Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

On the advice of PMP, I'm trying a slightly different approach to selling the remaining locos from the recent collection. He's taken three to put on Ebay.................

 

So here goes.............

 

 

 

 

Class D20, built from a DJH kit.

 

I'm asking £200.00 for this.

 

Another next..................

 

 

[Tony Wright]

 

 

 

Class A6. Built by Ron Goult from his own Little Engines kit, I'm asking £220.00 for this.

[Tony Wright]

 

 

 

Again, built by Ron Goult from his own Little Engines kit, I'm asking £275.00 for this A8. 

Edited July 15, 2021 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Tony Wright]

 

 

 

And finally a T1, again a Ron Goult build. I'm asking £220.00 for this. 

 

Anyone interested in the above, please PM me. 

[thegreenhowards]

5 hours ago, robertcwp said:

The HoM certainly looks the part. The one on Retford still needs an RSO. I did look at using my existing SPM one with etched sides but it looked out of place compared to Bachmann Mark 1s. I have some etched sides but they are rather basic. The train on Retford has a Thompson kitchen car but I think that was quite possible by 1957. The formation had undergone some changes by then, including the appearance of BSOs, which the representation on Retford does now have (Hornby ones). This clip was from prior to the Gresley open second being replaced by a Mark 1:

 

https://youtu.be/bS97LvmlLhg

 

I have used lots of Hunt couplings on Retford in place of those awful Bachmann pipe couplings and they work well most of the time. One or two have come out of the NEM boxes and a magnet came out at least once. If the train jerks suddenly they have a tendency to part but overall I think they have been OK so far. It makes it much easier to take a carriage out for attention or move stock around.

Thanks Robert,

 

My SP etched sides don’t match the Bachmann/ Hornbys perfectly, but I think they’re good enough. A bit of variation is prototypical isn’t it? I think Thompson kitchen cars did work the train from time to time. I seem to remember there’s a picture of one in the early fifties in the Banks and Carter book. Sometime in 1957 it change from a full kitchen car to a Thompson RF. nice video. I’m doing videos of all the trains for the article but I can’t show them on here yet.

 

I do find that some Hunt couplings slip out of the NEM pockets and as you say the magnets come out of the 3D printed bit. but that normally happens straightaway and can be fixed with a dab of cyano. Despite having checked it all at those before I left, I had two problems yesterday:

- some magnets came apart when the train jerked - I think this was exacerbated by the tendency for DCC locos to start suddenly when used on DC; and

- a couple pulled out of their NEM pockets. I think this was caused by the warm weather making the 3D printed resin go soft. I could have sorted it with some cyano…if I’d remembered to take it!

 

Andy

 

 

[robertcwp]

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

Thanks Robert,

 

My SP etched sides don’t match the Bachmann/ Hornbys perfectly, but I think they’re good enough. A bit of variation is prototypical isn’t it? I think Thompson kitchen cars did work the train from time to time. I seem to remember there’s a picture of one in the early fifties in the Banks and Carter book. Sometime in 1957 it change from a full kitchen car to a Thompson RF. nice video. I’m doing videos of all the trains for the article but I can’t show them on here yet.

 

I do find that some Hunt couplings slip out of the NEM pockets and as you say the magnets come out of the 3D printed bit. but that normally happens straightaway and can be fixed with a dab of cyano. Despite having checked it all at those before I left, I had two problems yesterday:

- some magnets came apart when the train jerked - I think this was exacerbated by the tendency for DCC locos to start suddenly when used on DC; and

- a couple pulled out of their NEM pockets. I think this was caused by the warm weather making the 3D printed resin go soft. I could have sorted it with some cyano…if I’d remembered to take it!

 

Andy

 

 

HoM changed with the winter 1957-8 timetable - photos from summer 1957 show it still with an RK (a Mark 1). 

