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

I've just been asked a question by Jesse, from Australia. 

 

For the sake of all, I'd like to clarify my answer here. He'd like to repaint a damaged Hornby A2/2 into wartime black and asked (more or less) how authentic that might be. My answer, which appears to have ruined his day, was 'not authentic at all'. 

 

Hornby's A2/2s represent (respectively) how four of the class might have looked in the early-'50s and how one of the class looked in 1959. That is, as refurbished with Peppercorn boilers or a Thompson boiler. Thus, none is suitable for painting into LNER unlined black. 

 

Had Hornby made models of (what became) 60503 and 60504, then, with minor alterations, any of the class could be represented in LNER black, LNER green or BR green (up to the early-'50s in the case of 60501/2/5/6). Some commentators think that's what the firm should have done, but it takes into account none of the commonalities between the A2/2s and the A2/3s. 

 

I've seen so many A2/2 models where these differences have not been taken into account (mainly Millholme, which are rubbish at source, anyway - not the whole range of kits, just the A2/2 and A2/3 ones; see my picture of 60520 some pages back). 

 

So, by way of a visual explanation to clarify the differences..............

 

1663008440_6050404.jpg.27ff4ccfd3e2da8176cc13c0414f40e1.jpg

 

I built this example from a Crownline kit, and Ian Rathbone painted it.

 

60504 is 'representative' of all the class on rebuilding (other than it was painted black first). Please note longer smokebox, short central footplate section, boiler divided into four sections, slightly higher main handrail and full, 'V'-fronted cab. Without series alterations, this can not be done using the Hornby model. Why not?

 

1263296370_HornbyA226050206onlayout.jpg.c0fade37227f4279a35fa610291711f5.jpg

 

Because, please note, shorter smokebox, longer central footplate section, boiler divided into five sections, slightly lower main handrail and cut-back, partially 'V'-fronted cab (with the safety valves outside the roof). 

 

I modified this from a Hornby 60501. It featured recently in BRM. 

 

 

Edited by Tony Wright
to add something
  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Lemmy282 said:

I'm as guilty as the rest for having loads of kits. I think the term "KABLE" applies Kits Aquired Beyond Life Expectancy.

Good luck with hoping retirement will give you time to improve your skills! I packed in work nearly ten years ago, and I seem to be busier than ever, and still don't have time to build the kits. So along with others, some of mine will no doubt go on to new owners when I fall off my perch!

 

Nigel L

I don't doubt that once I retire I shall not have time for anything. It's something I hear often. Retirement might be only 4.5 years away.

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I agree entirely Tony,

 

Though I did build a BEC D11 some three years ago. It was given to me as a gift, and I thought the best way to thank the gift-giver was to build it. 

 

It's been seen before, but there are many newcomers to this thread.

 

624127304_BECD1103.jpg.da5650bf99db68bfec77eda2c4ee8fec.jpg

 

1232084915_BECD1162662.jpg.aa07bcff87a750cc5e5db2341ab1e82a.jpg

 

571736703_D1162662.jpg.b8d1613ba5b2575f1b7435c2f8810e4d.jpg

 

It's certainly open to 'criticism' (though not Geoff Haynes' painting). I doubt if the tender is the correct type, and it doesn't match the loco's ride height. 

 

What can be said in its defence? Very little, except it's 'mine' in a unique way. 

 

There are far better alternatives.

 

1185532146_D1162661.jpg.c7da08322d67e5ec2922aa2b18a76983.jpg

 

Including this one, made RTR by Bachmann. All I've done here is to detail/rename/renumber/weather it to produce exactly the condition the real loco was in when I saw it at Kiveton Park in 1958. I saw PRINCE OF WALES four years earlier, but this time at Chester Northgate. It was very clean.

 

Since D11s never ran on Little Bytham post-War, both are really surplus to my requirements.

