Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

36 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

I have a Little Engines D16 and apart from the small cab windows I think it stands up well beside other kits and the Hornby one.   Should I ever build another, I'd try surgery on those windows, but not much else.

 

Swearing at them does any model a power of good, I find.   I hope Danny Pinnock's ears weren't burning too badly on Sunday.

Thanks Jonathan,

 

I think how good the current Hornby D16/3 is as a starting point (especially with Tom Foster's expert weathering) is best illustrated on page 648 of the latest Railway Modeller. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited August 11, 2021 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Tony Wright]

10 minutes ago, polybear said:

 

Hi Tony,

Certainly from a distance it looks too nicely made (is it?) to cannibalise for a motor.

It's OK, Brian,

 

But................ There is no footplate step on the 'S' by the front splashers and no handrails on the frames above the footplate - just holes.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Headstock]

50 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I suppose one 'perk' of finding new homes for models on behalf of bereaved families is that I have, if I wish, first refusal. 

 

A good question might be 'Why buy models built by others when you can just as easily make them yourself?'. A good question, indeed.

 

Take this loco, for instance. I'm still deciding what to do with it. It's from the most-recent collection.

 

 

 

It's built from a Little Engines kit (builder unknown). Though Portescap-fitted, it didn't run very well - noisy and jerky. A few hours' worth of tweaking/adjusting/altering the polarity/swearing and it now runs very well, though still with the characteristic whine. The bogie arrangement was useless, baulking at even 3' 6" radius curves. I've now fixed that, and it'll go round the (tight) M&GNR bit of Little Bytham. 

 

So, what to do with it? At the last Peterborough Show in 2019, Hornby D16s were on sale for around £70.00/£80.00 (what they might be now, I don't know). This is way-inferior to the RTR version, so what's it worth? If I factored in my time to fix it at my 'professional rates', it would be over £300.00! No chance. What many might do is to buy it at around £50.00 for the Portescap and 'dispose' of the rest.  

 

I'm inclined to take pity on it................

 

 

This one is much better. It, too, has a Portescap (a silent one!). It's built from a Millholme kit (builder unknown). It only needed a few tweaks to get it to run really well. I've added the front steps and changed the pony wheels to the correct nine-spoke LMS pattern (though I've not yet fitted the frame-mounted guard irons, which it should have for the period it represents - early-'50s). I've also glazed it, fitted headlamps (LMS black ones) and weathered the motion. Building another Ivatt 4MT is a very long way down on my list of locos to make (though I do have a kit). 

 

So, I might well hang on to this. We'll see (I'll pay for it, of course). 

 

 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

I've seen some dodgy looking Millholme Flying pigs over the years, that one looks like a fine looking keeper to me.

 

I've ordered an A5 tank, the first time a RTR loco has featured on my ''loco's to build before I die'' list in almost two decades. More importantly, with the A5 at least temporally X off the list, the B7 moves up. Fingers crossed, there is now a chance that it can be built and run on the layout before the end of days.

 

 

[Tony Wright]

A couple of chums have asked me if it's 'me' standing by the signal on Edenham in the latest RM.

 

I'm afraid to say it is!

 

 

Thanks to Allan and Tim for being my 'creators'. 

 

And (seen before), is this the ultimate in model railway snobbery?

 

 

Taking pictures on Little Bytham.....................

 

 

 

 

[30368]

42 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

ultimate in model railway snobbery?

 

Well...yes!

 

But why not?

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

[ecgtheow]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

A couple of chums have asked me if it's 'me' standing by the signal on Edenham in the latest RM.

 

I'm afraid to say it is!

 

 

Thanks to Allan and Tim for being my 'creators'. 

 

And (seen before), is this the ultimate in model railway snobbery?

 

 

Taking pictures on Little Bytham.....................

 

 

 

 

Perhaps we should call you "Tony the quark from now on"? Or perhaps "Tony the newly discovered sub-atomic particle"

 

There's the fact that two separated particles can interact instantaneously, a phenomenon called quantum entanglement. ... This principle of quantum mechanics suggests that particles can exist in two separate locations at once.

