Wright writes.....

[Mallard60022]

58 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

I only tend to use the Comet sides and floor pan for Thompson carriages. The Comet roof is a generic one, not the right profile for a Thompson. The ends are also unsuitable as they too  have the wrong profile. I also like to standardise on as many components as possible, such as battery boxes etc. The MJT components are much better than the Comet ones, so I wouldn't build a full Comet kit for either Thompson or Gresley stock.

Incidentally, these little three sets worked to Grantham and return, though the BT 5, seems to have been replaced by BT 4's in your time period.

That's why I really liked the late John Fozzard's 'kits' that used MJT parts to complete if that's what you wanted. 

Phil

[Brinkly]

I thought I would share the, almost, completed ShocVan. Once again, thank you for the inspiration to 'model' Tony. Your thoughts over the years have made me think that building is better than buying. 

 

 

 

I've really enjoyed it, so much so that I've started a GWR design (built by BR) of a similar prototype. 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Nick.

[Mallard60022]

Dock Shunter in mint condition and boxed could be worth quite a few quid but the others are not worth a great deal from what I've seen Tony. If you take them all to a show then I'd suggest a tenner for the R1, fiver for the diesel and maybe £30 for the Dock Shunter? However it could be worth speaking to a known and trusted shop employee, such as from the big one in Peterborough or the little one in Grantham!

ATB

Phil

[robertcwp]

On 16/04/2019 at 11:54, Tony Wright said:

I know this type of thing has been discussed before.......................

 

However, am I the only one so ham-fisted with modern RTR locos that whenever I remove them from their boxes and examine them, bits fall off?

 

Having just completed taking the pictures of Hornby's latest Nelsons, I'd noticed that the speedometer drive from the nearside rear driving wheel's crankpin on LORD NELSON itself had come loose from underneath the footplate. No problem, I thought; It's a kind of metal peg at the top of the drive which fits into a slot underneath the footplate. Dead easy, I'll superglue it back in. In attempting this, the flimsy plastic flexible drive just snapped in two! Where the top end of it is now, I'm not prepared to waste what's left of my existence finding out. How ridiculous! I'm not naturally clumsy and my tweezers came from a jeweller friend. 

 

To get the body off, the drive as to be disconnecting, anyway; but, not at the top, at the pin. A daft arrangement if I might be so bold - just as daft as Hornby's A4 lubricator drive, which is attached to both body and chassis, or the need to fiddle with Bachmann's A1's cylinder drain cock operating rod to separate the body from the frames. 

 

I wouldn't dream of having such arrangements on the locos I build - undo two screws, fore and aft, and the two principal components separate with ease. 

 

Please don't think I'm having (yet another?) go at RTR, but I think we've now reached a situation where one or two observations might be made. I've listed the following of mine........

 

1. The standards of fidelity to prototype have never been higher with regard to current RTR.

 

2. Only the very best kit-/scratch-builders/painters can now achieve the same standards in OO (though their locos will usually pull much more).

 

3. In 'real' terms, current RTR locos are very good value for money, considering the standard achieved.

 

4. The market has dictated that levels of detail are at a previously unheard of level.

 

5. One of the consequences of '4' is that that detail is so fine and flimsy that it's far too vulnerable. 

 

6. Detail bits thus fall off (and disappear forever) far too easily. 

 

7. Are these current RTR locos ever designed to be taken apart with ease? 

 

8. Why are so many different screws needed to separate chassis from body, and why are they so inaccessible? 

 

9. DCC insistence dictates that tender locos (in the main) now have a plug and socket arrangement semi-permanently coupling the two units, with all the necessary gubbins in the tender body. 

 

10. Given some of the inherent flimsiness of the plastic (and metal?) components in current RTR locos, how long might we expect them to last?

 

11. The packaging is so complex (and wasteful of the Earth's resources!) that videos are need to explain how to get the locos from their 'boxes'. 

 

12 Any other observations?  

'Bits Falling Off' is I believe also airline slang, where it is often abbreviated to BFOs. I have a small box for BFOs on my layout.

 

For steam models, in general, I find that Hornby's are much more flimsy than Bachmann's with bits much more prone to fall off or break off. They also tend to be harder to get apart, although the Bachmann Austerity is a challenge until you know how to do it - hopefully not having broken something along the way. On the whole, diesel models are easier to get apart, but Hornby's are usually much more awkward than other makes. Some years back there was a whole thread on this forum's predecessor dedicated to how to get a Bachmann Mark I apart, so they are not immune.

 

Wires between engine and tender are a bit of a nuisance but a plus point for Hornby here is that their engines have tender pick-up as well as engine, whereas Bachmann's don't usually, although they still have the wires. DCC is the way forward for much of the market, so those like me who are still analogue just have to live with it I suppose. At least there seems to have been some move away from just doing a particular model with DCC sound and not the more basic version, although there are still exceptions.