 

1391680171_Retford2382001D11.jpg.7f598be00fc9da70fa463833e9a50c89.jpg

 

That being the case, friend, Ray Chessum, EM-d it for service on Retford (it's carrying the wrong code!!!!!), by the simple expedient of widening the gauge of the loco's drivers and the tender's wheels, substituting the bogie wheels as well. Ironically, it (and another Bachmann one re-gauged by Sandra) are Retford's only working D11s at present (the original one seems to have developed running problems, or had the last time I saw it). A pity, because it's a beautiful model, built by Roy, of course.

 

293905071_Retford12101929D11.jpg.48c5b808714bfce09506ce9a919b6a0f.jpg

 

Sandra might well have fixed it by now...........................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tony,

 

I have fixed it. The loco has the motor in the tender and it had been soldered to the tender chassis but it had become unsoldered. All I had to do was re-solder the motor in place.

 

I must admit having the motor in the tender is not an arrangement I’m keen on. The loco is rather noisy and the shaft driving the gearbox in the loco is apt to fall out if you need to pick the loco up. It is the very devil to get back in place. I believe this arrangement is widely used in N gauge but I think it is usually unnecessary in 4mm.

 

I regret to say that the Bachmann D11s do actually work better and are quieter than the kit built engine.

 

Sandra

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

21 minutes ago, sandra said:

Tony,

 

I have fixed it. The loco has the motor in the tender and it had been soldered to the tender chassis but it had become unsoldered. All I had to do was re-solder the motor in place.

 

I must admit having the motor in the tender is not an arrangement I’m keen on. The loco is rather noisy and the shaft driving the gearbox in the loco is apt to fall out if you need to pick the loco up. It is the very devil to get back in place. I believe this arrangement is widely used in N gauge but I think it is usually unnecessary in 4mm.

 

I regret to say that the Bachmann D11s do actually work better and are quieter than the kit built engine.

 

Sandra

Thanks for clarifying the point, Sandra.

 

It's my experience in more recent times that the majority of RTR locos work far better, more quietly, more smoothly and more sweetly than the majority of their kit-built equivalents. 

 

Needless to say, this isn't the case with the majority of Retford's locos, but those Hornby RTR ones I videoed a fortnight ago don't half run well. I know some might have been re-wheeled, but several haven't been. They pull well, too.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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

5 hours ago, Willie Whizz said:

In response to Andrew (Headstock’s) post a couple of days back; apologies for the delay – computer time and modelling time are both hard to come by for me at the moment.

 

Can you produce any evidence of the Hush Hush being referred to as being Battleship grey in the 1930's and what version?

 

No.  But I think we are getting at cross-purposes here.  What I have been trying to say is that IF “people” were referring at the time to the Hush Hush locomotive being ‘battleship grey’, then the colour they were making the analogy with is a dark-ish grey with which Royal Navy ships based in home waters had been painted since the early 20th Century.  And you and I both know that there was in reality no one single exact shade of that colour over time, for all the reasons that have been listed (many of which are common issues to railways too).  Yet there was no shortage of “colour evidence” for what the Public Mind might have been conditioned with, even without actual colour photography – book illustrations, paintings, postcards, cigarette card images, Naval Reviews allowing large numbers to see the ships in the flesh … all of which would indeed have shown subtly (or not so subtly) different shades … but all of which, if a non-specialist was describing a dark-ish grey painted ‘big something-or-other’, would be recognisable and understood to the layman’s eye by the term ‘battleship grey’.  Which, I’d entirely accept, is little use to a serious modeller many decades later ...

 

How many ships can you name that required 15 to twenty hits for it to be disabled or be sunk? Forgive me but It sounds like some silly computer game. My Great uncles Ship certainly wasn't sunk by that rule of thumb.

 

If you don’t believe me that was the inter-war broad expectation I was summarising, would you believe the Royal Navy itself?  Andrew Field’s book ‘Royal Navy Strategy in the Far East 1919-1939’ quotes PRO document ADM 186/78 ‘Number of Necessary, Non-Vital Hits and the Percentage of Damage Inflicted on Other Vessels by a 15-inch shell.’