 

William

[great central]

15 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I suppose one 'perk' of finding new homes for models on behalf of bereaved families is that I have, if I wish, first refusal. 

 

A good question might be 'Why buy models built by others when you can just as easily make them yourself?'. A good question, indeed.

 

Take this loco, for instance. I'm still deciding what to do with it. It's from the most-recent collection.

 

 

 

It's built from a Little Engines kit (builder unknown). Though Portescap-fitted, it didn't run very well - noisy and jerky. A few hours' worth of tweaking/adjusting/altering the polarity/swearing and it now runs very well, though still with the characteristic whine. The bogie arrangement was useless, baulking at even 3' 6" radius curves. I've now fixed that, and it'll go round the (tight) M&GNR bit of Little Bytham. 

 

So, what to do with it? At the last Peterborough Show in 2019, Hornby D16s were on sale for around £70.00/£80.00 (what they might be now, I don't know). This is way-inferior to the RTR version, so what's it worth? If I factored in my time to fix it at my 'professional rates', it would be over £300.00! No chance. What many might do is to buy it at around £50.00 for the Portescap and 'dispose' of the rest.  

 

I'm inclined to take pity on it................

 

 

This one is much better. It, too, has a Portescap (a silent one!). It's built from a Millholme kit (builder unknown). It only needed a few tweaks to get it to run really well. I've added the front steps and changed the pony wheels to the correct nine-spoke LMS pattern (though I've not yet fitted the frame-mounted guard irons, which it should have for the period it represents - early-'50s). I've also glazed it, fitted headlamps (LMS black ones) and weathered the motion. Building another Ivatt 4MT is a very long way down on my list of locos to make (though I do have a kit). 

 

So, I might well hang on to this. We'll see (I'll pay for it, of course). 

 

 

 

Regarding the Ivatt 'flying pig', I'm not sure that it won't need some alterations if it's to fit in on the M&GN lines.

According to BR Database it was put into service at New England in November 1950, so wouldn't it have been delivered with the BR 'cycling lion' rather than British Railways in full? 

Also as it was, presumably, intended for use over the M&GN it would have had a tablet catcher fitted unless they were later additions possibly done at depot level?

Nice looking model nonetheless.

[Tony Wright]

42 minutes ago, great central said:

 

Regarding the Ivatt 'flying pig', I'm not sure that it won't need some alterations if it's to fit in on the M&GN lines.

According to BR Database it was put into service at New England in November 1950, so wouldn't it have been delivered with the BR 'cycling lion' rather than British Railways in full? 

Also as it was, presumably, intended for use over the M&GN it would have had a tablet catcher fitted unless they were later additions possibly done at depot level?

Nice looking model nonetheless.

Thanks for your observations (the 'wealth' of Wright writes). 

 

You're quite right about the tablet-catching apparatus. There's a lovely picture of 43085 on page 173 of The Book of the Ivatt 4MTs (Irwell) at Gedney (on the M&GNR) which clearly shows the device on the tender side. 

 

Regarding which 'branding' should be on the tender, most pictures of 'Flying Pigs' with 'British Railways' on the tender show the locos with double chimneys, though 43027, pictured at the bottom of page 55 of The Power of the LMS 2-6-0s (OPC), has the same combination as on the model. If I keep it, alterations will be made..............

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited August 12, 2021 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Headstock]

2 hours ago, ecgtheow said:

Perhaps we should call you "Tony the quark from now on"? Or perhaps "Tony the newly discovered sub-atomic particle"

 

There's the fact that two separated particles can interact instantaneously, a phenomenon called quantum entanglement. ... This principle of quantum mechanics suggests that particles can exist in two separate locations at once.

 

William

 

Good afternoon William,

 

a good theory. However, being a fully paid up member of the sceptics society and having studied the different hairstyles in the two photographs and noted the change of shirt. I conclude the photographs were taken at different locations on different days. Alternatively, it may be some sort of static facsimile of Tony that is mysteriously being replicated across the country, rather like a crop circle. 

