Wright writes.....

[cctransuk]

7 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Geoff Haynes has varnished the Hornby 'Duchess' now.

 

It's remarkable how it 'lifts' the green from as-supplied. 

 

 

 

Much closer to Brunswick green in my perception.

 

As a matter of course, I apply at least one coat of Klear to all RTR locos.

 

This, IMHO, produces an ex-works appearance which is an ideal base for weathering - as per the prototype.

 

CJI.

[30368]

13 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Altering the Pro-Scale tender to one of the more-numerous ones? Please PM me with your address and I'll send you a pair of etched overlays for the top coping (with the shorter cut-out) and an etched higher frontplate. You can make a donation to a charity of your choice in return, if that's all right?

 

Thanks very much Tony, that is very kind of you.

 

I will donate to The Samaritans.

 

Kind regards,

 

 

Richard B

 

[Barry Ten]

Here's a brief video of my Hornby/Crownline Bulleid Pacific under trials:

 

 

[Graham_Muz]

On 04/10/2021 at 23:00, Barry Ten said:

A bit more progress on the Hornby/Crownline Bulleid Pacific. I think I might have another

go at forming the bottom fold in the deflectors, if I can get them off cleanly. They do vary a lot from loco to loco (judging by photos) with some having quite a shallow angle at the bottom and some more pronounced.

 

I won't fit front steps and cylinder pipes until I've finished handling the model a lot.

 

Looking great Al,

 

The smoke deflectors did vary from loco to loco especially as the early ones  had short deflectors when new and were extended to the standard length with an extension kit whilst on shed and variations to the position of the bottom edge can often be seen. 
These earlier batches had a variation in the number and position of the top fixing brackets. 
The main variation is that there were two main different deflector designs; 21c100 to 21c170 that had 8'6" wide cabs had deflectors with a more pronounced lip and angle at the base and a flatter profile to the main part of the defector.

34071 onwards had 9ft wide cabs and the deflectors had a shallower lip but a more curved wider profile, increasing the gap between the bodyside and deflector. 
Not many people spot it and even in preservation some have in the past been restored with defectors to the wrong drawing for the loco! 

Edited October 6, 2021 by Graham_Muz

[Barry Ten]

23 minutes ago, Graham_Muz said:

Looking great Al,

 

The smoke deflectors did vary from loco to loco especially as the early ones  had short deflectors when new and were extended to the standard length with an extension kit whilst on shed and variations to the position of the bottom edge can often be seen. 

 

Thank you, Graham - very informative! I searched in vain for your breakdown of Light Pacific models and details, knowing it would be helpful, but I couldn't find it. I think it's on your website somewhere?

[Graham_Muz]

9 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

 

Thank you, Graham - very informative! I searched in vain for your breakdown of Light Pacific models and details, knowing it would be helpful, but I couldn't find it. I think it's on your website somewhere?

It could do with updating but my table of the Hornby models and their variations can be found here https://sremg.org.uk/model/lpvar.html

[davidw]

Tony, a little while back I think you started a DJH A3. I think you commented that it was to be 60046…? I may be wrong or missed the completed loco. 

[Graham_Muz]

I think I might have just invalidated the Hornby warranty... 

[Tony Wright]

34 minutes ago, davidw said:

Tony, a little while back I think you started a DJH A3. I think you commented that it was to be 60046…? I may be wrong or missed the completed loco. 

David,

 

You haven't missed it. I've been busy with other things - taking photographs, writing reviews and making a programme for Hornby. 

 

I'll resume building 60046 next week and show progress thereafter.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[davidw]

1 minute ago, Tony Wright said:

David,

 

You haven't missed it. I've been busy with other things - taking photographs, writing reviews and making a programme for Hornby. 

 

I'll resume building 60046 next week and show progress thereafter.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Thanks Tony. 

[brightspark]

Hello again Tony and all,

 

If you don't mind, I just want to go back to the churchman and the early layouts with loco's wired back to front or wired correctly and everyone else got it wrong.

