Wright writes.....

[glo41f]

I rather like the adapted Ivatt 2mt. It looks good and shows really what can be done to improve a rather austere commercial model,  Is this not the way we should be going with our endeavours? Using skill and ingenuity to make a standard model really stand out. I do not know if any of these attractive locos ever made it onto the M&GN but They certainly got to Cambridge and further east to Colchester and the east coast. That is why I have one!

 

I think you should keep it Tony as an example of the modelling philosophy you advocate.

 

Martin Long

 

 

[CUTLER2579]

I think I just heard Colin Massingham ??  laughing from his place of residence at Tony's hammock remark earlier.

Say what one likes about his Kit's, but he was one of life's character's.

It really is a pleasure to go through live meeting such characters as with Roy (Retford) Jackson and many others.Yourself included,of course Tony.

 

By the way I have never thought of this before, but Tony    NOT  Anthony.

Kind Regards,Derek.

[MJI]

'R's

 

I cannot see why anyone would miss them out, or not add them when necessary.

 

Softening Ts can happen, but losing the Rs never.

 

But brand names working on trailing As to replace ER do get corrected.

[micklner]

18 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Cracking wee beasties Mick. Are we looking at magic resin or is there a Hornby A4 cab in the mix?

Andrew

 

Based on Graeme Kings  V2  resin body and etched valve gear and smoke deflectors, using a Bachmann A2 chassis. The Duke has the excellent  Hornby B1 Tender to pull. Its sister behind, is similar spec using the Bachmann  A2 Tender

Edited February 19, 2019 by micklner

[micklner]

17 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Full marks for observation, Mick.

 

Why DUKE OF ROTHESAY was the only one of the Thompson Pacifics never to get the little footsteps on the curved, front footplate remains a mystery. 

 

Speaking of observation.............. Are they Bachmann bogie wheels? I know you don't like the 'correct' bogie wheels, but those on your (lovely) models don't look like any LNER bogie wheel.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Standard Bachmann A2 wheels .

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, micklner said:

Standard Bachmann A2 wheels .

Thanks Mick,

 

As I said, they don't look like any LNER bogie/pony wheel at all. With models of the quality you're producing, I'm surprised you still use them.

 

I know you say Markits' bogie/pony wheels derail. I'm puzzled as to why. I use them exclusively, and have never had any problems.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, micklner said:

Andrew

 

Based on Graeme Kings  V2  resin body and etched valve gear and smoke deflectors, using a Bachmann A2 chassis. The Duke has the excellent  Hornby B1 Tender to pull. Its sister behind, is similar spec using the Bachmann  A2 Tender

 

Evening Mick,

 

Presumably there has been some modification to the B1 tender?

[The Stationmaster]

8 hours ago, glo41f said:

I rather like the adapted Ivatt 2mt. It looks good and shows really what can be done to improve a rather austere commercial model,  Is this not the way we should be going with our endeavours? Using skill and ingenuity to make a standard model really stand out. I do not know if any of these attractive locos ever made it onto the M&GN but They certainly got to Cambridge and further east to Colchester and the east coast. That is why I have one!

 

I think you should keep it Tony as an example of the modelling philosophy you advocate.

 

Martin Long

 

 

The biggest dimensional problem with the Hornby Ivatt was the length of the tender which needed a chunk taken out of the tank behind the coal space to reduce it to the correct length and then gluing back together and then time for then for a spot of filler.  The tender frames off the  Airfix Standard 2-6-0 weren't exactly the right profile but if I remember rightly they were the right wheelbase and definitely the right length for the shortened body.  I'm not sure but I think the bolier might also have been a bit stretched but I drew the line at that piece of surgery.  Goodness (?) only knows what happened to it but later on of course Bachmann spoiled the fun of such hackings and rejoinings by producing one that was much nearer the correct dimensions all round.

[Tony Wright]

20 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

The biggest dimensional problem with the Hornby Ivatt was the length of the tender which needed a chunk taken out of the tank behind the coal space to reduce it to the correct length and then gluing back together and then time for then for a spot of filler.  The tender frames off the  Airfix Standard 2-6-0 weren't exactly the right profile but if I remember rightly they were the right wheelbase and definitely the right length for the shortened body.  I'm not sure but I think the bolier might also have been a bit stretched but I drew the line at that piece of surgery.  Goodness (?) only knows what happened to it but later on of course Bachmann spoiled the fun of such hackings and rejoinings by producing one that was much nearer the correct dimensions all round.

Thanks Mike,

 

I've never owned a Hornby Ivatt 2MT, nor a Bachmann one.

 

I did, however, build a Comet one; now the property of a friend. 