 

Condensing a complex account, the RN’s assessment of likely damage was based on three types of hits by heavy shell.  The first, ‘Vital Hits’, were any hits likely to blow up the target; next were ‘Speed Hits’ which slowed a target down; and finally came ‘Non-Vital Hits’, the effects of which were cumulative and gradually reduced a ship’s ability to fight.  You may therefore, for example, assign the 1941 loss of Hood to just the first serious blow landed on her as a ‘Vital Hit’, and the complete disablement of Lion at the Battle of the Dogger Bank in 1915 to the accumulated effects of some 15 heavy but so-called 'Non-Vital' shell hits over time.

 

On this basis, and making some allowance for subsequent improvements in armour-piercing shell technology, the RN broadly expected its older battleships and battle cruisers to be sunk or effectively disabled by about  (emphasis on the 'about') 15 heavy hits (i.e. excluding those hitting nothing of importance, such as just clipping stowed boats etc.).  More modern battleships, including the recently-completed Nelson class, would take about 18 such hits. The US Navy employed a broadly similar assessment approach with broadly similar conclusions about its own and the Japanese Navy’s ships. 

 

One of the lessons from the limited evidence (major sea battles fought to a finish being actually quite rare events) is that timing of when and where any ship is hit during an action is crucial to how we regard the ship. Hood blew up in five minutes of action from the first serious hit, which found a critical vulnerability that had been known about by the Navy for many years but was never properly remedied (for a variety of reasons including the fact that though she was old she was still younger and more powerful than most of the rest of the Fleet so couldn’t be spared for modernisation). Lion on the other hand was finally crippled from damage to a feed-water pipe incurred by (IIRC) her tenth hit received (of fifteen) in a quite lengthy chase action, which even then took a further 15-20 minutes to actually stop the ship - and she was got home and was regarded as having stood-up well to her punishment.

 

It's not a question of a specific vulnerability in an Iowa class ship, one that would upset the gunnery and armour table fanatics. You have to except that any Battleship is vulnerable to being sunk. You also have to except that how a particular shell, or armour, or ships structure performs under a specific circumstance is not allowed for in armour and shell/gun penetration tables. 

 I do accept that, entirely.  A warships-related website I also frequent has recently had an extensive discussion on this very point.  But the impression you gave me in your earlier comments was that you had heard it said from a reputable source that New Jersey (USN Iowa class) would have been equally vulnerable to the very same shot which put paid to Hood in the very same circumstances.  I now understand that was not what you meant.

 

Good evening Willie,


thanks for the comprehensive reply,


Firstly, You can't prove that Home fleet dark grey was Widley recognised as the sire of the term Battleship grey. I'm quite happy to stand by by it being a generic term that existed before Home fleet Dark grey and after it. The majority of the population in the 1930's will have never even seen a Battleship. People were not so well travelled at the time and the picture quality on the wireless was terrible The first time my 2nd WW great uncle, who thought in the Indian Army, saw a Battleship, was HMS Warspite, he had to go all the way out to the far east, she wasn't Home fleet grey. MY Father recalled film (in BW with Flash Gordon if I remember correctly) of the Coronation fleet review prior to the War but it was far to expensive to travel to go see the fleet in colour. He did see a NER Z Atlantic though in generic steam loco green. The first and last Battleship that he saw, was after the War and out of service/in reserve along with a three funnel cruiser, I think he said the cruiser was Cumberland and the Battleship may have been Rodney or Nelson, neither would have been painted in Home fleet grey. I can't imagine he was shocked to find out that Battleship grey was not the colour he was 'conditioned' into thinking it was by pre war cigarette cards. I would also draw your attention to the fictitious green Hush Hush card. Now to be produced as an 'alternative history' model. My first WW Great Uncle didn't leave any notes on the shade of Battlecruiser grey.


ADM 186/78


As far as I'm aware, ADM 186/78 was a set of War game rules. As I have read bits, it's not a case of not believing you,  I except what you are saying, I have never attributed too much  real world value to ADM 186/78,  beyond how the Navy valued the defensive properties of its various capitol ships at the time, even if they were wrong. 