[cctransuk]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

Tony,

 

Would you mind telling me the source of the backscene in this photo? It is exactly what I need for my current project.

 

Many thanks in anticipation,

John Isherwood.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

Tony,

 

Would you mind telling me the source of the backscene in this photo? It is exactly what I need for my current project.

 

Many thanks in anticipation,

John Isherwood.

John,

 

I'm more than happy to tell you. 

 

It's printed from a series of stitched-together photographs which I took in the vicinity of the actual Edenham (the subject of Ian Wilson's layout, which is in the latest RM). I just took a series of shots, through a full 180 degrees, and Ian joined them in Photoshop. The whole thing was then professionally-printed on to a flexible background.

 

Here it is overall...................

 

 

 

I think it's really most-effective.

 

I hope these help.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

I really must get on with the tasks I've set myself over the next few days - taking photographs and writing captions, mainly. Deadlines approach. 

 

However, I'm still checking through the models I have for sale; including this first pair..................

 

 

This is built from a Model Loco kit (maker unknown), is powered by a Portescap and generally runs well. It still needs a tweak here and there, though.

 

 

Another from the same collection, this time built from a DJH kit (again, maker unknown, though it's not the same one who built 92043 because the pick-ups are different and I've had to alter the polarity). This one has a tight spot, which I'm working on. It's driven by a vertically-mounted can motor and is quieter than the Portescap-fitted one.

 

Out of interest (and by way of a comparison) I've fitted the correct-style, nine-spoke pony wheels (Markits), soldered on the triangular front step supports (needed because the etched steps fell off in handling; guess what? They were glued in place! They're not now). I've also added a representation of the lubricator drives, fitted a lamp and installed a crew.

 

The cab doors were fitted upside down (because that's how DJH show them in one of the exploded diagrams - 92043 doesn't have any). 

 

The offside deflector appears to have taken a ding - rather prototypical.

 

I'm not offering these for sale yet until I've made sure I'm entirely happy with their running. 

 

Now, by way of a further comparison...............

 

 

Here's a Model Loco 9F I made some time ago. It tows a Bachmann BR 1F tender (which is far superior to the Model Loco/DJH etched-body one; the cut-out at the rear of these is far too deep). I've added items such as the deflector support straps, but not the front step supports for some reason (an obvious oversight, but they're securely soldered in place!).

 

Geoff Haynes painted/weathered this for me. It displays the Darlington-style, large cabside numbers.

 

Now, leaving the best to last........... 

 

 

What chance for kit-builders when we have a Bachmann 9F? It's just about superior in every way, especially the fact that it's got the right number of spokes in its driving wheels (the others have too many).

 

All I've done is to merely detail it slightly and dry-brush weather it. 

 

What's a current Bachmann 9F cost? Far less (far, far less) than the component costs if one wished to make a DJH 9F. It makes it more and more difficult for me to get 'reasonable' prices for kit-built equivalents. 

[MJI]

I paid 100 for mine about 15 years ago, most spent on a loco model!

[APOLLO]

I still have (and run) my Hornby "Silver Seal" "Evening Star" (now fitted with a Hornby black body & tender body). This model has a ringfield tender drive, with 4 traction tyres. Pick up is on all ten front wheels, with  fine wires to the permanently coupled tender - all as when it left the factory.

 

Bought in Edinburgh around 1972 when we moved house and I went from TT to OO. She runs silent & true, and is nearly as powerful as my one Bachmann model. This loco was a revelation to me back then as my old TT locos just never ran like the 9F. 

 

I have several Railroad Hornby 9F's (fifty quid a piece at Hattons a few years ago). Loco driven they run well but a couple have sticky tender wheels caused by the Mazak frame - a well known problem. Other than that very nice locos.

 

Though yes, the Baccy one trumps the lot.

