Wright writes.....

[Dunsignalling]

Whatever the motive of the original commissioners of hand-built locos, the fact that OO examples sell easier and for higher prices than EM / P4 suggests that subsequent owners at least intend to use them.

 

As for duff build quality/running/both, if it hadn't been noticed when they were first built, they were clearly bought for a layout that didn't yet exist so the position wasn't that much different.

 

I once bought a SR Z Class tank in OO built from a Millholme kit; not badly executed (apart from the Olive green paint) but it had a high revving motor with insufficient gear reduction. The chassis was dead square but lacked side-play and wouldn't look at any curve under about 5' radius. Wholly inappropriate for a shunting loco on all counts!

 

I stripped one side off the chassis, replaced the drive train with a big Mashima, flywheel, and Branchlines gearbox, and transferred half-a-dozen surplus washers to a 35mm film tub labelled "washers". Upon reassembly, it worked beautifully and twenty-odd years on, still does. The thing is, though, that the original product was unusable, but it wasn't badly built. It just wouldn't go round corners or run smoothly below a scale 30mph through a poor choice of the parts that didn't come in the kit.

 

I doubt its builder knew enough to work out what he'd done wrong. Had he built it in the first place, he certainly had the ability to go back and sort it out. That makes me wonder if he'd got the chassis built by an alleged "professional" and just assembled the body himself. It would be a shame if the result put him off making his own locos for life....

 

John

Edited July 23, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[nerron]

35 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

Is the Q6 a Chivers, or the NuCast kit?

Or perhaps from a Dave Alexander kit.

[jwealleans]

Quote

The chassis was dead square but lacked side-play and wouldn't look at any curve

 

I've had a couple of second hand locos like that.   A Q1 which would only go in a straight line because the builder had used the kit loco-tender coupling, which had made the whole thing rigid.   Replace with a hook and goalpost and she trundles round Grantham quite happily.  I also had a J6 with no sideplay at al in the (cast whitemetal) chassis.   Shame as it ran beautifully on straight track.    New set of frames from Branchlines and it's all set to appear the next time Grantham goes out.

Edited July 23, 2021 by jwealleans

[Pebbles]

4 minutes ago, nerron said:

Or perhaps from a Dave Alexander kit.

Nu-Cast Q5/6 hybrid. 

[Woodcock29]

5 minutes ago, Pebbles said:

Nu-Cast Q5/6 hybrid. 

Agree. You can tell its NuCast by the crossheads that lack any form of detail. I built one in the early 80s which I still have but I never run it now. So as Pebbles indicates its undersize for a Q6.

Andrew

[queensquare]

47 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I have been asked a few times about the monetary value attached to Buckingham and its associated locos and stock.

 

I always duck the question. In terms of accuracy in construction and livery, the locos were often based on a photo and are nowhere near 100% accurate. They are EM, which reduces the potential market and they have coarse wheel standards which mean that they won't run on modern chaired track. So the locos, stock and layout really need to stay together and the number of people who have the desire, the space and the skill to keep the layout running must by tiny.

 

As I find myself unable to put a price on it all, I always answer that they are "priceless" in the true sense of the word. They have no intrinsic value, just being bits of wood, metal etc. Their worth is purely in the pleasure they have given me and others over many decades and no price can be put on that.

 

Couldn't agree more Tony. All this talk of monetary value makes me a little uncomfortable. Ive built lots of locos for lots of people and by far most expensive part of the price is my time, if and when those locos are sold on I wouldn't expect them to fetch much more than their component parts - why should they, my time was paid for by the original commissioner, why should somebody buying a second hand loco pay for it again?

 

I don't sign my locos. Probably the best loco builder I know (and I'm privileged to know many), John Greenwood, doesn't sign his. I have a couple of the late Denys Brownlee's locos in my care, they aren't signed either.

 

Whilst I'm on a roll I'm also uncomfortable with some of the language used in this debate. The assertion that either the builder or commissioner were ignorant because of inaccuracies in a loco is unfair. I've built many locos which are knowingly  inaccurate - both parties were fully aware of the inaccuracies, be they livery, condition or other details -   because that's what the commissioner wanted.

 

As for so called named builders, don't get me started....... sounds like an ego trip to me. 