 

Well Richard Stevenson, (he who brought along the American and the Hogsback light railway loco & is still not signed up to RM web) was intrigued by my question as to how the wiring convention came about and has done some digging.

 

Here is a summary of the correspondence, that he asked me to post. 

 

Hi Andy

I have just seen your contribution to Wright Writes.

The Metropolitan Junction locos were originally wired the wrong way round according to the EMGS manual sheet and, it seems, ready to run OO models. I was reluctant to change them at first in case there was some aspect of the layout electrics, possibly isolation breaks, which would fail to work if they were altered. However, as I got more of the layout operational and tried running some of my own locos on it with no problems appearing, the difference started to get exasperating. I concluded that it would have to be dealt with and devoted several modelling sessions to changing the motor wiring. Also, where refurbishment has involved removal of the wheels, I have replaced the insulated wheels on the side specified in the manual sheet.

I must check my HO locos to see if they all conform to the same convention. The Americans were using 2-rail in the late 30's, so there could be an NMRA standard from way back.

Richard

 

The EMGS manual sheet 5.3.2.o was published in 1988. I wondered if there were earlier references. Perhaps in the old newsletter, The Marshallling Yard.

 

Hi Andy,

 

I have not found any mention of locomotive polarity in the issues of 'The Marshalling Yard' that I have or in the Technical Notes booklet. There is a very detailed three part article in 'The Marshalling Yard' on the conversion of a Hornby Dublo 'Castle' to EM which I thought might mention polarity, but it does not and neither does it state on which side the insulated driving wheels should go.

 

The Model Railways Handbook 7th Edition, probably published late 1963 (an ad for the MRN shows the cover of the Sept 1963 issue) includes the BRMSB standard dimensions, but does not mention locomotive polarity.

 

The NMRA Electrical Standard S-9 was revised Aug. 1984 and states: "Positive potential applied to the right hand rail shall produce forward motion." This is much more concise than the rather wordy manual sheet. (Issue 1 dated April 1988) There is nothing on the NMRA website to indicate when S-9 was first issued.

 

I suspect that somewhere, in the early days of 2-rail in the UK, the opposite polarity was recommended. I remember a meeting at Philip Millard's house [MRJ77 - 40 years of building rolling stock] and finding that his locos were wired like that when I ran "Cardean".

 

I have checked all my brass HO locomotives and find that they all conform to the NMRA standard for polarity. The insulated side is not consistent, however.

 

I would guess that the current UK polarity convention was set by Rovex or possibly Graham Farish. As Graham Farish were attempting to export to the US, conformance with the NMRA standard may not be a coincidence.

 

Richard

 

So is this a logical explanation or is there another piece of the puzzle?

If these layouts and locomotives were wired up without visiting another layout  and the choice was random, then I would expect to see  a 50/50 split on the direction. But on the early layouts we don't seem to be finding this and I believe that locos were run on other layouts.

I wonder if there are other early layouts wired this way.  For instance, Borchester, does anyone know?

 

Andy

Edited October 6, 2021 by brightspark
additional text for clarity

[micknich2003]

The British Model Railways Standards Burue set a standard for polarity and direction of travel etc. I have the booklet, but typically, I can't find it. Hornby Dublo 3 Rail engines converted to 2 rail, and with the insulated wheels on the right hand side (looking forward from cab) will run backwards.

[seahorse]

Friends bringing locos to run at our exhibition would sometimes be reversed polarity. So we had a special bell code 3-3   for train on line and turn your controller the opposite way!

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, micknich2003 said:

The British Model Railways Standards Burue set a standard for polarity and direction of travel etc. I have the booklet, but typically, I can't find it. Hornby Dublo 3 Rail engines converted to 2 rail, and with the insulated wheels on the right hand side (looking forward from cab) will run backwards.

