Wright writes.....

[t-b-g]

Somebody once told me that at a basic level, a bridge is built to go over a water course and a viaduct is to link two high areas of land either side of a low area but isn't built specifically to cross a water course.

 

I have never checked to see if it was right or if the examples quoted for that pattern but it sounded convincing at the time.

[APOLLO]

Re bridges I,m writing this from our hotel just north of the River Kwai bridge in Thailand. Had a most enjoyable train ride today over the bridge to the lines end at Nam Tok, nearly two hours each way 3rd class, hard wooden seats and open wide windows, coach behind the Loco, a bargain for around  a fiver. Wonderful journey.

 

There is a new museum in Kanchanaburi dedicated to this railway and it,s builders, it is well worth visiting, having some fine models of the steam locomotives etc and the bridges, cuttings  etc. It,s opposite the immaculatley  kept military cemetery. 

 

By the way, if you want bargains in O scale, go American. I baulked at UK O scale prices back in 1982, went North American, Never looked back.

 

Brit15

 

 

[JamieR4489]

18 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Not much help I'm afraid, Jamie,

 

But from my spares box. Down the decades I've collected all sorts of bits and pieces. DMR used to do various frets of different radii for balance weights, as did Jackson Evans. Some (don't know the source now) were made in cast metal. 

 

All I did was rummage through and find a suitable set. 

 

Try Markits. Mark Arscott does a full range of etched balance weights, some for the diameter of a J6 wheel. 01923 249711. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Thanks Tony,

Jonathan has given me another suggestion so I’ll give that a try first and then look at buying some.

 

Regards,

Jamie

[Chamby]

Re: reference costs for O gauge RTR brass, the rather excellent Pacifics produced by 55H/ Lawrie Loveless retail at around £2,500 to £2,800 for a fully finished model.  

 

Gauge 1 at a little under £4000 for an A3, last time I looked.

 

Produced in Chinese factories I believe, so probably at a rather lower hourly rate than has been recently quoted!

 

Phil.

[Compound2632]

Costs and time of 7 mm/ft scale vs 4 mm/ft scale - my instinct is that to build and appropriately stock an O gauge layout that took up the same space as Little Bytham would cost about the same and take about the same amount of time but it would be a much "smaller" layout. 

[StephenB]

As a civil engineer (albeit now retired), my understanding is that they are all bridges but that a viaduct is a bridge with several small spans.

 

Stephen

[polybear]

1 hour ago, grahame said:

 

I thought we were talking about RTR costs rather than kits. Aren't the chassis in them steel with probably very little brass and nickel silver as these days they are mostly plastic. And I understand that brass is cheaper than steel.

 

G

 

. Got it wrong. Again.

But as for Brass being cheaper than Steel....where are you buying your Brass from?  These scrap prices suggest brass is worth 20 -30 times that of steel:

 

http://www.gpmetalsandspares.co.uk/metal-recycling/

[grahame]

7 minutes ago, polybear said:

 

. Got it wrong. Again.

But as for Brass being cheaper than Steel....where are you buying your Brass from?  These scrap prices suggest brass is worth 20 -30 times that of steel

 

I don't buy brass, just spend it, but I recall reading about prices somewhere. Could be wrong. But then there's not very much brass in a plastic RTR model, even one of a GWR loco.

 

G.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Chamby said:

Re: reference costs for O gauge RTR brass, the rather excellent Pacifics produced by 55H/ Lawrie Loveless retail at around £2,500 to £2,800 for a fully finished model.  

 

Gauge 1 at a little under £4000 for an A3, last time I looked.

 

Produced in Chinese factories I believe, so probably at a rather lower hourly rate than has been recently quoted!

 

Phil.

Some interesting figures there, Phil,

 

Many thanks for posting.

 

Now, some comparisons, if I may? 

 

 

Probably worth every penny at £4,000.00? A lovely Loveless A4 in Gauge 1!

 

I don't have any pictures to hand right now of LL O Gauge A3s, but these will do, I hope.

 

 

The original W1.

 

 

 

And two shots of an LL P2 in O Gauge. Around £2,500.00 - £2,800.00 you say? 

 

Now, at well over a third less the price....................................

 

 

A Hatton's A3. Obviously not made in the same material, not in the same 'class', but, also, not in the same price bracket. Food for thought?

 

How about some 4mm/OO price comparisons?

 

 

A Bachmann RTR A1. Priced at £150.00 - £175.00? A good model?

 

 

An equivalent, built by me from a DJH kit and painted by Ian Rathbone. Not far off ten times the price of the RTR A1! 