 

Jerry

Edited July 23, 2021 by queensquare

[PMP]

47 minutes ago, PMP said:

It’s in a DJH Banbury box, so possibly a Comission build by them in Ye Olde Days. It’s with me currently, is there any definite way of determining kit origin? Wheels are Gibson’s (possibly MayGib) depending on build date.

Here’s the Q6 running.

[Tony Wright]

58 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

Is the Q6 a Chivers, or the NuCast kit?

I don't think it's a Nu-Cast one, Jonathan...........

 

Because the boiler appears to be the right size. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

26 minutes ago, nerron said:

Or perhaps from a Dave Alexander kit.

I think you might be right.................

 

Many thanks,

 

Tony. 

[jwealleans]

8 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

the boiler appears to be the right size.

 

That's what I was skirting round saying, but it is the giveaway.

[Tony Wright]

11 minutes ago, PMP said:

Here’s the Q6 running.

Thanks Paul,

 

From what's been said, perhaps it is a Nu-Cast kit.

 

It's definitely not on a white metal lump for a chassis..................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[nerron]

2 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I think you might be right.................

 

Many thanks,

 

Tony. 

Seeing Andrew's post I think probably not. Also the DJH Banbury box pre-dates the Alexander kit.

[bbishop]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I think John Hayes was one of the greatest loco builders of all time.

Regards, Tony. 

We have a few John Hayes locomotives on Southwark Bridge, including one kit where John had finished the chassis and started the body before he died.  A comment about John and his executor, because we had no problems at all in recovering our property, especially as the original commissioner had died in the meantime.

 

As has already been said, they run like sewing machines.  The route on SB from platform line 7 to the down main is rather tortuous and we don't want the loco to have a hiccup as it traverses crossover 78.  I can't be certain which are John's locos, but I know which aren't!  Bill

[PMP]

2 minutes ago, bbishop said:

 

 

As has already been said, they run like sewing machines.  The route on SB from platform line 7 to the down main is rather tortuous and we don't want the loco to have a hiccup as it traverses crossover 78.  I can't be certain which are John's locos, but I know which aren't!  Bill

John was a lovely bloke, I was privileged to watch him and get tips from him in his workshop. As far as I know John used to fix small personally etched builders plates to all of his commissions, they’re visible and discreet but they’d determine provenance if needed.

[Tony Wright]

14 minutes ago, queensquare said:

 

Couldn't agree more Tony. All this talk of monetary value makes me a little uncomfortable. Ive built lots of locos for lots of people and by far most expensive part of the price is my time, if and when those locos are sold on I wouldn't expect them to fetch much more than their component parts - why should they, my time was paid for by the original commissioner, why should somebody buying a second hand loco pay for it again?

 

I dont sign my locos. Probably the best loco builder I know (and I'm privileged to now many), John Greenwood, doesn't sign his. I have a couple of the late Denys Brownlee's locos in my care, they aren't signed either.

 

Whilst I'm on a roll I'm also uncomfortable with some of the language used in this debate. The assertion that either the builder or commissioner were ignorant because of inaccuracies in a loco is unfair. I've built many locos which are knowingly  inaccurate - both parties were fully aware of the inaccuracies, be they livery, condition or other details -   because that's what the commissioner wanted.

 

As for so called named builders, don't get me started....... sounds like an ego trip to me. 

 

Jerry

Good morning Jerry,

 

I don't think it's necessarily a question of paying for something twice. In the case of my selling the recently-shown locos on behalf of a widow, my aim has been to get the highest possible prices for her. Her late husband paid for everything in the first place, and surely there's a residual value greater than its component parts in a finely-built model, beautifully-painted? 

 

As for ignorance and inaccuracies, I always asked for a comprehensive brief from a commissioner in my days as a professional builder, Naturally, I specialised in LNER/ER locomotives (locos from 'lesser' lines took more research, and were, thus, more expensive, and I built far fewer as a consequence). If the brief was 'just build the kit', I was very twitchy, and put it right if necessary - chimneys, domes, tenders, etc, etc...... 

 

Some I've known don't do this on commission, and then are disappointed when the finished models are 'inaccurate'. I've been asked to 'put them right' in the past. 

