in daylight and only showed as a weak glimmer at night - most models nowadays have headlights as bright as the floodlight on the Lickey banker!

 

 

 

Modellers get all worked-up about the tiniest detail on the models themselves, and then insist on lighting that rivals that on an illuminated tram on Blackpool promenade!

 

John Isherwood.

 

John, I have installed working lamps on three of my locomotives as I have been interested in developing this aspect of railway operation.  The DCC Concepts lamps are a good product in this regard, much closer to scale than some Springside products, for example.  With a bit of experimentation using resistors, the level of illumination can be set so that the illumination is unnoticeable in daylight but becomes visible in a dimmed or darkened room.  Using ‘daylight’ LED’s and a coating of yellow tinted varnish, I am happy with the effects that can be achieved but as to whether it is worthwhile, it’s very much a moot point, unless you regularly run your models in the dark...  which is why I haven’t fitted more.  I have also fitted working tail lamps to my guard vans and some coaching stock, again with 50,000 ohm resistance and these are very effective.  The following photo taken in a dimmed room (but the digital camera has compensated with the background exposure, so the lights show a little brighter than actual).

 

 

The posters you use to illustrate your point raise a couple of interesting points.  The illumination from the firebox in the second illustration is far more significant than the lamping, maybe that is why the RTR manufacturers are moving in this direction?  Also the effect of smoke, and reflected light is very prominent.  Given that glaring omission in our model world, the lighting issue is less significant in my view, if modelled sensitively.

 

The exception I would make relates to the modern railway scene and the use of high-intensity lighting on the prototype.  I had the joy of seeing Union of South Africa on a rail tour a few years back, on the long, straight section of line between Maidenhead and Reading.  The first thing you saw of her approaching in the distance was her high intensity lamp.  Arguably an essential detail item then, for modern preserved mainline steam.

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

Edited May 22, 2021 by Chamby
To clarify a point

[MJI]

Some advice please

 

I am currently building 9 carriages from plastic card and Triang chassis and roofs, the sides are glued to the floors and have a tilt in of about 2mm a side, 1950s Swindon style similar to late GWR but tilted in.

 

So an externally finished floor with partitions would not drop in.

 

I need to cut a large number of partitions but if not fitted would have gaps, so tempted to glue in partitions and use short drop in floors sitting on top of the two runners on the floor inside, between partitions.

 

This is OK for all but two corridor vehicles.

 

But then I could cut them 1mm shallower and mount on twin laminated 20 thou internal floors and glue it all in. Holes for bogie pivots and roof screws.

 

Will photo on next post.

[MJI]

[MJI]

[MJI]

Just noticed you can see the CPU water cooler for the PC, got it cheap from Maplins but not enough room to fit properly, been sitting on the top of the PC for a couple of years now.

 

Really hot summer someones home PC from work conked due to heat, mine low 50s.

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

I don't understand this current obsession with lighting on models; I can only assume that those demanding this feature on steam / early diesel era models never saw the prototype.

 

Mk. 1 coach lighting was very dim - hence the provision of individual reading lights; even with all of the latter switched on; (a very rare event); the illumination level never came anywhere near to the glare shown in the photo of the model.

 

As for headlamp illumination - it was invisible in daylight and only showed as a weak glimmer at night - most models nowadays have headlights as bright as the floodlight on the Lickey banker!

 

 

 

Modellers get all worked-up about the tiniest detail on the models themselves, and then insist on lighting that rivals that on an illuminated tram on Blackpool promenade!

 

John Isherwood.

If it's what the market demands..............

 

Though I'd never bother with internal lighting in rolling stock and buildings. I never bother with external lighting, either. 

 

The paintings are rather nice 'impressions', but I'm not sure which point you're trying to make by showing them to us. 

 

As for the 'glare' in my photograph, I calculated the exposure to be able to see the detail inside the compartments. Two more stops down, and it would have been a lot darker (and, more realistic?). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[cctransuk]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

The paintings are rather nice 'impressions', but I'm not sure which point you're trying to make by showing them to us.

 

Tony,

 

One reason that I used posters was that it seems virtually impossible to find steam era contempory photos of approaching trains at night - almost certainly because it would have been impossible to capture moving oil lamps at night with the then-available photographic equipment. The best that you could hope for would be a time-exposed streak of light - unless you went to the lengths that Ansel Adams did in the USA!

 

 

 

 

On the other hand, BR poster paintings - many of which were the work of Terence Cuneo - are meticulously observed reproductions of what the artist saw from the lineside. The relative insignificance of the loco oil lamp illumination at night is exactly how I recall my own night time observations of passing trains.

 

CJI.

Edited May 22, 2021 by cctransuk

[MJI]

Will cut out of 20 thou, will draw up the corridor first and corridor buffet corridor sides as well. Note that laminating means the inside angle is more acute than outside.