The RN had some funny ideas about the decisive range of Battle, obsessing over the number of hits rather than what the hits were doing. After Jutland, the RN had a rather schizophrenic relationship with armour, armament and plunging fire. possibly trying distract from how it's own ammunition handling had aided the Germans in sinking its own ships. The whole affair contributed to the 'closing to the decisive the range battle' mentality, were decks were less vulnerable to plunging fire and ironically plugging fire could not be used decisively against and enemy. My own thoughts are that Battleships were quite easy to mission kill or cripple with gunfire. However,  gunfire is not the most efficient way to sink ships.


Hood blew up in five minutes of action from the first serious hit, which found a critical vulnerability that had been known about by the Navy for many years.


What was the critical vulnerability that had been known about for years?. Don't pull out the deck armour thing again! Everybody, including two Admiralty boards pretty much dismissed the vulnerable of Hoods decks to Bismarck's shells at the range that she was hit and blew up. Nobody else has definitively found the critical vulnerability you mention. If She was so flawed it would be easy to pin down, I would be interested to hear what your thoughts are?. It has been theorized what may have happened, that theory usually involves a plausible explanation but one that could not have been foreseen in the design of the Ship. For example, the under water hit on P of  W, were an unexploded shell was found in the wing compartment close to the boiler room. If the fuse had not failed (which you would expect it to do under the circumstances) the resulting explosion of the shell would have broken her back and she probably would have been sunk, In the right local to a magazine, a similar hit, if the fuse survived, would have blown up Hood and would have also blown up Iowa.


One of the lessons from the limited evidence (major sea battles fought to a finish being actually quite rare events) is that timing of when and where any ship is hit during an action is crucial to how we regard the ship


Forgive me, I don't understand what this means. It seems to me that you only offering one real world example, HMS Lion, a ship that wasn't sunk and with not much to compare it against. I don't know how I would regard that ship, very nice?


But the impression you gave me in your earlier comments was that you had heard it said from a reputable source that New Jersey (USN Iowa class) would have been equally vulnerable to the very same shot which put paid to Hood in the very same circumstances.  I now understand that was not what you meant.


I said the opposite over and over, that you can't replicate the shot that killed hood because we don't know how it happened. I.e., Bismarck's guns could pierce Hoods 12'' main belt at any range and reach her magazine with every shot, no She couldn't. It was a golden BB, such a shot would also be required to kill New Jersey.* I genuinely look forwards to your explanation of how it happened.


I consider Battleship New Jersey museum and memorial a reputable source on Battleship New Jersey, they have one to look at.

 

* See the P of W shot above.

Edited by Headstock
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I've just been asked a question by Jesse, from Australia. 

 

For the sake of all, I'd like to clarify my answer here. He'd like to repaint a damaged Hornby A2/2 into wartime black and asked (more or less) how authentic that might be. My answer, which appears to have ruined his day, was 'not authentic at all'. 

 

Hornby's A2/2s represent (respectively) how four of the class might have looked in the early-'50s and how one of the class looked in 1959. That is, as refurbished with Peppercorn boilers or a Thompson boiler. Thus, none is suitable for painting into LNER unlined black. 

 

Had Hornby made models of (what became) 60503 and 60504, then, with minor alterations, any of the class could be represented in LNER black, LNER green or BR green (up to the early-'50s in the case of 60501/2/5/6). Some commentators think that's what the firm should have done, but it takes into account none of the commonalities between the A2/2s and the A2/3s. 

 

I've seen so many A2/2 models where these differences have not been taken into account (mainly Millholme, which are rubbish at source, anyway - not the whole range of kits, just the A2/2 and A2/3 ones; see my picture of 60520 some pages back). 

 

So, by way of a visual explanation to clarify the differences..............

 

1663008440_6050404.jpg.27ff4ccfd3e2da8176cc13c0414f40e1.jpg

 

I built this example from a Crownline kit, and Ian Rathbone painted it.