 

Most kit-built locos which pass through my hands (for whatever reason) 'fail' in terms of their performance. They might look very 'pretty', but they don't 'run'. Not 'run' as I insist upon. As has been alluded too, chassis with absolutely no sideplay, the wrong choice of drive, jerky/stuttering running, poor pick-ups and any other maladies. I'm convinced many are destined for a glass case-existence. It took me a whole weekend to get the locos I've recently sold to run 'properly'. Those I couldn't, have been sold for considerably less than their component parts. 

 

I always sign my work, which makes me an ego-tripper. My customers expected it. Believe it or not, because a loco I'd built was signed, it made more money at an auction on resale! 

 

As for Buckingham - everything on it is truly 'priceless'.

 

And, now for everyone's information - I'm posting three cheques this morning. One is only for less than £150.00 (the un-built kits' sales have dried up). However, the widow is getting a cheque for well over £2,000.00 (to go with the one last week for near £5,000.00) and CRUK is getting one for well over £1,000.00! 

 

My most grateful thanks to all those who've made this possible.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[t-b-g]

38 minutes ago, queensquare said:

 

Couldn't agree more Tony. All this talk of monetary value makes me a little uncomfortable. Ive built lots of locos for lots of people and by far most expensive part of the price is my time, if and when those locos are sold on I wouldn't expect them to fetch much more than their component parts - why should they, my time was paid for by the original commissioner, why should somebody buying a second hand loco pay for it again?

 

I don't sign my locos. Probably the best loco builder I know (and I'm privileged to know many), John Greenwood, doesn't sign his. I have a couple of the late Denys Brownlee's locos in my care, they aren't signed either.

 

Whilst I'm on a roll I'm also uncomfortable with some of the language used in this debate. The assertion that either the builder or commissioner were ignorant because of inaccuracies in a loco is unfair. I've built many locos which are knowingly  inaccurate - both parties were fully aware of the inaccuracies, be they livery, condition or other details -   because that's what the commissioner wanted.

 

As for so called named builders, don't get me started....... sounds like an ego trip to me. 

 

Jerry

 

Couldn't agree more Jerry.

 

I have also built locos knowing that they are wrong because that was what the customer wanted. I built a DJH Duchess once from a kit I was provided with, which was for the wrong batch for the name and number the customer wanted. It looks fine but any LMS expert would spot it a mile off and think that I didn't bother doing the research to get it right. There have been others too, including some fictional liveries.

 

The hobby is indeed a place where the ego comes into play. I also know some superb modellers who have tiny egos and have no ambition to be well known in the hobby. They just build great models and that is their satisfaction.

 

I know some who actively seek recognition and want to be a "name" too. Roy Jackson used to to put people who offered to do things on Retford into two groups. Those who wanted to help him build the layout and those who sought "Glory by association". I thought he was a bit harsh but he was convinced some people offered assistance just because they wanted to be able to say that they had contributed to Retford.  

 

I can just about understand why some professional builders identify the locos they build, especially the more prolific ones. It avoids confusion in the event of a problem or a repair needed. There can be little doubt about who is responsible for the work if there is a plate or an identification mark.

 

I don't build enough to worry about such things! I remember each loco and each customer.

 

[Woodcock29]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Paul,

 

From what's been said, perhaps it is a Nu-Cast kit.

 

It's definitely not on a white metal lump for a chassis..................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

A lot of NuCast kits got brass chassis in their later days. Half of the NuCast kits I've got came with brass chassis. The w/m chassis with my Q6 purchased in the late 70s was a piece of rubbish. I actually mounted it on a modified Ks O4 chassis, which were available as spares for 2 quid at the time. The wheel base wasn't perfect but didn't look too bad. It ran quite well with a Portescap 4C in it.

Andrew

[Michael Edge]

If I could add to this debate as a fairly long time professional loco builder (45 years so far) I have always put my name, in the form of a works plate, on everything I have built.  I did eventually find out that many of these were being removed when they were sold on by middlemen or dealers, from this point on I started to stamp the works number and the number of the loco it was intended to be into the frames. Some of my work appeared to be inaccurate simply because the buyer had asked the painter to put an incorrect number/name on them. I have almost always refused to build something knowingly wrong whatever the customer asks for and if the kit parts are wrong I usually alter or replace them. It would be nice to think that my name adds anything to the value of a model but it doesn't appear to be the case, however my order book is still full.

