Wright writes.....

[2750Papyrus]

I own a P1 built by Dave King using one of his own conversion kits, a fine looking model of an unusual prototype.

 

 

[Woodcock29]

I have a P1 I built from the Crownline kit plus a D16/3 and a J17 to build. Years ago I was able to buy lots of spare chimneys from Dave's Crownline kits and more recently I got quite a lot from PDK.

RIP Dave King.

Andrew

Edited October 17, 2021 by Woodcock29
Added comment

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, 2750Papyrus said:

I own a P1 built by Dave King using one of his own conversion kits, a fine looking model of an unusual prototype.

 

 

Is it possible to see a picture of it, please?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Thanks to John of Pelaw fame, I've now posted in the obituaries section my comment on Dave King's passing.

 

I wonder how many more names in the hobby we'll lose this year. It's not been a good one! 

[Roger Sunderland]

Another sad loss, condolences to his family. Wonderful kits and glad many are still available under the PDK banner.

[gr.king]

12 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I've just heard today from Mike Russell (DMR) that Dave King, one time proprietor of Crownline has died.

 

A maker of countless conversion kits and some very fine 4mm loco kits, yet another fine modeller gone. 

 

 

Agreed.  I, and perhaps many others thought it a shame too that for a while the Crownline range vanished entirely, in murky circumstances.

 

On 16/10/2021 at 10:49, Compound2632 said:

 

I can't think of any other examples of 8-wheeled non-bogie brake vans. On other lines 6-wheelers were the norm for 20 ton vans, until 4-wheelers started to appear after the Great War (or earlier on the Great Western) - I suspect improved bearing lubrication played a part there. I wonder if the Great Northern went for 8-wheelers to give greater frictional area (more brake blocks), considering some of the steep gradients on the West Riding lines?

 

I follow the line of thought regarding friction area, but in "neutral" circumstances, if the weight of the van on the wheels and rails is the same, and the total amount of force being applied to the brakes is the same, the area over which the forces act should be irrelevant. A large area with only the same total force means less pressure. Obviously, if some parts of the contact areas are slippery and others are "grippy", then more areas "in play" could be an advantage. Equally, a large braking area of mixed characteristics might give a poorer result than a small wholly grippy area with the same of force applied.

[grahame]

Apologies, but here's yet another diversion from OO/4mm steam locos with my latest N/2mm building project.

 

Yesterday I started scratch-building a representation (simplified and compressed) version of Borough tube station (c mid 1980s). I still need to make the canopy and tall cast concrete LT roundel. These I'll make separately and glue in place when complete and painted. Here I'm testing the fit of a card template (well, trying to with one hand while holding the camera in the other hand) for the canopy to ensure it will fit snuggly against the curved wall:

 

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, gr.king said:

I follow the line of thought regarding friction area, but in "neutral" circumstances, if the weight of the van on the wheels and rails is the same, and the total amount of force being applied to the brakes is the same, the area over which the forces act should be irrelevant. A large area with only the same total force means less pressure. Obviously, if some parts of the contact areas are slippery and others are "grippy", then more areas "in play" could be an advantage. Equally, a large braking area of mixed characteristics might give a poorer result than a small wholly grippy area with the same of force applied.

 

A larger brake surface area with less pressure should mean that the guard wouldn't have to apply so much force to screw the brake on, for the same total brake force. Another though is, that if the total force is applied over more wheels, there's perhaps less chance of the wheels locking up - perhaps the GN had been experiencing problems with brake van wheels developing flats? (Or perhaps a reluctance on the part of guards to screw the brake on hard enough, knowing that the consequence would be a rough ride afterwards!)

[TrevorP1]

Regarding brakes. My schoolboy physics tells me that friction is independent of surface area. Perhaps the gain was simply less wear on the brake blocks meaning they had to be changed less frequently... Although of course when they were changed there was more to do. Possibly that's why it 'didn't catch on'. Just thoughts...

[Northmoor]

2 minutes ago, TrevorP1 said:

Regarding brakes. My schoolboy physics tells me that friction is independent of surface area. Perhaps the gain was simply less wear on the brake blocks meaning they had to be changed less frequently... Although of course when they were changed there was more to do. Possibly that's why it 'didn't catch on'. Just thoughts...

Yes, Coefficient of Friction is independent of area, although there is a caveat on that with certain materials, with certain surface finishes etc.  However, increasing the area increases the amount of material so you can apply more force, which equals more braking force.

 

I worked as a Tribologist for six years, mostly on lubricated systems (often on and sometimes climbing inside Marine gearboxes), but haven't forgotten the science.  It used to be fun baffling people with the knowledge that in rolling element bearings, it was the metal that got compressed and not the oil.

[richard i]

Crownline kits

Possibly the best attempt at building a kit that I have done. A crownline V2.