 

60504 is 'representative' of all the class on rebuilding (other than it was painted black first). Please note longer smokebox, short central footplate section, boiler divided into four sections, slightly higher main handrail and full, 'V'-fronted cab. Without series alterations, this can not be done using the Hornby model. Why not?

 

1263296370_HornbyA226050206onlayout.jpg.c0fade37227f4279a35fa610291711f5.jpg

 

Because, please note, shorter smokebox, longer central footplate section, boiler divided into five sections, slightly lower main handrail and cut-back, partially 'V'-fronted cab (with the safety valves outside the roof). 

 

I modified this from a Hornby 60501. It featured recently in BRM. 

 

 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

A flawed design, not enough armour above the centre cylinder.

 

But seriously, is it me or is the tender flat sided, should it not curve in at the cab end. I think you should chop off the streamlined fairing.

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The fun continues.

 

This is the stack of etched carriage and sides underframes and wagon kits that are in clearly marked packaging. The photo does not really convey the height of the Comet stack - probably about 3 or 4 inches. Also a solitary D&S kit:

51245637499_fd41ed00d9_c.jpgIMG_0983m by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

These are the boxes of miscellaneous etches, mostly unmarked, and mostly various carriage or wagon components, amongst other things including what looks like a very old kit for a short Gresley open third. Also some Bill Bedford etched bogie frame kits and other bits:

51244872586_141fbab468_c.jpgIMG_0984m by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 11/06/2021 at 00:21, Bulwell Hall said:

 

I couldn't agree more.  I visited there with my son in 2019 and we arrived not too long after it had opened for the day - and were asked to leave at the end of the day as they wanted to close up and go home!

 

Gerry

Also agree, we called in for the afternoon a couple of years back when on a Home Counties holiday break and then went back the following day instead of what had been the following day’s outing.

 

Re the Hood, slightly O.T but an earlier navy vessel carrying the same name was sunk here on Portland as a block ship across one of the breakwater entrances. A regular for divers until recently when corrosion has rendered it unsafe to dive on.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening Tony,

 

A flawed design, not enough armour above the centre cylinder.

 

But seriously, is it me or is the tender flat sided, should it not curve in at the cab end. I think you should chop off the streamlined fairing.

Good evening Andrew,

 

60502's tender sides do curve in a little at the front. And, yes, the fairing needs to go.......................

 

I've no wish to prolong the discussions about Hood's destruction. However, though her armour was 'improved' during her construction (making her heavier and even more of a 'wet' ship), I think it's accepted by most historians that the Navy knew about her potential vulnerability to heavy-calibre shells. Indeed, during the Denmark Strait action, Holland wished to close the range as quickly as possible to mitigate this (thus halving Hood's firepower). I think I'd agree it was probably a shot in a million which caused her to blow up. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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

39 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

The fun continues.

 

This is the stack of etched carriage and sides underframes and wagon kits that are in clearly marked packaging. The photo does not really convey the height of the Comet stack - probably about 3 or 4 inches. Also a solitary D&S kit:

51245637499_fd41ed00d9_c.jpgIMG_0983m by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

These are the boxes of miscellaneous etches, mostly unmarked, and mostly various carriage or wagon components, amongst other things including what looks like a very old kit for a short Gresley open third. Also some Bill Bedford etched bogie frame kits and other bits:

51244872586_141fbab468_c.jpgIMG_0984m by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

Thanks for showing us these Robert,

 

Are some of them coming my way?

 

The short Gresley TO is indeed an old kit (as the box states, made by RoCoM - not to be confused with Rocar).

 

544164124_ROCOMTO.jpg.d0046a03361d8f3dc572050d860dc114.jpg

 

I built one years ago (not a bad kit, but no provisions made for door bumps or hinges). The firm also produced a short BTK of the same style.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 11/06/2021 at 11:26, Northmoor said:

Since Hood was sunk by "plunging" shells, was it only a matter of time before the weakness would have been found out in the way other battleships were, usurped by air power? 