[Northmoor]

2 hours ago, queensquare said:

 

Couldn't agree more Tony. All this talk of monetary value makes me a little uncomfortable. Ive built lots of locos for lots of people and by far most expensive part of the price is my time, if and when those locos are sold on I wouldn't expect them to fetch much more than their component parts - why should they, my time was paid for by the original commissioner, why should somebody buying a second hand loco pay for it again?

 

I don't sign my locos. Probably the best loco builder I know (and I'm privileged to know many), John Greenwood, doesn't sign his. I have a couple of the late Denys Brownlee's locos in my care, they aren't signed either.

 

Whilst I'm on a roll I'm also uncomfortable with some of the language used in this debate. The assertion that either the builder or commissioner were ignorant because of inaccuracies in a loco is unfair. I've built many locos which are knowingly  inaccurate - both parties were fully aware of the inaccuracies, be they livery, condition or other details -   because that's what the commissioner wanted.

 

As for so called named builders, don't get me started....... sounds like an ego trip to me. 

 

Jerry

I read the word "ignorant" in accordance with its original meaning, that of "not knowing".  It is not the same as the insult of calling someone an ignoramus, although it is one of those words* whose meaning has changed/been corrupted over the years. 

 

As for signed models from a professional builder, surely that is like a receipt.  I'm not in the market for professionally-built models but if I was, I would be suspicious of a builder who wasn't prepared to have their work traceable to them.

 

*There are others like something being criticised as only "satisfactory", implying that being satisfactory wasn't satisfactory.  Or a footballer being considered "rubbish", because they only earn their living in the second tier of football (and probably earn more than any of their critics), or God forbid, were only runner-up in a European Championship.

[Chas Levin]

Hello Tony and everyone, amidst the talk of professional builders, I offer progress shots of my current, non-professional work!

 

This is the London Road Models GNR C2 I've been working on - the chassis is basically finished, while the body has been taken up to the start of lining and bordering:

 

 

 

 

 

Running (a Mashima into a High Level RoadRunner+) is very good, though - typically - slightly smoother in reverse than forwards, which some pickup tweaking and running-in should hopefully cure.

The slightly scruffy borders in places between green, brown and black will be taken care of in the course of lining and applying the dark green borders, as will the unpainted tank and bunker beading, while the bunker floor will be underneath a coal load.

The roof is just clipped into place at the moment - it'll be properly secured, once all the lining's done, by two 14BA bolts into captive nuts. The conn rods are also just temporarily secured by washers cut from plastic electrical wire insulation.

 

If anyone can see anything wrong - I've just noticed that I need to remove the paint from the cab roof grabrail, for one thing - please do let me know...

 

Next, it's bow pens at fifty paces!

[t-b-g]

25 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

Hello Tony and everyone, amidst the talk of professional builders, I offer progress shots of my current, non-professional work!

 

This is the London Road Models GNR C2 I've been working on - the chassis is basically finished, while the body has been taken up to the start of lining and bordering:

 

 

 

 

 

Running (a Mashima into a High Level RoadRunner+) is very good, though - typically - slightly smoother in reverse than forwards, which some pickup tweaking and running-in should hopefully cure.

The slightly scruffy borders in places between green, brown and black will be taken care of in the course of lining and applying the dark green borders, as will the unpainted tank and bunker beading, while the bunker floor will be underneath a coal load.

The roof is just clipped into place at the moment - it'll be properly secured, once all the lining's done, by two 14BA bolts into captive nuts. The conn rods are also just temporarily secured by washers cut from plastic electrical wire insulation.

 

If anyone can see anything wrong - I've just noticed that I need to remove the paint from the cab roof grabrail, for one thing - please do let me know...

 

Next, it's bow pens at fifty paces!

 

Lovely job!

 

I know that some C12s had the protective bars on the rear windows on the inside and some had them on the outside. Possibly changed over time but not something I have researched in any great depth. An interesting variation that has been catered for on the model. The inside bars seem to be in earlier times so correct for GNR period. A very nice touch!

[Tony Wright]

A most interesting discussion of late, regarding prices, signage, provenance, egos and so on. My thanks to all who've contributed.

 

If I may personally sum up, please? 

 

With regard to taking on the job of finding new homes for railway models on behalf of bereaved/worried families, I'm stepping down. Why? For several reasons.