 

In my experience, Bachmann locos tend to be more reliable and more durable than Hornby ones, with the latter suffering far too much from the dreaded mazak rot. split gears and wheels going out of quarter. My first Austerity is approaching its 20th birthday and still gives good service. Some of my Hornby steam models are nearly as old and still work. The problems are often with the newer models it seems.

 

Pulling power isn't a problem for the vast majority of modellers. My engines will happily pull 8-9' long freights or 9 car trains, which is all they need to do. I have a layout without any gradients (at least in theory). Modern-day diesel models are usually in a different league though, and are often able to shift 20 or more carriages, and possibly many more than that. 

 

Hornby detailing parts are generally finer and more fiddly than Bachmann ones but often fit better.

 

I have spent much of today bringing my eight new Bachmann Mark 2f coaches into service. None of the ETH detailing bits fits without chipping off the paint from the spigots because whoever designed them probably forgot that the orange paint adds a few microns and means they won't go into the holes. Once in, they really help to finish off the models, which at around £46 a go for the ones without lighting are in my view good value as they are the first air-con Mark 2s that actually look the part after three previous poor efforts by Airfix, Lima and Hornby over the past 42 years (yes, it really is that long since the first Airfix ones appeared). As I don't fit the brake hoses, I now have lots of spares. Similarly with tail lamps, as each carriage comes with no fewer than four, although two are the more modern type that are out of period for me. The bodies are easy to get off on the 2f stock, by the way. One irritant with current Bachmann coaching stock is that the metal inside the bogies, which gives very good bearings, and that is designed for lighting, means that one wheel is linked electrically to the other one on the same side of each bogie. This is an absolute pain on an analogue layout as it means bogies bridge section breaks. Hence, I have had to take apart 16 bogies to alter them to break that link. I had to do the same with the Porthole and Thompson stock too.

 

Apart from being bulky, I think most RTR loco packaging is better than it used to be as we no longer have expanded polystyrene so I think models are easier to get out of packaging than they used to be. Once detailing parts have been fitted, one problem is that engines won't always fit back in their boxes without hacking off bits of packaging.  

 

In spite of a few irritants and areas where manufacturers could do better, I think we are in a very good place right now in terms of overall quality and range of models. I type this with 10203, D601 and D836 sitting next to me with paint drying from a bout of weathering. All are superb models with little, if anything to complain about. They can all shift a long train too, as 10203 demonstrated round Little Bytham last year. Not that long ago, who would have thought that we would have such high-quality RTR models of these three types, and many others? 

Edited April 17, 2019 by robertcwp

[Headstock]

22 hours ago, manna said:

G'Day Folks

 

I did have a 30' yacht mast, in an older type DMU , we managed to squeeze it into the DMU via the brake van double doors, but being so long, it went half way down the passenger compartment aisle, certainly had to watch my step when collecting tickets. I always wondered why a Yacht mast was in Huddersfield, with a ticket to Leeds !!

 

manna

 

There must be something about Leeds.

 

One late Christmas eve, we got the train out of town to find our carriage/unit/whatever occupied by a Christmas tree laid flat in the isle stretching over  two thirds of the length of the interior. All we could see was little grinning faces amongst the branches. It was tempting to think that City square might just be missing one of its Christmas decorations, but how they got it through the ticket barrier was beyond me.

[Clem]

4 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Evening Clem,

 

thanks for he comments. The two carriages are brass sided Hornby, the BT being Bill Bedford and the CL comet. They are a bit of a side line from the main event, the dia 210 twin and five Gresley corridor carriages are currently going through the paint shop.

 

I only tend to use the Comet sides and floor pan for Thompson carriages. The Comet roof is a generic one, not the right profile for a Thompson. The ends are also unsuitable as they too  have the wrong profile. I also like to standardise on as many components as possible, such as battery boxes etc. The MJT components are much better than the Comet ones, so I wouldn't build a full Comet kit for either Thompson or Gresley stock.

Incidentally, these little three sets worked to Grantham and return, though the BT 5, seems to have been replaced by BT 4's in your time period.

Hi Andrew. Thanks for coming back to me. I have to say, Tony talks about modellers struggling to match RTR but those 2 (and petty well everything else of yours that I've seen on Leicester South Goods) completely blow RTR out of the water for me. 

 

Regarding your comments on Comet. I've so far avoided getting any full Comet kits for the reasons you give - i.e. the roof profile etc. I've recently purchased a Bill Bedford D66 BT 3 just to break up the BT4  monotony a bit - yet another on my Hornby donor conversion list. One of the non-gangwayed diagrams that comes up frequently in photos around the Nottingham area that no-one seems to have covered is the 51' Gresley BT 6 (D 246) and I'm pretty sure I've seen them in photos used on the GC services around Leicester too. They seemed to often run in higgledy-piggledy formations including Thompson CLs but I seem to recall also seeing pictures of them with a single D210. I intend to hack a couple of Ian Kirks into one when I get around to it.