 

Just to show you don't need 60 odd wagons behind a 9F. Whitley Crossing north of Wigan around 1966. Light load and she's going down the 1 in 105, The fireman is having a brew !!!

 

 

Brit15

Edited August 12, 2021 by APOLLO

[MJI]

Mine is a preserved evening star

[zr2498]

15 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I really must get on with the tasks I've set myself over the next few days - taking photographs and writing captions, mainly. Deadlines approach. 

 

However, I'm still checking through the models I have for sale; including this first pair..................

 

 

This is built from a Model Loco kit (maker unknown), is powered by a Portescap and generally runs well. It still needs a tweak here and there, though.

 

 

Another from the same collection, this time built from a DJH kit (again, maker unknown, though it's not the same one who built 92043 because the pick-ups are different and I've had to alter the polarity). This one has a tight spot, which I'm working on. It's driven by a vertically-mounted can motor and is quieter than the Portescap-fitted one.

 

Out of interest (and by way of a comparison) I've fitted the correct-style, nine-spoke pony wheels (Markits), soldered on the triangular front step supports (needed because the etched steps fell off in handling; guess what? They were glued in place! They're not now). I've also added a representation of the lubricator drives, fitted a lamp and installed a crew.

 

The cab doors were fitted upside down (because that's how DJH show them in one of the exploded diagrams - 92043 doesn't have any). 

 

The offside deflector appears to have taken a ding - rather prototypical.

 

I'm not offering these for sale yet until I've made sure I'm entirely happy with their running. 

 

Now, by way of a further comparison...............

 

 

Here's a Model Loco 9F I made some time ago. It tows a Bachmann BR 1F tender (which is far superior to the Model Loco/DJH etched-body one; the cut-out at the rear of these is far too deep). I've added items such as the deflector support straps, but not the front step supports for some reason (an obvious oversight, but they're securely soldered in place!).

 

Geoff Haynes painted/weathered this for me. It displays the Darlington-style, large cabside numbers.

 

Now, leaving the best to last........... 

 

 

What chance for kit-builders when we have a Bachmann 9F? It's just about superior in every way, especially the fact that it's got the right number of spokes in its driving wheels (the others have too many).

 

All I've done is to merely detail it slightly and dry-brush weather it. 

 

What's a current Bachmann 9F cost? Far less (far, far less) than the component costs if one wished to make a DJH 9F. It makes it more and more difficult for me to get 'reasonable' prices for kit-built equivalents. 

Just about to do Tyne Dock conversions to a couple of 9F Bachmann models, including double to single chimney. They aready have the BR1B tenders. I have the comet models valve assemblies and and some copper wire to beef up under the cab (firemans side), which I believe is a little undersized. A kind gentleman via RMWeb let me have the Dave Alexander kits for the Westinghouse pump conversion. Would be interested to know what else is worth correcting or detailing if I am going to make a proper job of them. I always read reports about how well they run. I guess the 10 drivers does help traction but as the drive mechanism does not include bearings on the axles I would be surprised if they had a long running life?

Dave

[PMP]

58 minutes ago, zr2498 said:

I always read reports about how well they run. I guess the 10 drivers does help traction but as the drive mechanism does not include bearings on the axles I would be surprised if they had a long running life?

Dave

They don’t have a conventional bearing, the chassis has a rib in the horn block location that the axle sits on, in a square aperature. Unless you’re doing starship mileage they won’t be a problem. I’ll dig out a few images, in about an hour. 
 

PS drilling out the chimney makes a whopping difference 

Edited August 13, 2021 by PMP

[PMP]

Here’s an early release  Bachmann 9f that has had regular running, occasional use on 4th radius curves and Peco cd75 medium points.

 

You can see the shoulder/rib the axle sits in on the next two images.

 The axle is only in contact with these bearing surfaces at the outer edge of the chassis, not through the whole chassis width.