Thanks Mick,

 

'Hornby Dublo 3 Rail engines converted to 2 rail, and with the insulated wheels on the right hand side (looking forward from cab) will run backwards'.

 

I found this out donkeys' years ago when I converted some old three-rail HD locos to two rail for a friend. The 'trick' was to turn the motor's magnet round (carefully gripping it in a pair of pliers to ensure that the magnetic flux was not weakened - I was told this advice by a guy at Chester MRC. Is it right, because I've followed it ever since?). The actual two-rail HD locos of the day did run the same way as Tri-ang or Graham Farish, if my memory serves. 

 

On selling all those locos recently on behalf of widows/bereaved families, about 30% were wired the 'wrong way'. Many were powered by D11/D13 open-framed motors where the whole motor (apart from the one insulated brush) is live. 'Conversion' to convention was a doddle to achieve by merely turning the magnet around (again, gripping it in pliers for the operation). What I found puzzling was that, though it was clear many locos had been built by the same hand it was arbitrary as to which way they ran. Clearly the builder just wired up the locos with no means of telling which way they ran (which seems bizarre to me). Either that or he/she (probably the former) didn't care, because they were destined for a non-running, glass case existence.  

 

Where 'backward' locos had Portescaps or insulated can motors, I just switched the wires around. Some locos had XO4 derivatives; in which case, I just moved the insulated sleeve across to the opposite brush and re-soldered the wire to the pick-ups; easier than turning the magnet around.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

P.S. Someone has contacted me with a view to finding new homes for dozens of GWR loco kits and GWR kit-built locos (another bereavement). I won't be collecting them for a month or two, but for those who might be interested, please watch this space. Also, if interested, please don't PM me yet, because (apart from a mention of Models and Leisure kits) I have no idea exactly what they are. 

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, brightspark said:

Hello again Tony and all,

 

If you don't mind, I just want to go back to the churchman and the early layouts with loco's wired back to front or wired correctly and everyone else got it wrong.

 

Well Richard Stevenson, (he who brought along the American and the Hogsback light railway loco & is still not signed up to RM web) was intrigued by my question as to how the wiring convention came about and has done some digging.

 

Here is a summary of the correspondence, that he asked me to post. 

 

Hi Andy

I have just seen your contribution to Wright Writes.

The Metropolitan Junction locos were originally wired the wrong way round according to the EMGS manual sheet and, it seems, ready to run OO models. I was reluctant to change them at first in case there was some aspect of the layout electrics, possibly isolation breaks, which would fail to work if they were altered. However, as I got more of the layout operational and tried running some of my own locos on it with no problems appearing, the difference started to get exasperating. I concluded that it would have to be dealt with and devoted several modelling sessions to changing the motor wiring. Also, where refurbishment has involved removal of the wheels, I have replaced the insulated wheels on the side specified in the manual sheet.

I must check my HO locos to see if they all conform to the same convention. The Americans were using 2-rail in the late 30's, so there could be an NMRA standard from way back.

Richard

 

The EMGS manual sheet 5.3.2.o was published in 1988. I wondered if there were earlier references. Perhaps in the old newsletter, The Marshallling Yard.

 

Hi Andy,

 

I have not found any mention of locomotive polarity in the issues of 'The Marshalling Yard' that I have or in the Technical Notes booklet. There is a very detailed three part article in 'The Marshalling Yard' on the conversion of a Hornby Dublo 'Castle' to EM which I thought might mention polarity, but it does not and neither does it state on which side the insulated driving wheels should go.

 

The Model Railways Handbook 7th Edition, probably published late 1963 (an ad for the MRN shows the cover of the Sept 1963 issue) includes the BRMSB standard dimensions, but does not mention locomotive polarity.

 

The NMRA Electrical Standard S-9 was revised Aug. 1984 and states: "Positive potential applied to the right hand rail shall produce forward motion." This is much more concise than the rather wordy manual sheet. (Issue 1 dated April 1988) There is nothing on the NMRA website to indicate when S-9 was first issued.