I should have said thank you to mr. King for the enjoyment I got from building it. Alas not possible now. Do kit makers ever know how much others appreciate their efforts. Perhaps more so now with Internet forums. 
Tony will be horrified, it is not weathered yet.
my condolences to his family.

richard 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, richard i said:

Crownline kits

Possibly the best attempt at building a kit that I have done. A crownline V2.

I should have said thank you to mr. King for the enjoyment I got from building it. Alas not possible now. Do kit makers ever know how much others appreciate their efforts. Perhaps more so now with Internet forums. 
Tony will be horrified, it is not weathered yet.
my condolences to his family.

richard 

 

 

Thanks for that Richard,

 

Just one thing; you've got the return crank leaning the wrong way on this side. It should lean forward at bottom dead centre, both sides - inside admission and all that..............

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[richard i]

37 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks for that Richard,

 

Just one thing; you've got the return crank leaning the wrong way on this side. It should lean forward at bottom dead centre, both sides - inside admission and all that..............

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

One of these days I will get it right. Might partly explain why I went for the GCR. It then is not something I have to think about in the build.

richard.

[2750Papyrus]

8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Is it possible to see a picture of it, please?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 Engine and van - P1 by Dave King and 8 wheeled GN van.  The GN fencing is a 3D print by Isinglass.

 

[Jol Wilkinson]

Re number of brake van wheels and gross weight. LNWR 10T brake vans were to be four wheeled, 20T vans had six wheel's. I've always thought it was about axle loading and "softer", more pliant, springs to keep the wheels in touch with the track.

 

Same reason perhaps that heavier carriages ran on six wheel bogies, to give a smoother ride

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

Same reason perhaps that heavier carriages ran on six wheel bogies, to give a smoother ride

 

Though I think originally it had to do with weight on the bearings. In the 1870s Thomas Clayton was reporting frequent problems with hot boxes on the Pullman Cars running on the Midland, which were by far the heaviest and longest carriages of the day, and running on four-wheel bogies. His first designs for 54 ft bogie carriages featured a short-wheelbase Pullman-style bogie but the 54 ft carriages actually built were twelve-wheelers. The smoother ride may just have been a happy by-product - any bogie carriage ought to have been better than a six-wheeler!

[bbishop]

On 15/10/2021 at 21:23, Bucoops said:

Wow, I've seen 6 wheeled brake vans but not eight, apart from Queen Mary's of course. Was there any lateral movement in the wheelsets to aid curves or restrictions on routes?

and the Gondolas,  rebuilds of the LBSC motor/luggage vans.  The SR did not believe in waste.  Bill

Edited October 18, 2021 by bbishop

[30368]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Do kit makers ever know how much others appreciate their efforts. Perhaps more so now with Internet forums. 

 

With Tony's indulgance...

I agree Richard, thanks Mr King for the chance to build the excellent A1/1 Kit.

 

 

Correct namplate with accurate GN Coat of Arms is ready to fit... too busy with final stages of ProScale V2 to do that job.

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

[Barry Ten]

The best I can offer by way of a Dave King loco is the Hornby/Crownline Battle of Britain I showed a few weeks ago, now substantially finished.

 

 

I tried to keep the original paint finish so other than some touching up of the lining with a bow-pen, only the deflectors and cab windows were repainted. The camera picks up a difference of hue between the Railmatch malachite and Hornby's 1981 version, but my eye struggles to see anything like the same difference, so I'm happy.

 

Al

 

 

 

 

[St Enodoc]

7 hours ago, 2750Papyrus said:

 Engine and van - P1 by Dave King and 8 wheeled GN van.  The GN fencing is a 3D print by Isinglass.

 

Those SuperQuick buildings never lose their appeal.

[Tom F]

Morning all, here is a little something from me.

Currently tweaking Scaca Forestry Crossing and have some additional trees on order from polish company, MBR. Adding some ever green types into the hillside foliage. Here is a few using the garden as a bit of a backdrop. Next week the layout goes to North Wales.....being an Awdry location based on the Talyllyn Railway, some shots of the layout with mountains of south Snowdonia is a must.

 

Looking forward to seeing Tony the week after. I have motion to build for No. 1 'SKARLOEY' which I've kept putting off through fear of messing up. Tony is kindly going to give me a hand with putting it together.

 

Edited October 19, 2021 by Tom F

[Jol Wilkinson]

"Do kit makers ever know how much others appreciate their efforts. Perhaps more so now with Internet forums. 

richard"

 

Those that post regularly on forums such as RMweb seem to get a lot of praise, especially if they have a thread /topic of their own.

 

Those producers who don't use forums much, if at all for whatever reason, rarely get a mention, unless it is a query about availability, response to emails, delivery delay, etc. It seems odd that people ask about some of these subjects, rather than contacting the supplier directly where appropriate and possible.

 

Having designed a number of kits for one producer, very rarely has anyone said they have enjoyed the results of my work, other than people I know personally (and who soon would also let me know if they had problems). When a model built from a kit appears in an RMweb thread, the builder is often congratulated on his work but unlike the RTR producers, the kit manufacturer rarely gets any plaudits. Tony Wright is rather the exception to this, offering praise where he feels it is due.