 

Part of the issue with my SPM RSO is that the maroon livery is not a good match in shade or lining style for the maroon RK it would be next to. Hence, it was a reject and has returned to my domestic fleet.

 

Black tack helps keep the Hunt couplings in place but still allows removal if necessary. 

 

I found the magnets were not strong enough to use on Bachmann stock at the head of a train which included five or six heavy, kit-built carriages further back, so I reverted to the pipe couplings in that case.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

Thanks Robert,

 

My SP etched sides don’t match the Bachmann/ Hornbys perfectly, but I think they’re good enough. A bit of variation is prototypical isn’t it? I think Thompson kitchen cars did work the train from time to time. I seem to remember there’s a picture of one in the early fifties in the Banks and Carter book. Sometime in 1957 it change from a full kitchen car to a Thompson RF. nice video. I’m doing videos of all the trains for the article but I can’t show them on here yet.

 

I do find that some Hunt couplings slip out of the NEM pockets and as you say the magnets come out of the 3D printed bit. but that normally happens straightaway and can be fixed with a dab of cyano. Despite having checked it all at those before I left, I had two problems yesterday:

- some magnets came apart when the train jerked - I think this was exacerbated by the tendency for DCC locos to start suddenly when used on DC; and

- a couple pulled out of their NEM pockets. I think this was caused by the warm weather making the 3D printed resin go soft. I could have sorted it with some cyano…if I’d remembered to take it!

 

Andy

 

 

Good evening Andy,

 

You only had to ask about the cyano. There's a bottle underneath the layout.

 

I have to say, I found your mixture of couplings really frustrating. Those magnetic ones seemed a bit feeble if they're towards the front of a heavy train and how on earth can you tolerate tension-locks still? I had to squirm to the 'far side' to couple up a pair which had separated - on the straight!

 

All good fun, though.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[thegreenhowards]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Andy,

 

You only had to ask about the cyano. There's a bottle underneath the layout.

 

I have to say, I found your mixture of couplings really frustrating. Those magnetic ones seemed a bit feeble if they're towards the front of a heavy train and how on earth can you tolerate tension-locks still? I had to squirm to the 'far side' to couple up a pair which had separated - on the straight!

 

All good fun, though.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Good evening Tony,

 

I accept your points. I was in the process of gradually replacing all the tension locks with the magnetic couplings. They have worked well at home after a few teething problems. I love the speed of coupling and the fact that they can be used either way round. But after yesterday’s poor performance I’m having second thoughts! 
 

Your hook and goalpost couplings work well on fixed rakes and I use them on one or two of my rakes such as the Lizzie. But they don’t allow the coach to be turned round when I’m forming up different trains. So they don’t work for me in most situations. It looks like I’m back to the drawing board in terms of finding a suitable coupling. I will do some more testing with the magnets.

 

Andy

 

 

[thegreenhowards]

3 hours ago, robertcwp said:

HoM changed with the winter 1957-8 timetable - photos from summer 1957 show it still with an RK (a Mark 1). 

 

Part of the issue with my SPM RSO is that the maroon livery is not a good match in shade or lining style for the maroon RK it would be next to. Hence, it was a reject and has returned to my domestic fleet.

 

Black tack helps keep the Hunt couplings in place but still allows removal if necessary. 

 

I found the magnets were not strong enough to use on Bachmann stock at the head of a train which included five or six heavy, kit-built carriages further back, so I reverted to the pipe couplings in that case.

Thanks. The black tac is an idea worth trying.

 

I think my main problem with the magnets is when I turn a coach round and have two corridor connectors together. This can push the magnets apart on a curve. But I’ve got to do some more testing after yesterday’s problems.

 

At home they’re strong enough for my HOM rake which is 14 coaches including two with brass sides or, for instance, my 1735 KX-NCL/ Saltburn which load to 12 coaches including a metal triplet.