 

I'm itching to get back to building locomotives, carriages and wagons but realistically I have several months worth of work on the layout itself. It's been sadly neglected the last couple of years. I'm finishing off a control panel at the moment but after that I have a layout extension, track work, scenery, buildings and signals to tackle. But I can't get away from the fact that my first love is building models that run on the layout.

 

The photo below shows a D246 next to the J39 on the school run between Basford North and Nottingham Victoria via Daybrook. Henry Mellish school was situated near Basford North and my brother used to go there. He'd go up to the station after school to see all his pals who lived in  Arnold and Gedling off on the train home.

 

 

[sdmjsmith]

To try and get some focus into my modeling, I hope to build/bash an example of each loco class allocated to Colwick between 1st Jan 1960 and "the end".  The list gives me loads of inside cylinder six-coupled loco kits to help improve my beginner’s loco building skills. 

 

I was surprised to see a whole stack of Robinson O4s on the list.  As I plan to build three or four 0-6-0s before attempting anything with outside valve gear (i.e three or four years at the current rate!) I thought I'd try the RTR and bash route to tick a couple of those O4 boxes and add a bit of variety on my plank!

 

Armed with the appropriate volume of Yeadon’s Register, I happily ripped the GW gubbins off two Bachman RODs and produced these:

 

 

The loco crews have gone AWOL in the mail somewhere between the UK and Australia along with a snifter (?) valve!  I’ll change the chimneys and domes once I’ve figured out what they should be and where to source them!

 

As I’d managed to transpose the last two numbers of the locos when programming the decoders (I appear to have fallen on the digital side of the Great Divide!), I set about numbering the locos with two cards displaying the target numbers.  I then had several attempts at applying the transfers straight, level and properly positioned (still not sure about the spacing).  Only when finally leaning back to admire the finished work did I notice that I had, despite the cards, managed to apply a nine instead of a three for the second digit on both sides of each loco.  What a plonker! 

 

It seems that the ability to laugh at yourself is a prerequisite for longevity in our great hobby!

 

Matthew

[Clem]

7 hours ago, sdmjsmith said:

To try and get some focus into my modeling, I hope to build/bash an example of each loco class allocated to Colwick between 1st Jan 1960 and "the end". 

Hi Matthew. As someone who is also doing  a layout based on a line running Colwick locos, I thought i'd just post a message to a fellow Colwick lover. The two O4s are looking good. Did you bash the O4/8 from B1 parts as well as the GW ROD? Also I thought I'd add a quick photo. Taken by my brother at Awsworth Junction in 1957. I was with him at the time, aged 6. You'll recognise the engine from your post... I too will be modelling this engine when I get to it, mainly due to this photo.

 

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, robertcwp said:

'Bits Falling Off' is I believe also airline slang, where it is often abbreviated to BFOs. I have a small box for BFOs on my layout.

 

For steam models, in general, I find that Hornby's are much more flimsy than Bachmann's with bits much more prone to fall off or break off. They also tend to be harder to get apart, although the Bachmann Austerity is a challenge until you know how to do it - hopefully not having broken something along the way. On the whole, diesel models are easier to get apart, but Hornby's are usually much more awkward than other makes. Some years back there was a whole thread on this forum's predecessor dedicated to how to get a Bachmann Mark I apart, so they are not immune.

 

Wires between engine and tender are a bit of a nuisance but a plus point for Hornby here is that their engines have tender pick-up as well as engine, whereas Bachmann's don't usually, although they still have the wires. DCC is the way forward for much of the market, so those like me who are still analogue just have to live with it I suppose. At least there seems to have been some move away from just doing a particular model with DCC sound and not the more basic version, although there are still exceptions.

 

In my experience, Bachmann locos tend to be more reliable and more durable than Hornby ones, with the latter suffering far too much from the dreaded mazak rot. split gears and wheels going out of quarter. My first Austerity is approaching its 20th birthday and still gives good service. Some of my Hornby steam models are nearly as old and still work. The problems are often with the newer models it seems.

 

Pulling power isn't a problem for the vast majority of modellers. My engines will happily pull 8-9' long freights or 9 car trains, which is all they need to do. I have a layout without any gradients (at least in theory). Modern-day diesel models are usually in a different league though, and are often able to shift 20 or more carriages, and possibly many more than that. 

 

Hornby detailing parts are generally finer and more fiddly than Bachmann ones but often fit better.