 

I suspect that somewhere, in the early days of 2-rail in the UK, the opposite polarity was recommended. I remember a meeting at Philip Millard's house [MRJ77 - 40 years of building rolling stock] and finding that his locos were wired like that when I ran "Cardean".

 

I have checked all my brass HO locomotives and find that they all conform to the NMRA standard for polarity. The insulated side is not consistent, however.

 

I would guess that the current UK polarity convention was set by Rovex or possibly Graham Farish. As Graham Farish were attempting to export to the US, conformance with the NMRA standard may not be a coincidence.

 

Richard

 

So is this a logical explanation or is there another piece of the puzzle?

If these layouts and locomotives were wired up without visiting another layout  and the choice was random, then I would expect to see  a 50/50 split on the direction. But on the early layouts we don't seem to be finding this and I believe that locos were run on other layouts.

I wonder if there are other early layouts wired this way.  For instance, Borchester, does anyone know?

 

Andy

A fascinating summary Andy,

 

Please thank Richard.

 

Borchester? Though none of my locos ever ran on Borchester during Frank Dyer's day, some did after the layout was bought by a group of friends to continue its exhibition life. I photographed it for BRM, and the group was a little short of locos at the time, so I took some of mine down. They ran the 'conventional' way when power was applied (as did the group's locos), which suggests that Frank had wired his locos the 'right way round' to begin with. 

 

What has happened to Borchester now, I have no idea, but I don't believe my friends had to alter the control system when they bought it (perhaps a comment from 60526?). 

 

Borchester, one of the most-influential layouts of all time.............

 

 

 

 

 

Here seen running with the group's stock, not Frank Dyer's. As far as I'm aware, none of the original stock was sold with the layout. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[APOLLO]

Quote

Borchester, one of the most-influential layouts of all time.............

 

I'll second that, Franks earlier version too. I still have all the Model Railway Constructor mags with Franks content. I also have his full "Model Railways" magazine epic from around 1980 - still inspires me today. 

 

Brit15

[30368]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Borchester, one of the most-influential layouts of all time.............

 

I couldn't agree more. I remember admiring it and the quality of construction and, most importantly to me, the fabulous ex LNER locomotives most of which were not available ready to run. It also seemed to have that quality of capturing the atmosphere of the railway it modelled.

 

Thanks for the pictures and the memories!

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

[micknich2003]

Frank, also did an in depth article on Borchester in a c1959 Model Railway News, some years later in the Model Railway Constructor he wrote a series of articles on his locomotives.

[t-b-g]

I never saw the original Borchester but my dad did, at a M.R.C. show in the 1960s. He told me that he watched it for ages and that it ran superbly and that it was worked like a real railway. Every move was the sort of thing that would have happened on a real station.

 

The second layout was actually Borchester Market, not Borchester, although many people use the same name as the earlier layout in error. Having said that, I think he reused the signal box, which just has "Borchester" on the nameboard. When Peter Denny rebuilt Buckingham, he kept the same name. When Frank Dyer rebuilt Borchester, he gave it a slightly different one. The 1980 Borchester Market magazine special is one of my most read magazines to this day. i just enjoy Frank Dyer's way of doing things.

 

I did see Borchester Market being operated by Frank Dyer and his team a couple of times and it was one of the best experiences I ever had watching a layout operate. It was intricate operating by a group of people who knew what they were doing. Everything worked well, everything ran superbly. I never got to meet him or speak with him but I would have liked to have had the chance to tell him how much those sessions watching his layout influenced my modelling.

 

It was probably second only to visiting Peter Denny and not just watching but operating Buckingham with him. Just him and me running my all time favourite layout. That was magical and I did get a chance to tell him how much it meant to me to be able to do that.