 

Andy

 

 

[robertcwp]

1 minute ago, thegreenhowards said:

Good evening Tony,

 

I accept your points. I was in the process of gradually replacing all the tension locks with the magnetic couplings. They have worked well at home after a few teething problems. I love the speed of coupling and the fact that they can be used either way round. But after yesterday’s poor performance I’m having second thoughts! 
 

Your hook and goalpost couplings work well on fixed rakes and I use them on one or two of my rakes such as the Lizzie. But they don’t allow the coach to be turned round when I’m forming up different trains. So they don’t work for me in most situations. It looks like I’m back to the drawing board in terms of finding a suitable coupling. I will do some more testing with the magnets.

 

Andy

 

 

On Retford, I have found that a small number of the magnets seem to be weaker than most and thus more prone to separation. I have replaced those with others and it seemed to deal with the issue. There are several long sets of predominantly Bachmann Mark 1 stock on Retford that have the Hunt couplings and they don't seem to be too much of a problem. I intensely dislike using the Bachmann pipe couplings as it makes it very difficult to separate and join stock, such as when it's necessary to remove a carriage for inspection or some form of alteration.  There are even a few tension locks on Retford now as the 5.00 pm Manchester London Road-Cleethorpes set (Hornby Mark 1s) has them and there is a pair of Hornby Mark 1s on the GN side with them - this was a temporary measure and as they haven't caused problems, they have been left as they are.

 

On my own layout, I generally use small tension locks within sets. Going back 20 years, i began removing the Bachmann coupling arms as they are too floppy with tension locks and fixing couplings to the bogies. It seems to work fine, sets will shunt well and it gives flexibility in altering formations and in coupling to other types. I use the Hornby Roco-style couplings within fixed sets of Hornby stock such as Maunsell and Bulleid and have also used them on Hornby non-gangwayed stock. Other stock generally retains t/l within set but Hornby ones are replaced with shorter Bachmann ones. Ends of rakes use Sprat & Winkle, a standard I adopted 25 years ago and there is no going back now. The one train on my own layout that uses Hunt couplings is my Freightliner set, which is really handy as I need to take the last flat off to raise the lift-up section. 

 

If I were starting now, I might well have used Hunt couplings more extensively.

[robertcwp]

Just now, thegreenhowards said:

Thanks. The black tac is an idea worth trying.

 

I think my main problem with the magnets is when I turn a coach round and have two corridor connectors together. This can push the magnets apart on a curve. But I’ve got to do some more testing after yesterday’s problems.

 

At home they’re strong enough for my HOM rake which is 14 coaches including two with brass sides or, for instance, my 1735 KX-NCL/ Saltburn which load to 12 coaches including a metal triplet.

 

Andy

 

 

My system with the card corridor connectors is to have them on one end of a carriage, with a blanking plate of 0.25mm plasticard on the other end. I don't glue things on - rather I glue a piece of I section plastic rod to the back and attach to the gangway door with black tack. That way, if you turn a carriage round, you can swap the gangways in seconds. I have deployed this system extensively on the stock on Retford as daylight between gangways is one of my pet hates, especially when you can see it from 40' away.

[thegreenhowards]

18 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

My system with the card corridor connectors is to have them on one end of a carriage, with a blanking plate of 0.25mm plasticard on the other end. I don't glue things on - rather I glue a piece of I section plastic rod to the back and attach to the gangway door with black tack. That way, if you turn a carriage round, you can swap the gangways in seconds. I have deployed this system extensively on the stock on Retford as daylight between gangways is one of my pet hates, especially when you can see it from 40' away.

That’s a really good idea. Shame I’ve already glued all mine on!