 

I have spent much of today bringing my eight new Bachmann Mark 2f coaches into service. None of the ETH detailing bits fits without chipping off the paint from the spigots because whoever designed them probably forgot that the orange paint adds a few microns and means they won't go into the holes. Once in, they really help to finish off the models, which at around £46 a go for the ones without lighting are in my view good value as they are the first air-con Mark 2s that actually look the part after three previous poor efforts by Airfix, Lima and Hornby over the past 42 years (yes, it really is that long since the first Airfix ones appeared). As I don't fit the brake hoses, I now have lots of spares. Similarly with tail lamps, as each carriage comes with no fewer than four, although two are the more modern type that are out of period for me. The bodies are easy to get off on the 2f stock, by the way. One irritant with current Bachmann coaching stock is that the metal inside the bogies, which gives very good bearings, and that is designed for lighting, means that one wheel is linked electrically to the other one on the same side of each bogie. This is an absolute pain on an analogue layout as it means bogies bridge section breaks. Hence, I have had to take apart 16 bogies to alter them to break that link. I had to do the same with the Porthole and Thompson stock too.

 

Apart from being bulky, I think most RTR loco packaging is better than it used to be as we no longer have expanded polystyrene so I think models are easier to get out of packaging than they used to be. Once detailing parts have been fitted, one problem is that engines won't always fit back in their boxes without hacking off bits of packaging.  

 

In spite of a few irritants and areas where manufacturers could do better, I think we are in a very good place right now in terms of overall quality and range of models. I type this with 10203, D601 and D836 sitting next to me with paint drying from a bout of weathering. All are superb models with little, if anything to complain about. They can all shift a long train too, as 10203 demonstrated round Little Bytham last year. Not that long ago, who would have thought that we would have such high-quality RTR models of these three types, and many others? 

Thanks for that, Robert,

 

The mazak 'rot' and split gears on (some) Hornby locos are problems I've encountered quite frequently of late during my loco-doctoring sessions. I can't fix them. Is there a cure?

 

Mind you, those incidences have paled into insignificance compared with the legions of split-chassis Mainline/Replica/Bachmann things brought along by glum-faced visitors. Again, I have no cure. Thankfully, Bachmann has abandoned such ghastly mechanisms. 

 

Packaging? I recall the days when each of my Christmas/birthday present Tri-ang locos came in a stout cardboard box, with corrugated cardboard inside, the couplings protected by mini toilet rolls and a bottle of oil provided! If nothing else, all those stout boxes provided substructures for scenery.

 

Yes, I've now had other Bulleid diesels running on LB, and don't they run well? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[Tony Teague]

17 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

The mazak 'rot' and split gears on (some) Hornby locos are problems I've encountered quite frequently of late during my loco-doctoring sessions. I can't fix them. Is there a cure?

 

 

Tony

Peter's Spares seem to be addressing one or two of the mazak issues, for example they produce this replacement motor mount for the Hornby SR T9:

https://www.petersspares.com/peters-spares-ps61-replacement-Hornby-t9-motor-mount.ir

 

They can also supply replacements for the gears that split, for example on the Hornby SR WC/BB locos - which I have experienced several times - they fit many others of the same manufacturing era:

https://www.petersspares.com/Hornby-x8849-idler-gear-set-for-china-built-locos.ir

 

However, these are not simple to replace!

 

Tony

 

 

[Tony Wright]

16 hours ago, Clem said:

Hi Andrew. Thanks for coming back to me. I have to say, Tony talks about modellers struggling to match RTR but those 2 (and petty well everything else of yours that I've seen on Leicester South Goods) completely blow RTR out of the water for me. 

 

Regarding your comments on Comet. I've so far avoided getting any full Comet kits for the reasons you give - i.e. the roof profile etc. I've recently purchased a Bill Bedford D66 BT 3 just to break up the BT4  monotony a bit - yet another on my Hornby donor conversion list. One of the non-gangwayed diagrams that comes up frequently in photos around the Nottingham area that no-one seems to have covered is the 51' Gresley BT 6 (D 246) and I'm pretty sure I've seen them in photos used on the GC services around Leicester too. They seemed to often run in higgledy-piggledy formations including Thompson CLs but I seem to recall also seeing pictures of them with a single D210. I intend to hack a couple of Ian Kirks into one when I get around to it.

 

I'm itching to get back to building locomotives, carriages and wagons but realistically I have several months worth of work on the layout itself. It's been sadly neglected the last couple of years. I'm finishing off a control panel at the moment but after that I have a layout extension, track work, scenery, buildings and signals to tackle. But I can't get away from the fact that my first love is building models that run on the layout.

 

The photo below shows a D246 next to the J39 on the school run between Basford North and Nottingham Victoria via Daybrook. Henry Mellish school was situated near Basford North and my brother used to go there. He'd go up to the station after school to see all his pals who lived in  Arnold and Gedling off on the train home.