 

Though I haven't taken on the task to become 'well-known' or my being seen as altruistic, in my 'ignorance' I hadn't reckoned on how much hassle it's entailed. This has been exacerbated by 'hostile' posts (for which, I admit, initially it was my mistake), suggestions that I was 'out of touch' and there being no point in trying to recover (at least in part) what a loco cost to build/paint. Balanced against that have been the wonderful letters, PMs and Emails thanking me for what Mo and I have done. Thank you all for those. Speaking of Mo, she's kept meticulous records, a huge undertaking with regard to her time. 

 

And, speaking of time, I can ill afford (at my age!) to spend hours and hours trying (and succeeding in most cases) to get, ostensibly, professionally-built locomotives to work properly. Though the postmaster at my local GPO has thanked me heartily for the business, with well over £700.00 spent on the service in the last three weeks, all it proves is how many parcels I've had to wrap up of late. 

 

Of course, a potential loser will be CRUK - with over £2,000.00 sent in the last month, that's not an inconsiderable amount, but with donations now coming in again from visitors to see Little Bytham, at least some money will continue to be sent. 

 

I don't post the above to gain sympathy. My view has always been that if a person can help a fellow human being, then they should. However, in my case, this is now tempered with 'realism'. I'll gladly offer advice in future to any bereaved family on how to 'dispose' of a deceased modeller's collection, and even contact the likes of Hattons or Rails of Sheffield on behalf of such a family. Whether they'll get as much for locos which don't work is a moot point, though I'd imagine it'll be unlikely. Would they offer in excess of an average of £230.00 for kit-built locos which don't? I rather doubt it.  

 

What it means, of course, is that this thread will be a little less-interesting, with far fewer pictures of 'interesting' models. Perhaps someone else would like to take on the task. If so, please PM. Thanks in anticipation. 

 

Once again, my most-grateful thanks to all of you who've made it all worthwhile. However, no more....................

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Chas Levin said:

Hello Tony and everyone, amidst the talk of professional builders, I offer progress shots of my current, non-professional work!

 

This is the London Road Models GNR C2 I've been working on - the chassis is basically finished, while the body has been taken up to the start of lining and bordering:

 

 

 

 

 

Running (a Mashima into a High Level RoadRunner+) is very good, though - typically - slightly smoother in reverse than forwards, which some pickup tweaking and running-in should hopefully cure.

The slightly scruffy borders in places between green, brown and black will be taken care of in the course of lining and applying the dark green borders, as will the unpainted tank and bunker beading, while the bunker floor will be underneath a coal load.

The roof is just clipped into place at the moment - it'll be properly secured, once all the lining's done, by two 14BA bolts into captive nuts. The conn rods are also just temporarily secured by washers cut from plastic electrical wire insulation.

 

If anyone can see anything wrong - I've just noticed that I need to remove the paint from the cab roof grabrail, for one thing - please do let me know...

 

Next, it's bow pens at fifty paces!

Lovely work Chas,

 

It's the equal of many 'professionally-built' locos I've seen (if not better).

 

Thanks for showing us.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

I read the word "ignorant" in accordance with its original meaning, that of "not knowing".  It is not the same as the insult of calling someone an ignoramus, although it is one of those words* whose meaning has changed/been corrupted over the years. 

 

As for signed models from a professional builder, surely that is like a receipt.  I'm not in the market for professionally-built models but if I was, I would be suspicious of a builder who wasn't prepared to have their work traceable to them.

 

*There are others like something being criticised as only "satisfactory", implying that being satisfactory wasn't satisfactory.  Or a footballer being considered "rubbish", because they only earn their living in the second tier of football (and probably earn more than any of their critics), or God forbid, were only runner-up in a European Championship.

I think the signing of models built on commission is exactly like a 'receipt'. As I've already stated, my customers expected it. 

 

It also makes it more easy to trace, should that be necessary. Having built over 500 locos, my memory will not allow me to recall which is which, where, what and why (though my records should). Along with my signature, I also put the date a loco was built, and, in some cases, on request, the owner of the model. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

On 22/07/2021 at 08:26, bbishop said:

By 2121 who would pay a premium for a loco owned by Tony Wright? 

 

Oh, I don't know.  Bill Gates paid $30million and change for some tatty old notebook from some bloke called Da Vinci, so anything is possible.  The sketchbook is definitely not dcc.