Very little wear is in evidence on any of my three versions, so whilst not a circular bearing surface, the fact that these models don’t have any reputation for poor reliability or chassis’s, validates the concept.  There is a uchoob video that suggests Bachmann haven’t even got flanges on the centre drivers, and it’s the worst design chassis of 2020/1. Unfortunately with a large number of followers #fakenews like that can gain ground. Basic research would tell that reviewer the facts regarding 9f’s drivers, and that the design is from 2006, but facts aren’t his strong point. Despite the design being a noughties product it works exceptionally well and having seen and experienced their reliability on Pete Kirmonds Blea Moor, if they were a bad design, that layout would have highlighted them very quickly. 

[gr.king]

Facts need not stand in the way of "soshul medial influencers" (effluencers?)...

[MJI]

I think the Bachmann 9F is one of the better RTR locos

[Dunsignalling]

20 hours ago, APOLLO said:

I still have (and run) my Hornby "Silver Seal" "Evening Star" (now fitted with a Hornby black body & tender body). This model has a ringfield tender drive, with 4 traction tyres. Pick up is on all ten front wheels, with  fine wires to the permanently coupled tender - all as when it left the factory.

 

Bought in Edinburgh around 1972 when we moved house and I went from TT to OO. She runs silent & true, and is nearly as powerful as my one Bachmann model. This loco was a revelation to me back then as my old TT locos just never ran like the 9F. 

 

I have several Railroad Hornby 9F's (fifty quid a piece at Hattons a few years ago). Loco driven they run well but a couple have sticky tender wheels caused by the Mazak frame - a well known problem. Other than that very nice locos.

 

Though yes, the Baccy one trumps the lot.

 

Just to show you don't need 60 odd wagons behind a 9F. Whitley Crossing north of Wigan around 1966. Light load and she's going down the 1 in 105, The fireman is having a brew !!!

 

 

Brit15

Shovel hung up and tongs extracted from the tool box.

[zr2498]

4 hours ago, PMP said:

Here’s an early release  Bachmann 9f that has had regular running, occasional use on 4th radius curves and Peco cd75 medium points.

 

You can see the shoulder/rib the axle sits in on the next two images.

 The axle is only in contact with these bearing surfaces at the outer edge of the chassis, not through the whole chassis width.

Very little wear is in evidence on any of my three versions, so whilst not a circular bearing surface, the fact that these models don’t have any reputation for poor reliability or chassis’s, validates the concept.  There is a uchoob video that suggests Bachmann haven’t even got flanges on the centre drivers, and it’s the worst design chassis of 2020/1. Unfortunately with a large number of followers #fakenews like that can gain ground. Basic research would tell that reviewer the facts regarding 9f’s drivers, and that the design is from 2006, but facts aren’t his strong point. Despite the design being a noughties product it works exceptionally well and having seen and experienced their reliability on Pete Kirmonds Blea Moor, if they were a bad design, that layout would have highlighted them very quickly. 

Thanks so much for taking the time to send info and photos. I will check the lubrication of the 9Fs of course, as recently purchased 'used'. Smooth runners thus far and I do not see a major issue with the Bachmann design as long as the clearances between axle and slot are well designed, and the lubrication is adequate. One would think a round shaft in cylindical bearings would be better. It will make the manufacturing tolerances and possible maintenance (if ever needed) easier to achieve, however there is also point loading with this type of arrangement, just the same as the Bachmann slot. It is a shame that reviews can be put out there with little in the way of engineering 'know-how'. There were plenty of comments after that said review which praised the Bachmann 9Fs. It is good to get more reassurance re the Bachmann before I invest a fair bit of time with the conversion and detailing + crew and weathering of course.

Cheers

Dave

[Mike 84C]

Bought this recently, its a "loft find" how long it was there for could be a quiz question, which leads onto mine. It needs a repaint very badly and its glued together, recommendations on paint removal please?  And yes it does go after wheel cleaning and a little lubrication,much to my surprise!

[chris p bacon]

4 minutes ago, Mike 84C said:

Bought this recently, its a "loft find" 

 

Was the loft in Australia....

[Paul Cram]

Brake fluid