 

 

What a wonderful picture, Clem,

 

Thanks for posting it.

 

I agree with your comments regarding Andrew's work being far superior to any RTR, but the standards he sets are in a minority. Indeed, in my opinion, it takes a very competent modeller indeed to just match what's now provided straight from a box. 

 

The problem arises, of course (and it's been discussed before), as to what those who can't (or worse, won't) make high-quality models for themselves feel about this. It might be all right for the likes of me to extol the virtues of making things for oneself (as you do), but might those who can't, feel slightly 'left out', or even looked down upon? Not by posters on here, but I've encountered it in some groups. 

 

Without doubt, the rise in quality and fidelity of the latest RTR models (notwithstanding bits falling off!) has made the hobby so much more egalitarian, and anyone, as long as they can pay for it, will have model as good (if not better) than many built by hand. As I say, it takes a very competent modeller indeed to produce a model to the same standard as, say, this.................?

 

 

Hornby even went to the trouble of modelling this A3 with an A4 boiler, something I've never done! They've also fitted AWS which, ironically, this example, being shedded at Carlisle Canal, never received. 

 

Good though it is, there's something 'flat' about Hornby's rendition of BR green.

 

But, with a little bit of skill.....................

 

 

This is the same loco. All I've done is to change its identity, change the bogie wheels and hand it over to Tom Foster for weathering. That is exactly the same green, but a touch of Klear brings it to life.  I should have carved off the top wiggly pipe on this side of the smokebox. 

 

 

 

It's the one Hornby A3 I still retain on Little Bytham.

 

Can I 'match' it?

 

 

 

That's not for me to say. This is a SE Finecast example I built, painted by Ian Rathbone. It is, of course, much more powerful.

 

What does all this show, if anything? That, previously, one had to be a 'reasonable' builder and a very good painter to produce a model that is to the same standard (or very similar) to what can now be obtained RTR? And, the latter will cost considerably less! 

 

From my own point of view, irrespective of if my locos are as 'good' as current RTR equivalents, I consider it irrelevant. I'll continue making my own because 'that's what I do'. 

 

What I feel it should show is that what's available right now RTR is a marvellous 'starting point' for those who wish to improve and personalise their models. If they can't make a loco, never mind, just detail/improve/personalise/weather/etc what they've just bought. For those who can't do that, well; others can do it for them (at a price), but they'll still only ever end up as possessions. Nothing beats doing something for oneself, especially if it personalises something which everyone else just buys. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited April 18, 2019 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[Chamby]

The A1/A3 really does lend itself to 'RTR bashing',  given the variety of different versions that have been produced by Hornby.  By careful selection of models and swopping parts around then so many other versions can be accurately modelled:  All four versions of tender have been produced by Hornby; single and double-chimney versions; left and right hand drive (though the conversion is straightforward); large and small cab cut-outs; streamlined/round/banjo domes...  etc etc.  We really are spoiled for choice, most permutations required for a good representation of any A1/A3 for any period can now be readily achieved with minimal modelling skills.

 

By way of example:  60048 Doncaster - started out as R3518 Gay Crusader,  from their 'Final Day' collection, renamed and given a high-sided non-corridor tender swopped over from Book Law.  60054 Prince of Wales - started out as R3132 Book Law,  renamed, converted to right hand drive and given the GNR tender from Gay Crusader.  Book Law was used as the donor for her round dome, but still needs the cab cut-outs reducing to be correct for mid-1949.  Both locomotives have now been chipped for DCC but are still 'in the works', requiring real coal, crews, working lamps and weathering to become fully layout ready.  They were not fitted with the fiddly speedometer cables at this time!  Weathering is something I have still to bite the bullet on, I'll be doing a few items of rolling stock before starting on these two and the rest of their GCLE stable-mates.

 

 

The one Hornby thing that is a bit annoying is the shade of LNER green they use:  the best match I have found so far is a 50/50 mix of Precision paints Doncaster and Darlington shades.  Maybe that is how they arrived at it...?

 

Phil

[micklner]

14 minutes ago, Chamby said:

The A1/A3 really does lend itself to 'RTR bashing',  given the variety of different versions that have been produced by Hornby.  By careful selection of models and swopping parts around then so many other versions can be accurately modelled:  All four versions of tender have been produced by Hornby; single and double-chimney versions; left and right hand drive (though the conversion is straightforward); large and small cab cut-outs; streamlined/round/banjo domes...  etc etc.  We really are spoiled for choice, most permutations required for a good representation of any A1/A3 for any period can now be readily achieved with minimal modelling skills.