 

I can't decide if anything has been done to the tender top on the one in the picture. I've fitted a Comet sub-frame underneath it, which matched perfectly - which rather suggests it's the right length.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

8 hours ago, CUTLER2579 said:

I think I just heard Colin Massingham ??  laughing from his place of residence at Tony's hammock remark earlier.

Say what one likes about his Kit's, but he was one of life's character's.

It really is a pleasure to go through live meeting such characters as with Roy (Retford) Jackson and many others.Yourself included,of course Tony.

 

By the way I have never thought of this before, but Tony    NOT  Anthony.

Kind Regards,Derek.

I was only ever called Anthony when I was in trouble at school, Derek.

 

I find it far too formal, and definitely not 'me'. Rather out of 'character'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[mattingleycustom]

11 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Tim,

 

And thanks for posting this picture. Isn't it fantastic? I've not seen this one before.

 

I've also learned something this morning (I have plenty to learn!). That the LNER used (at least) two sizes of front numerals on the P2s (I know the A4s varied), and why doesn't WOLF OF BADENOCH have its class designation on the front? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Tony,

 

I noticed the larger front (bufferbeam? - well, not really!) numbers on the A4s some years ago and noted that the NRM with Mallard (incorrectly) use the standard size numbers, also Hornby and Bachmann fail to reproduce this feature on their OO gauge A4s; they also use the standard size of bufferbeam number which is incorrect for most of the class.

 

I think 4493 was first A4 to get the larger numerals (not forgetting the 'No.') and most of the class got them prior to WW2; they're easily recognisable as they more or less fill the space between the rows of rivets either side of the streamlined front. I think the idea was to make them roughly the same size as the stainless steel style painted version; which were around 6" in height. I think Yeadon mentions them in 'Locos of the LNER Part 1', or it might be in one of the RCTS tomes. Of the P2s, I think all except 2003 and 2004 got the larger numerals.

 

A while back I pestered Mike Watts at Fox Transfers to produce a larger version of these front end numbers for the A4s, he duly obliged; but I still think the resultant transfers could still be that little bit larger.

 

Glenn

[Tony Wright]

I've been conducting an insurance assessment for a friend today.

 

Her car was involved in a crash (not her fault), and many models she was carrying were wrecked. 

 

The locos she brought represented a lifetime's work by a deceased modeller. Though not to the highest standards, they were built with ingenuity and self-reliance. Many were interesting RTR adaptations.

 

 

Including this A2/1 derived from Hornby parts. 

 

 

Many were built from kits, including this D2 (WSM or Nu-Cast?). This might well be worth resurrecting because, fortunately, as it's turned out, he glued his kits together and the prang has 'reduced' them back to kits again.

 

 

Some were just detailed/repainted RTR.

 

Rather a shame, don't you think? 

 

 

[micklner]

12 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Tim,

 

And thanks for posting this picture. Isn't it fantastic? I've not seen this one before.

 

I've also learned something this morning (I have plenty to learn!). That the LNER used (at least) two sizes of front numerals on the P2s (I know the A4s varied), and why doesn't WOLF OF BADENOCH have its class designation on the front? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Cant remember the exact date , the Class designation started in about 1938 ? after the P2 was built . It  would have been added on its next works visit.

[Porcy Mane]

Taking of P2's

 

 

P

[Bucoops]

Interesting lubrication grooves - at least I assume that's what they are.

[nerron]

10 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hello Ron

 

Cor blimey, when me mincers copped a butchers at this I couldn't adam and eve it.

 

I first heard this "joke" or a version of it and it was aimed at someone called Patrick, are Londoners the new Irish? 

The Irish tend to pronounce "th" as "t" as ,for example, in tank you.

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I've been conducting an insurance assessment for a friend today.

 

Her car was involved in a crash (not her fault), and many models she was carrying were wrecked. 

 

The locos she brought represented a lifetime's work by a deceased modeller. Though not to the highest standards, they were built with ingenuity and self-reliance. Many were interesting RTR adaptations.

 

 

Including this A2/1 derived from Hornby parts. 

 

 

Many were built from kits, including this D2 (WSM or Nu-Cast?). This might well be worth resurrecting because, fortunately, as it's turned out, he glued his kits together and the prang has 'reduced' them back to kits again.

 

 

Some were just detailed/repainted RTR.

 

Rather a shame, don't you think? 

 

 

 

Very sad, what a shame.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

Very sad, what a shame.

Thanks Andrew,

 

It really is a shame. 

 

The very best of them were only valued up to £75.00  - DJH kit-built, SE Finecast kit-built, etc, (worth it for the motor and wheels in more modern examples, let alone the cost of the kit - he'd built a SEF W1 for instance, which was wrecked), but they're pretty worthless now. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited February 19, 2019 by Tony Wright
to expand upon a point

[richard i]

Such a shame, other than theft I think this is one of our greatest fears. Hours of work lost in an instant. Perhaps worse than theft as the end result is there to see. 