 

To me, the several different versions of Buckingham and the two Borchester layouts are the most influential ones that I have ever seen in the flesh or in the press. I would dare to suggest that they are the two most influential layouts in the history of the hobby. Both built by highly self sufficient modellers, neither so big that most of us couldn't have something similar in a sensible space, both designed to keep operators engrossed and interested over many years of regular operating. Both, coincidentally, received major rebuilds over their lives and both represented medium sized fictional stations but based in a real part of the country so their trains went to real places nearby.

 

Time for a gratuitous Buckingham snap?

 

 

   

Edited October 7, 2021 by t-b-g
Spelling

[St Enodoc]

11 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

Time for a gratuitous Buckingham snap?

Always!

[MJI]

GWR stuff, interesting.

 

My shopping list is currently 45xx and Comet stock.

[polybear]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

What has happened to Borchester now, I have no idea, but I don't believe my friends had to alter the control system when they bought it (perhaps a comment from 60526?).

 

Borchester is still alive and hopefully well:

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

Just to show that I have done a bit more to 60046 since I last posted a picture over a month ago.

 

 

 

Though I was at Retford in 1958, it was later in the year. 

 

 

When I've completed the model, I'll ask Geoff Haynes to paint her in this condition.

 

Please observe copyright restrictions on the two prototype shots. 

 

 

[cctransuk]

Tony,

 

There has been much discussion here about the relative merits of RTR versus handbuilt locos, as regards pulling power.

 

Having been constructing and buying locos and stock for in excess of fifty years, and having nowhere to run them other than a 2.4m. long test track, I have been totally ignorant as to the the pulling power of my locos. Having now got my first and last 'magnum opus', 5.0 x 2.4m. 'roundy-roundy' operational, I have been going through the stock drawers to check and oil locos and rolling stock, followed by a good running session with each rake, in order to iron out any niggles. I have to say that I have been extremely gratified with the way that all my stock has, so far, performed - with only the odd detached coupling to refix.

 

As to haulage, all locos - RTR and handbuilt - have, without exception, exceeded my expectations. I have been running-in mainline locos with eight car passenger rakes, though the the ultimate intention is to operate ten car rakes. Out of curiosity, I added extra coaches to an eight car rake comprising mainly Kirk kit-built Maunsell and Bulleid stock, to see when the out-of-the-box Hornby Rebuilt West Country started to slip. Suffice to say that I ended up with two full, eight car rakes behind the tender and the loco didn't so much as falter. I could definitely have added several more coaches to the rake, but the train was starting to look ridiculous with the loco headed one way whilst the last car was still going the other! I am therefore extremely impressed with the performance of the RTR locos that I have so far tested.

 

On the track currently is another Rebuilt West Country - this one with a Hornby Dublo cast body to which numerous Albert Goodall castings have been added; mounted on a Comet chassis and powered by a large Pittman motor; all remaining crevices are stuffed with lead! I am in two mind about repeating the haulage test with this loco; I am not sure that the stock couplings (Peco Simplex) would survive the test!

 

John Isherwood.

[Bulwell Hall]

3 hours ago, APOLLO said:

 

I'll second that, Franks earlier version too. I still have all the Model Railway Constructor mags with Franks content. I also have his full "Model Railways" magazine epic from around 1980 - still inspires me today. 

 

Brit15

 

If I remember correctly the original Borchester, as described in the MRN and MRC in the early 1960s, was actually known as Borchester Town.  I was lucky enough to have seen it at the MRC Easter show in 1962 where it made a big impression!!  I was just ten years old and my father took me to London to see the show.  Amongst a host of memories of that day - my first ever trip to the capital - was also the incredible Rydes Vale in 2mm FS - the BR 3MT in 2mm FS sticks in my mind still.  We travelled via Reading and spent an hour or so 'platform ending' at Paddington before going across to Westminster and I clearly recall my first and only experience of a 'King' in service on a Birmingham train.  It was quite a day in many ways and is still well remembered nearly 60 years later - yikes!!

 

Gerry