 

By way of example:  60048 Doncaster - started out as R3518 Gay Crusader,  from their 'Final Day' collection, renamed and given a high-sided non-corridor tender swopped over from Book Law.  60054 Prince of Wales - started out as R3132 Book Law,  renamed, converted to right hand drive and given the GNR tender from Gay Crusader.  Book Law was used as the donor for her round dome, but still needs the cab cut-outs reducing to be correct for mid-1949.  Both locomotives have now been chipped for DCC but are still 'in the works', requiring real coal, crews, working lamps and weathering to become fully layout ready.  They were not fitted with the fiddly speedometer cables at this time!  Weathering is something I have still to bite the bullet on, I'll be doing a few items of rolling stock before starting on these two and the rest of their GCLE stable-mates.

 

 

The one Hornby thing that is a bit annoying is the shade of LNER green they use:  the best match I have found so far is a 50/50 mix of Precision paints Doncaster and Darlington shades.  Maybe that is how they arrived at it...?

 

Phil

The earlier Hornby current A3's where a perfect match for the Precision shade . Sadly since they seem to change the shade at will probably due to factory changes. The A4 is excellent for modifying as well . Lots on my LNER thread.

[cctransuk]

18 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Nothing beats doing something for oneself .....

 

How true - and illustrated by some purchases that I made yesterday afternoon.

 

Going through my loco stock, I came upon what must have been one of the first locos that I ever built from a whitemetal kit. It's a Western Precision Castings 'Cotswold' Jinty, on an ancient Tri-ang chassis, albeit fitted with early Romford wheels; (centre ones flangeless).

 

 

The loco body isn't half bad, and I feel a certain attachment to this early example of my railway modelling. So - I duly ordered a Comet chassis kit, a set of Markits wheels, and a High Level gearbox for it; (the motor will be one of my Mitsumis). The loco needs renumbering, so a strip / fill / repaint / reletter are also on the programme.

 

It struck me that I could probably have bought a new RTR Jinty for less than the price of the chassis components - but then I'd have to junk the kit-built loco and the RTR replacement would have no personal associations. Logic has little to do with railway modelling; for me, the satisfaction is in what I put into a model, rather than gloating over the detail of what I've bought.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[St Enodoc]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Mind you, those incidences have paled into insignificance compared with the legions of split-chassis Mainline/Replica/Bachmann things brought along by glum-faced visitors. Again, I have no cure. Thankfully, Bachmann has abandoned such ghastly mechanisms.

Interesting. I haven't had any trouble with the split-frame chassis per se, only with the split axles. Have I just been lucky?

[Clive Mortimore]

3 hours ago, Tony Teague said:

 

Tony

Peter's Spares seem to be addressing one or two of the mazak issues, for example they produce this replacement motor mount for the Hornby SR T9:

https://www.petersspares.com/peters-spares-ps61-replacement-Hornby-t9-motor-mount.ir

 

They can also supply replacements for the gears that split, for example on the Hornby SR WC/BB locos - which I have experienced several times - they fit many others of the same manufacturing era:

https://www.petersspares.com/Hornby-x8849-idler-gear-set-for-china-built-locos.ir

 

However, these are not simple to replace!

 

Tony

 

 

Hi Tony

 

If in stock. I have a Stainer class 4 tank that is now useless because of a slit gear. Peter's Spares have none and Hornby say if they ever do another run of them they will send me a gear wheel. £100 of useless rubbish. Thankfully Peter's Spares was able to help with a mazak rot pony truck on my L1, the cast pony truck just fell apart into 5 parts. I had the last L1 spare he had with its LNER green wheels. Again Hornby had none and were unlikely to get anymore.

 

I am tempted to buy a cheap XO4 motored Fowler tank chassis which I can bung under the Stanier and swap the valve gear over. I have a old Fowler tank and it isn't the bestest runner when the wheels get dirty or it needs a fresh oil but it works. Which shows the finery of newer models is great but their reliability is naff. And coupled with a lack of spares back up from the companies, I now question if they are worth buying.

 

 

[gr.king]

You could try to glue the de-greased parts of the split gear wheel back together as neatly as is humanly possibly, make a simple silicone mould and cast several expendable spares in some sort of resin.

Edited April 18, 2019 by gr.king

[Denbridge]

6 minutes ago, gr.king said:

You could try to glue the de-greased parts of the split gear wheel back together as neatly as is humanly possibly, make a simple silicone mould and cast several expendable spares in some sort of resin.

I've done this with the plasic bevel gear from RG4 units. Over the years I've acquired several gear boxes that had this gear missing along with the final drive gear. The latter are easily obtainable,  but not the bevel gear.

[Woodcock29]

13 hours ago, sdmjsmith said:

To try and get some focus into my modeling, I hope to build/bash an example of each loco class allocated to Colwick between 1st Jan 1960 and "the end".  The list gives me loads of inside cylinder six-coupled loco kits to help improve my beginner’s loco building skills. 