Were the Navy (in fact most Navies of the world) too slow to accept that control of the skies meant control of the seas as well? 

The Luftwaffe sank plenty of ships on the Russian convoy routes; if they had found Hood and Prince of Wales, no doubt they would have been able to inflict some serious damage.  It was of course air power that sank the PoW in the Japanese theatre.

Interesting that here on Portland we have the remains of the High Angle battery, a mid-Victorian build that fired shells up into the air, at a “high angle” to drop the shell on the ship. If you think of a Stuka dive bomber the high angle was the British land based equivalent. OH yes and the HAB does have a railway connection - surviving tracks to feed the shells. My notes and a site sketch are here.

  • Informative/Useful 3
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

The fun continues.

 

This is the stack of etched carriage and sides underframes and wagon kits that are in clearly marked packaging. The photo does not really convey the height of the Comet stack - probably about 3 or 4 inches. Also a solitary D&S kit:

51245637499_fd41ed00d9_c.jpgIMG_0983m by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

These are the boxes of miscellaneous etches, mostly unmarked, and mostly various carriage or wagon components, amongst other things including what looks like a very old kit for a short Gresley open third. Also some Bill Bedford etched bogie frame kits and other bits:

51244872586_141fbab468_c.jpgIMG_0984m by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

Crikey - fun indeed.

 

Those BB LMS Period II sides immediately catch the eye. D.1707 Semi-First Open?

 

Form an orderly queue for the Jidenco wagon kits ...

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks for showing us these Robert,

 

Are some of them coming my way?

 

The short Gresley TO is indeed an old kit (as the box states, made by RoCoM - not to be confused with Rocar).

 

544164124_ROCOMTO.jpg.d0046a03361d8f3dc572050d860dc114.jpg

 

I built one years ago (not a bad kit, but no provisions made for door bumps or hinges). The firm also produced a short BTK of the same style.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Thanks, some might come your way eventually. 

 

I was thinking of having a short Gresley open second in maroon for my own layout and was wondering how best to do it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Crikey - fun indeed.

 

Those BB LMS Period II sides immediately catch the eye. D.1707 Semi-First Open?

 

Form an orderly queue for the Jidenco wagon kits ...

There is a wide assortment of LMS carriage sides from all three main periods. Some types are now covered by very good RTR, eg the porthole stock, but there are lots of others. I found sides and underframes for LMS articulated stock and for two-window stock amongst other things, but not much in the way of catering vehicles. The sides etc are now stored until other things are literally out of the way, such as the five boxes of loco kits and bits and most if not all of the RTR stuff, which is in 20+ boxes around my house. 

 

I have spend most of this evening sorting out carriages. I have found that boxes and contents don't match for some of them and also that a few are defective in some way, mostly windows fallen out of Bachmann Mark 1s.

 

I'm not expecting Jidenco to sell, but if anyone want's a Jidenco Crab, I found one.

 

In amongst the MJT sides was a pair for a Gresley restaurant first, which might find their way to Retford, which has only one of the type at the moment and two rather ancient Thompson ones which are conversions of old Tri-ang Mark 1 stock it seems and that are in need of replacement.

Edited by robertcwp
Clarify a point.
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 12/06/2021 at 08:00, robertcwp said:

 

Tony has already published a list of what I have passed to him.

 

As for the remainder, yes, once I have listed it all out. That won't be for a while because I have lots of RTR stock to shift one way or another first. Lots of that, principally the old Mainline, Dapol, Lima, etc stock, has not been listed out yet and is currently parked in the loft out of the way. Even for the newer things, the list is very long. Most will probably be sold in bulk to dealers.

 

I'm not sure what to do with all the plastic wagon kits. I have a very large box full of Parkside ones of various vintages and several smaller boxes with Red Panda, Chivers, Slaters, Ratio and possibly other makes. 

 

Then there is the stack of etched carriage sides and loco parts such as frames.

 

There are also boxes full of RTR loco bodies, most of which seem to be of older, now superseded, models, and probably not of much use.