[thegreenhowards]

23 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

On Retford, I have found that a small number of the magnets seem to be weaker than most and thus more prone to separation. I have replaced those with others and it seemed to deal with the issue. There are several long sets of predominantly Bachmann Mark 1 stock on Retford that have the Hunt couplings and they don't seem to be too much of a problem. I intensely dislike using the Bachmann pipe couplings as it makes it very difficult to separate and join stock, such as when it's necessary to remove a carriage for inspection or some form of alteration.  There are even a few tension locks on Retford now as the 5.00 pm Manchester London Road-Cleethorpes set (Hornby Mark 1s) has them and there is a pair of Hornby Mark 1s on the GN side with them - this was a temporary measure and as they haven't caused problems, they have been left as they are.

 

On my own layout, I generally use small tension locks within sets. Going back 20 years, i began removing the Bachmann coupling arms as they are too floppy with tension locks and fixing couplings to the bogies. It seems to work fine, sets will shunt well and it gives flexibility in altering formations and in coupling to other types. I use the Hornby Roco-style couplings within fixed sets of Hornby stock such as Maunsell and Bulleid and have also used them on Hornby non-gangwayed stock. Other stock generally retains t/l within set but Hornby ones are replaced with shorter Bachmann ones. Ends of rakes use Sprat & Winkle, a standard I adopted 25 years ago and there is no going back now. The one train on my own layout that uses Hunt couplings is my Freightliner set, which is really handy as I need to take the last flat off to raise the lift-up section. 

 

If I were starting now, I might well have used Hunt couplings more extensively.

I also like the Hornby / Roco couplings in fixed sets of stock with NEM pockets - both coaches and fitted goods vans like my blue spot fish.

[Chamby]

A vote for Kadee’s:  they also allow you to simply lift coaching stock in and out of rakes. 

 

I find that the Hornby/Roco one’s are best for complete rakes that need to be pushed as part of their operating cycle... they have no ‘slack’ to take up when being propelled around curves, so retain better alignment.

[Tony Wright]

So far, not one expression of interest in the four NE locos I put on the thread yesterday (early days, yet?).

 

The prices asked are very much in line with what I've managed to get for individual items in the collection so far. 

 

I ask myself the questions, then...... Am I asking too much for these four (even though there is parity with what's already gone)? And, if so, why? The NE stuff seems to be much more difficult to sell (other than the two B16s and the J27, which went very quickly). The J27 (despite there now being an RTR option) was really special, of course, having been built from a Bradwell kit, and there is no RTR B16 of any kind. The latter said, there is no RTR A6, A8, D20 or T1 either. 

 

There isn't a great deal left now (which suggests that my pricing policy was right, or even low?), but these are very nice locos, three of which have Portescaps. I'll leave it a little while, but if anyone would like to make a lower offer in the meantime, please do. 

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Good evening Tony,

 

I accept your points. I was in the process of gradually replacing all the tension locks with the magnetic couplings. They have worked well at home after a few teething problems. I love the speed of coupling and the fact that they can be used either way round. But after yesterday’s poor performance I’m having second thoughts! 
 

Your hook and goalpost couplings work well on fixed rakes and I use them on one or two of my rakes such as the Lizzie. But they don’t allow the coach to be turned round when I’m forming up different trains. So they don’t work for me in most situations. It looks like I’m back to the drawing board in terms of finding a suitable coupling. I will do some more testing with the magnets.

 

Andy

 

 

Good morning Andy,

 

I take your points, but to me it illustrates the 'folly' of trying to represent all the trains in the actual WTT by using individual carriages/vehicles more than once. By doing so, mixing and matching, turning things round and actually handling stock too much, the final running of a train is compromised, especially because of a mixture of weird and wonderful couplings. 

 

I do not tolerate trains separating on LB, and my coupling system allows vehicles to be both pulled and pushed, at high speed if necessary. Handling of stock is minimised (reducing the chance of accidental damage) and any vehicle will couple to any other (but, only one way round, of course).

 

To really represent the full WTT on the ECML in the summer of 1958 I'd have to build a fiddle yard at least five times bigger than the one I've got (100+ roads, with two trains in many), increase the number of carriages/wagons/vans by at least the same factor, hope to live long enough to build them (I do have enough locos) and earn a great deal more money to fund it all. 