 

I was surprised to see a whole stack of Robinson O4s on the list.  As I plan to build three or four 0-6-0s before attempting anything with outside valve gear (i.e three or four years at the current rate!) I thought I'd try the RTR and bash route to tick a couple of those O4 boxes and add a bit of variety on my plank!

 

Armed with the appropriate volume of Yeadon’s Register, I happily ripped the GW gubbins off two Bachman RODs and produced these:

 

 

The loco crews have gone AWOL in the mail somewhere between the UK and Australia along with a snifter (?) valve!  I’ll change the chimneys and domes once I’ve figured out what they should be and where to source them!

 

As I’d managed to transpose the last two numbers of the locos when programming the decoders (I appear to have fallen on the digital side of the Great Divide!), I set about numbering the locos with two cards displaying the target numbers.  I then had several attempts at applying the transfers straight, level and properly positioned (still not sure about the spacing).  Only when finally leaning back to admire the finished work did I notice that I had, despite the cards, managed to apply a nine instead of a three for the second digit on both sides of each loco.  What a plonker! 

 

It seems that the ability to laugh at yourself is a prerequisite for longevity in our great hobby!

 

Matthew

Hi Matthew

I like what you've done. You are the only other person I've noted to show the use of the Bachmann WR/GWR RODs as a starting point for ex LNER O4s. The biggest advantage is that this model has the correct footplate shape, ie the wide section over the cylinders is the correct length, whereas that on the Bachmann O4 is too long. It also has the front end with the bolt heads on the frame extensions in front of the smokebox as well as a plain plate top to the section between these frames as the Bachmann O4 has a chequered plate as fitted on the preserved O4. It also has the correct cab roof for the ex RODs purchased by the LNER so a good staring point for an O4/3 - I've made 2 of these using the Bachmann WR ROD.

 

One suggestion I'd make is to remove the two tool boxes on the front of the tenders as they were GWR fittings.

 

I'll send you a personal message with my email so we can correspond directly as I can supply you with a chimney and dome for the O4/8 at no cost. These are resin castings from Graeme King that I have spares of.

 

Regards

 

Andrew Emmett

Adelaide  

 

[Headstock]

15 hours ago, Clem said:

Hi Andrew. Thanks for coming back to me. I have to say, Tony talks about modellers struggling to match RTR but those 2 (and petty well everything else of yours that I've seen on Leicester South Goods) completely blow RTR out of the water for me. 

 

Regarding your comments on Comet. I've so far avoided getting any full Comet kits for the reasons you give - i.e. the roof profile etc. I've recently purchased a Bill Bedford D66 BT 3 just to break up the BT4  monotony a bit - yet another on my Hornby donor conversion list. One of the non-gangwayed diagrams that comes up frequently in photos around the Nottingham area that no-one seems to have covered is the 51' Gresley BT 6 (D 246) and I'm pretty sure I've seen them in photos used on the GC services around Leicester too. They seemed to often run in higgledy-piggledy formations including Thompson CLs but I seem to recall also seeing pictures of them with a single D210. I intend to hack a couple of Ian Kirks into one when I get around to it.

 

I'm itching to get back to building locomotives, carriages and wagons but realistically I have several months worth of work on the layout itself. It's been sadly neglected the last couple of years. I'm finishing off a control panel at the moment but after that I have a layout extension, track work, scenery, buildings and signals to tackle. But I can't get away from the fact that my first love is building models that run on the layout.

 

The photo below shows a D246 next to the J39 on the school run between Basford North and Nottingham Victoria via Daybrook. Henry Mellish school was situated near Basford North and my brother used to go there. He'd go up to the station after school to see all his pals who lived in  Arnold and Gedling off on the train home.

 

 

 

Afternoon Clem,

 

thanks for the kind words again, I think that modeling a real location really pushes you to try for more realistic modeling. I have said before, you have a real eye for railway modeling,
I look at your stuff and think, I've seen that train, no doubt because you have looked and seen it yourself, then replicated it in model form.

 

The Gresley BT 6 are most interesting, completely missing from the fossil record in my time period (though I have photos from later), they seem to have been deployed at around the time that the ex GC BT 7 began to fade out and the Twin sets were broken up. I've not researched it in any detail, I wonder if there is any connection? The non gangway sets changed around quite a bit between the late forties, the early fifties and the late fifties.

 

The non gangway sets where comparatively rare south of Leicester. Two thirds of the ordinary passenger trains working out and back between Nottingham, Leicester, Rugby, Woodford and Marylebone were gangway three and five sets. Not forgetting the rather colorful group of attached NPC's.