Anything maybe of use to somebody.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, robertcwp said:

Thanks, some might come your way eventually. 

 

I was thinking of having a short Gresley open second in maroon for my own layout and was wondering how best to do it. 

I'd build the RoCoM kit, Robert.

 

Or, how about Brian? He'd find it a doddle.

 

I have to say, what an extraordinarily eclectic mix of kits. Three DJH 'River' kits? I've sold one, still got one here and you've found another. 

 

I've only ever seen one made-up and running on a layout (other than the one I built years ago for a late friend, a picture of which appeared in the early days of BRM). 

 

1803044396_Eaglesham06.jpg.0f3244aacce7bb67b0aea29012bd2f98.jpg

 

Running on Eaglesham (it appeared in the RM a little while ago). 

 

I remember a 'River' (years before DJH) running on Gavin Wilson's stud-contact Highland Railway layout. 

 

Has anyone else made one? 

 

Three DJH 'Rivers' and two DJH 2-10-0 'Austerities' (one now sold)? The time period to be depicted must have been very flexible...................

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
21 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

We will indeed!

 

It poses the question, at least to me, just how many collections of un-built kits and untouched RTR there might be out there. Hundreds? Thousands?

 

Is there a type who just collects kits, but never builds them? I know there are collectors who won't breach the packaging of their RTR items; to do so would devalue them, apparently (I don't 'get' that at all). Just collecting kits seems very different to me. 

 

In my own case, though I suppose I 'collect' kits in a way, I then build them. During the lockdowns, my 'strategic reserve' was heavily eaten into, and I've had to replenish it (20 loco kits didn't last long!). 

 

There's also the type who just 'collects' models built for him/her. Such a person, either through lack of skill or time, cannot build for themselves, so they commission such items. More often than not, these models never run because their home is exclusively a glass cabinet (which seems a shame to me). I have to collect a collection of such (locomotive) models on behalf of a widow. Though 'professionally-built/-painted' for her late husband, I have no idea how these run. In my experience, many don't run very well, though they look pretty. I'll be checking these out and posting pictures soon. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Where plastic kits (mainly of wagons) are concerned, I generally stock up when they are first released. The moulds are never going to get cleaner or crisper with age*. My to-do stash therefore fills most of a 35-litre Really Useful Box.

 

* That view has been reinforced several times by the travails of getting a few obsolete ones obtained at exhibitions and swapmeets to go together square!   

 

John

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

  • RMweb Gold
21 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

We will indeed!

 

It poses the question, at least to me, just how many collections of un-built kits and untouched RTR there might be out there. Hundreds? Thousands?

 

Is there a type who just collects kits, but never builds them? I know there are collectors who won't breach the packaging of their RTR items; to do so would devalue them, apparently (I don't 'get' that at all). Just collecting kits seems very different to me. 

 

In my own case, though I suppose I 'collect' kits in a way, I then build them. During the lockdowns, my 'strategic reserve' was heavily eaten into, and I've had to replenish it (20 loco kits didn't last long!). 

 

There's also the type who just 'collects' models built for him/her. Such a person, either through lack of skill or time, cannot build for themselves, so they commission such items. More often than not, these models never run because their home is exclusively a glass cabinet (which seems a shame to me). I have to collect a collection of such (locomotive) models on behalf of a widow. Though 'professionally-built/-painted' for her late husband, I have no idea how these run. In my experience, many don't run very well, though they look pretty. I'll be checking these out and posting pictures soon. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Post "took" twice!

Edited by Dunsignalling
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, john new said:

Anything maybe of use to somebody.

Indeed, but the problem is fitting in how to find that somebody and get things to them when I have an almost full time job to do and lots of other things going on. 

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

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

Three DJH 'Rivers' and two DJH 2-10-0 'Austerities' (one now sold)? The time period to be depicted must have been very flexible...................

 

And some 1980s Inter-City livery Mark 1 stock and blue/grey and a Network SouthEast DMU.

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...