 

In a word; impossible! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Dunsignalling]

Mention of the Hornby/Roco couplers within sets prompted me to wonder if any of you has adopted the tweak I use. I remove the uncoupling loops and install them in the CCUs upside down.

 

I found the normal configuration rather obtrusive in that it filled so much of the space between the coaches near to track level. My way looks much less obvious IMHO.

 

John  

[St Enodoc]

29 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

So far, not one expression of interest in the four NE locos I put on the thread yesterday (early days, yet?).

 

The prices asked are very much in line with what I've managed to get for individual items in the collection so far. 

 

I ask myself the questions, then...... Am I asking too much for these four (even though there is parity with what's already gone)? And, if so, why? The NE stuff seems to be much more difficult to sell (other than the two B16s and the J27, which went very quickly). The J27 (despite there now being an RTR option) was really special, of course, having been built from a Bradwell kit, and there is no RTR B16 of any kind. The latter said, there is no RTR A6, A8, D20 or T1 either. 

 

There isn't a great deal left now (which suggests that my pricing policy was right, or even low?), but these are very nice locos, three of which have Portescaps. I'll leave it a little while, but if anyone would like to make a lower offer in the meantime, please do. 

I was intrigued by this so I thought I'd have a look.

 

I can't find them using obvious searches, such as LNER loco, model locomotive, etc.

 

Also, if they're in an auction rather than Buy It Now you might not see any action until the very last minute (literally).

 

What are they actually listed as?

 

Thanks.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

I was intrigued by this so I thought I'd have a look.

 

I can't find them using obvious searches, such as LNER loco, model locomotive, etc.

 

Also, if they're in an auction rather than Buy It Now you might not see any action until the very last minute (literally).

 

What are they actually listed as?

 

Thanks.

Good morning John,

 

Those illustrated are only on my thread. PMP has taken three more to put on eBay. 

 

Anyway, two have now been sold - the A6 and the D20. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Just to put folk in the picture with regard to the recent sales...........

 

I'm sending a cheque to the widow this morning for almost £5,000.00 (not quite five grand because of 10% to CRUK). There are still a few more items to be sold, so I hope she'll be happy. 

 

With 10% from sales for Robert Carroll (the cheque's in the post, Robert), there's a substantial amount going to CRUK this morning as well. My chequebook is much lighter! 

[Tony Wright]

The T1 has also gone as well!

 

Just the A8 now.........................

[St Enodoc]

29 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

The T1 has also gone as well!

 

Just the A8 now.........................

Still can't find it! Anyway, if you've got buyers at the price you want then that's the main thing.

[PMP]

9 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Still can't find it! Anyway, if you've got buyers at the price you want then that's the main thing.

 

[Jesse Sim]

On 15/07/2021 at 17:20, Craigw said:

I arrived home this afternoon to find a parcel, a rather substantial one, from "Tony  Wright" had arrived. This was the result of a rush of blood with the publication of the kit list.

 

It arrived (In Australia) about 2 weeks after postage. The parcel was very securely packed and the postage cost was not inconsiderable. Tony had done all the packing, post office paperwork and paid for the postage and then advised me of the total. One parcel is painful enough to do but consider the number that have passed through his PO lately. Between checking kits, corresponding, fixing models, packing and collecting payments, Tony has been doing a massive amount of work and it is obvious that the novelty of this is wearing off.

Tony, I can do no more than offer my profuse thanks for the  generosity, courtesy and kindness you have displayed to me and many others.

 

Thank you.

 

Regards,

 

Craig W

That’s odd Craig, where about a in Oz are you?

 

Tony sent me a parcel near on three weeks ago and it’s not scheduled for another week…… 

[St Enodoc]

5 minutes ago, PMP said:

 

Paul, I think we're at cross purposes. I was trying to find the listings on eBay.