 

Keep plugging away on the layout, tenacity has its own rewards.

 

Forwards the Colwickholics.

Edited April 18, 2019 by Headstock

[Headstock]

7 hours ago, Chamby said:

The A1/A3 really does lend itself to 'RTR bashing',  given the variety of different versions that have been produced by Hornby.  By careful selection of models and swopping parts around then so many other versions can be accurately modelled:  All four versions of tender have been produced by Hornby; single and double-chimney versions; left and right hand drive (though the conversion is straightforward); large and small cab cut-outs; streamlined/round/banjo domes...  etc etc.  We really are spoiled for choice, most permutations required for a good representation of any A1/A3 for any period can now be readily achieved with minimal modelling skills.

 

By way of example:  60048 Doncaster - started out as R3518 Gay Crusader,  from their 'Final Day' collection, renamed and given a high-sided non-corridor tender swopped over from Book Law.  60054 Prince of Wales - started out as R3132 Book Law,  renamed, converted to right hand drive and given the GNR tender from Gay Crusader.  Book Law was used as the donor for her round dome, but still needs the cab cut-outs reducing to be correct for mid-1949.  Both locomotives have now been chipped for DCC but are still 'in the works', requiring real coal, crews, working lamps and weathering to become fully layout ready.  They were not fitted with the fiddly speedometer cables at this time!  Weathering is something I have still to bite the bullet on, I'll be doing a few items of rolling stock before starting on these two and the rest of their GCLE stable-mates.

 

 

The one Hornby thing that is a bit annoying is the shade of LNER green they use:  the best match I have found so far is a 50/50 mix of Precision paints Doncaster and Darlington shades.  Maybe that is how they arrived at it...?

 

Phil

 

On weathering, I would post some photographs of the condition of both engines mid forty nine but I suspect that you would have a heart attack. It would make the correct shade of grass green rather redundant. P of W was regularly working the Master Cutler at the time, probably as either Palatine or Freddy B were in works. Doncaster was often seen working over the Pennines from Leicester via Sheffield, returning with the late afternoon Manchester Marylebone express, this was the only A3 working to Manchester.

Edited April 18, 2019 by Headstock
Change A4 to A3

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Interesting. I haven't had any trouble with the split-frame chassis per se, only with the split axles. Have I just been lucky?

Thanks John,

 

It's the axles which give the trouble. The split chassis seems fine as it is, as do the motors, but the wheels on the half-axles are all over the place. Often the motion is at angles only a contortionist could achieve, and I'm incapable of fixing the darn things. 

 

I've taken the things apart and invariably the plastic 'muffs' have split. They're supposed to hold the axles together, at the right quartering but, by splitting, they fail - completely! Gluing isn't an option (not that I know of), so, perhaps, Graeme King's idea of making resin replacements might work.

 

From what I can surmise, it would appear to have nothing to do with use. Some brought to me have had hard lives (which might indicate a reason for failure), but others seem to have done no hard work at all. One brought was effectively brand new - not even run. Yet, it still fell to bits. 

 

I know I might have to build replacement Comet chassis for Gilbert Barnatt's ailing studs of split chassis Bachmann B1s and V2s. Oh for the time! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Michael Delamar]

Going back to point rodding. I spotted this on a DVD, Ormskirk, not something you normally see modelled.

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Michael Delamar said:

Going back to point rodding. I spotted this on a DVD, Ormskirk, not something you normally see modelled.

 

 

 

Ormskirk?

 

A lovely place. I trained as a teacher there from 1967 to 1970. 

 

The last steam expresses ran through there between Liverpool Exchange and Preston. Why didn't I take any pictures?

 

Thanks for posting.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Bernard Lamb]

8 hours ago, Chamby said:

The A1/A3 really does lend itself to 'RTR bashing',  given the variety of different versions that have been produced by Hornby.  By careful selection of models and swopping parts around then so many other versions can be accurately modelled:  All four versions of tender have been produced by Hornby; single and double-chimney versions; left and right hand drive (though the conversion is straightforward); large and small cab cut-outs; streamlined/round/banjo domes...  etc etc.  We really are spoiled for choice, most permutations required for a good representation of any A1/A3 for any period can now be readily achieved with minimal modelling skills.

 

 

At one time I looked into bashing Hornby models to get the 4 Carlisle machines circa 1959/60.

Sorting out donors and cross matching tenders was OK. Until I came to Flamingo, which as all readers of this column will know sported an ex A4 tender in her last years. Hornby conversions suddenly become a much more expensive option.

I have never seen a model of Humorist with the A1 style smoke deflectors to mention another odd ball machine. No doubt Tony will come up with a photo of this machine in all it's glory, real or model.

I fancy having a go at Humorist as that horse and also Sunstar were born a few miles from where I live.

Bernard