Richard

[manna]

G'Day Folks

 

The D2 wouldn't be to difficult to repair, the A2/1 probably the same, and the 'Bath tub Lizzie' you can buy the bodies on E-Bay.

 

manna

[St Enodoc]

47 minutes ago, richard i said:

Such a shame, other than theft I think this is one of our greatest fears. Hours of work lost in an instant. Perhaps worse than theft as the end result is there to see. 

Richard

Bush fires are probably the biggest risk round here, followed by trees falling on the railway room. Fortunately, during the big storm two weeks ago our next-door neighbour's tree fell parallel to the fence not perpendicular...

[Blandford1969]

9 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Andrew,

 

It really is a shame. 

 

The very best of them were only valued up to £75.00  - DJH kit-built, SE Finecast kit-built, etc, (worth it for the motor and wheels in more modern examples, let alone the cost of the kit - he'd built a SEF W1 for instance, which was wrecked), but they're pretty worthless now. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Could you put the bits as a job lot, its amazing what can be recovered from what appears to be scrap?

[Jesse Sim]

13 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I've been conducting an insurance assessment for a friend today.

 

Her car was involved in a crash (not her fault), and many models she was carrying were wrecked. 

 

The locos she brought represented a lifetime's work by a deceased modeller. Though not to the highest standards, they were built with ingenuity and self-reliance. Many were interesting RTR adaptations.

 

 

Including this A2/1 derived from Hornby parts. 

 

 

Many were built from kits, including this D2 (WSM or Nu-Cast?). This might well be worth resurrecting because, fortunately, as it's turned out, he glued his kits together and the prang has 'reduced' them back to kits again.

 

 

Some were just detailed/repainted RTR.

 

Rather a shame, don't you think? 

 

 

Would that D2 be worth fixing up Tony? Would a person with limited (I mean me so none) loco building expierience be able to put it together to run well? 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

35 minutes ago, Jesse Sim said:

Would that D2 be worth fixing up Tony? Would a person with limited (I mean me so none) loco building expierience be able to put it together to run well? 

 

 

Good morning Jesse,

 

I don't think the D2 would be too difficult to fix. Because it was glued together (with what looks like brown slime!), the impact reduced it to its component parts. A 24-hour soak in Nitromors and it should be build-able again.

 

The 'problem' is, what will happen to the wrecks once the insurance claim has been settled. I was requested as an 'expert witness' to assess the situation, write a report, take photographs and come to a valuation (which I've done and am doing). Many of the locos didn't have motors, or, if they had, they'd never run or hardly ever. It would seem that the deceased chap just liked building locos, and kept them in display cases. 

 

None was what you'd call 'professionally built/painted', so my evaluations were based on my observations above and what they (would have) looked like before destruction. Since most of the valuations hardly covered the cost of the component parts, I'd be surprised if the insurance company objected. They could, of course, ask for a second opinion. 

 

I'll keep folk posted as to what happens after the claim is settled.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Further to my previous above.......................

 

 

This is a DJH A1 from the wrecked collection. It had no motor and the painting is certainly grotty. However, my assessment of its value (before being damaged) was around the cost of the wheels (yes, I know the bogie wheels are ghastly). The motion was not DJH, but for any 'determined resurrectionist ' (Geoff West, please stand up!), a decent A1 would be the result - the kit parts being given, effectively, free!  

 

Speaking of decent DJH A1s.................

 

 

This is from the same collection of a deceased modeller as the wee Ivatt seen yesterday. 

 

Most of it had been built, and I've just finished it off (why he painted the deflectors and cab roof beforehand, I have no idea). It ran, but the gearbox and motion were very stiff, and the motor had suffered accordingly. I've replaced the motor, sorted out the chassis stiffness, and the end result is a very nice, and very powerful A1. Needless to say, it's travelling no further than LB, and will eventually become 60119 PATRICK STIRLING. 

 

 

Another from the same collection was this Kitmaster/Airfix/Branchlines 76XXX. As with the A1, the running was really poor, with tight spots all round. I've dismantled most of the running gear, adjusted it, reassembled it and the end result is a really sweet runner (which I'll complete). Yes, there's a Bachmann equivalent, but that's not been 'made'. 

 

The more I see of locos/chassis built from kits, the more I'm convinced that most of them are 'almost there' with regard to running. I've heard far too many excuses along the lines of 'It'll run-in, and the tight spot will go' to know that's just self-delusion. Do some just tolerate stiff/poor running without investigating why, and curing it? 

 

I think my future career path in loco-doctoring means I'm never going to be redundant!