[Tony Wright]

Geoff West paid his monthly visit yesterday....................

 

Bringing with him this.................

 

 

He bought it from one of the recent collections I've found new homes for. It was scratch-built by Ray Lighfoot in 1985 and was painted just plain matt black (I didn't take its picture in its original state for 'advertising' purposes because Geoff immediately snapped it up the moment he saw it). He's weathered it beautifully.

 

It runs really well, if a little on the noisy side (powered by its MW005 open-framed motor and Romford 40:1 gears). We might investigate eventually fitting a modern motor/gearbox combo. 

 

What I found most-pleasing yesterday was the fact that I left Geoff, and another old friend, entirely by themselves to operate Little Bytham (BRM goes to press this week and I had some final proofs to check, so was busy elsewhere). They had a fine time, which is what the layout is really all about.

 

Thanks Geoff and George.

 

 

[Tony Wright]

5 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

"Do kit makers ever know how much others appreciate their efforts. Perhaps more so now with Internet forums. 

richard"

 

Those that post regularly on forums such as RMweb seem to get a lot of praise, especially if they have a thread /topic of their own.

 

Those producers who don't use forums much, if at all for whatever reason, rarely get a mention, unless it is a query about availability, response to emails, delivery delay, etc. It seems odd that people ask about some of these subjects, rather than contacting the supplier directly where appropriate and possible.

 

Having designed a number of kits for one producer, very rarely has anyone said they have enjoyed the results of my work, other than people I know personally (and who soon would also let me know if they had problems). When a model built from a kit appears in an RMweb thread, the builder is often congratulated on his work but unlike the RTR producers, the kit manufacturer rarely gets any plaudits. Tony Wright is rather the exception to this, offering praise where he feels it is due.

Good morning Jol,

 

What an interesting post. Many thanks for writing it. 

 

Praise should always be offered where its due (and constructive criticism where that's necessary, too). And, the work of others should always be acknowledged when one sees heaps of 'likes' after a particular post. If that work includes a good kit designer's output, then that should be acknowledged as well; as well as that of he/she who's modified/detailed/weathered an RTR example or built/painted a kit.

 

I think the big difference between RTR and kit-builds (and I don't wish to go over and over old ground) is one of attitude in the main. Since we're lead to believe that only a small fraction of those who enjoy this great hobby of ours actually make anything (other than just assembling various bits of RTR/RTP items on to a board of some kind), then RTR might be perceived as being 'passive'. All one needs are the resources to be able to buy RTR/RTP items. Indeed, to many minds, the act of actually altering/improving/detailing/weathering a brand new RTR loco/vehicle immediately reduces its value. In extreme cases, I'm told that even opening a box renders the contents 'less than mint'!  I can never get my head round this sort of thing. That said, if folk enjoy just arranging RTR/RTP items they've bought on a rudimentary board (or even on the floor!) or enjoy collecting such things, then that's up to them. If they derive pleasure from such activities, I have no right to pass judgement. 

 

Kits, on the other hand, have to be made, and here the 'skill factor' comes in. No matter how well a kit might be designed/produced, if the builder does not have the skills to make it successfully, a poor model will be the result. And, the end result might well be the poor builder being critical of the kit. At one tutorial I gave, I was very less-than-complimentary about a builder's work when he waved a brass loco kit in front of me stating 'It's ******* (insert which expletive suits) rubbish!'. Since I knew the kit to be a good one (having built one myself) and knew the proprietor as a friend, I responded with 'It's your work which is ****** rubbish! Did you check that the frames were square, that the axles ran freely in their bearings, that the motor/gearbox was sweet, that the rods were free and that the motion didn't bind?'. 'No, I just put it all together then tried it' was his response. As for the bodywork - I asked him if he were a plumber by trade! Yet, vociferous bods like him will have an eager audience. 

 

I think, to be fair, though RTR is praised in many cases, it's also criticised, often in a vituperative manner. In the past, when I've given an RTR item a good review, often the response from some critics has been to imply (indeed, to proclaim) that I'm merely in the manufacturers' pockets or have no wish to lose advertising. Much criticism is based on 'ignorance' (as it is with many 'keyboard warriors'), the vituperativeites (have I just invented a word?) not having a clue of the situation in the 'real world'. 

 

Having built in excess of 500 loco kits, I've probably tried most (though never the 'high-end' - the Mitchell/Finney ones, though I have built Brassmasters' kits). I hope I've given praise where it's due, and nothing like praise (remember that V2 saga?) where I think it's appropriate. Good kit design should always be acknowledged. When a kit is reviewed, what's wanted is a fair assessment of its 'buildability', not an assessment of the reviewer's skill-level. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited October 19, 2021 by Tony Wright
typo error and wrong complimentary!

[zr2498]

I had to look that one up. Useful word, but hopefully not needed often.