 

 

Hornby's P2 (not the Railroad one, the fully-lined example). Price, around £125.00?

 

 

How about one costing over ten times more! Yes, not exactly the same loco, but nonetheless an interesting comparison? I built this from an ACE kit and Ian Rathbone painted it. I built it at mates' rates for a mate. 'Stone-cold', it would have been £1,500.00!

 

As with anything one buys, 'you pays your money and you takes your choice'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, Chamby said:

 

 

For some reason, I don't seem to be able to create a new post; just respond to an earlier one. Never mind, I've just got rid of the previous stuff in it. 

 

I've just taken some pictures of the new bridge, illustrating it 'in context'...............

 

 

Prior to last Saturday afternoon, this is what the old bridge looked like looking north from the station. It was the right span and the right width, but way too tall, and a different configuration from the 'real' one. 

 

The loco, the W1, is the typical SE Finecast/Wright/Rathbone combination, and the train my usual mix of modified RTR and kits. 

 

 

How different (and much more accurate) is it now? Because it's (correctly) nowhere near as tall, the span actually looks wider. Even in plain brass, it really 'works'. Again, the loco is typical, this time DJH/Wright/Rathbone, and the train my usual mix.

 

 

Seen from the junction of Station Road and Witham Road, a typical low view. The late Dave Shakespeare's modified Bachmann 4MT 2-6-0 trundles eastwards towards Bourne. 

 

 

And back to the main line. I can't wait to complete the bridge, paint it and weather it. A morning York/Hull combined express dashes southwards behind 60121 SILURIAN (DJH/Wright/Haynes), overtaking an O4/1 on an Up minerals (Little Engines/builder unknown/rebuilt/painted/weathered by me). 

 

Just to the right and below, Ellen Sparkes' lovely little gardens are in 'full summer bloom'. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 2, 2019 by Tony Wright
typo error

[St Enodoc]

8 hours ago, ardbealach said:

in a recent posting uax6 said

 

Ah, but they replaced the Forth Bridge Rail for standard sized flatbottom about ten years ago, so it depends on the date of those photos if you will see the forth bridge rail.... ;-)

 

I attach some photos taken away back in 1967 on the Forth Bridge - these have already been added elsewhere on RMweb - which show the track laid on the bridge at that time. 

 

And why is it called a 'bridge' and not a 'viaduct'? (AM)

The key feature, which shows up well here, is that the rails were laid in troughs. I understand that this was quite unusual.

[Anglian]

There is something very 'right' about the new bridge. Without any knowledge of the prototype and writing purely on aesthetic merits, this replacement fits the overall scene so well. I guess that stands as testament to modelling the prototype.

The discussion about the prices of commissioned models suggest that R-T-R OO remains very good value for money, all things considered. I'd be interested to know how long it takes to complete a coach from a kit – that's where R-T-R must really offer exceptional value for money. 
 

[Clearwater]

Tony

 

If you’ve not seen it, this picture may be of interest:

 

 

https://transportsofdelight.smugmug.com/RAILWAYS/MIDLAND-GREAT-NORTHERN-JOINT-RAILWAY/MGNJR-MISCELLANY/i-DPnPg3v/M. Someone called Paul Johnson - interesting collection of photos.

 

David

 

[The Johnster]

55 minutes ago, Anglian said:

There is something very 'right' about the new bridge. Without any knowledge of the prototype and writing purely on aesthetic merits, this replacement fits the overall scene so well. I guess that stands as testament to modelling the prototype.

The discussion about the prices of commissioned models suggest that R-T-R OO remains very good value for money, all things considered. I'd be interested to know how long it takes to complete a coach from a kit – that's where R-T-R must really offer exceptional value for money. 
 

Recently finished a Comet GW diagram C66/75 all third; I’d say about 2 momths to complete, paint, and number.  Cost comparable to a Hornby Collett suburban until you factor in your own labour/time. 

 

RTR is pretty good value for money as long as the prototype you want is in production; don’t forget that it’s being in the catalogue doesn’t mean it’s available as production takes place in runs.  It is useless otherwise, and needs must you build a kit or scratch. 

 

Plastic wagon kits (Dapol/Kitmaster, Parkside, Cambrian) are relatively easy to build, about 6 hours including painting and transfers, and significantly cheaper; also you are more likely to get a correct rather than generic chassis.  Cambrians are cheap and realistic but have no transfers, wheels, or couplings. 

 

Loco kits are getting thin on the ground, and it is much more of a job to improve on or even equal RTR standards. Steam loco chassis kits, neither cheap nor easy, will still improve on RTR detail and performance, though. 

[Dr Al]

7 hours ago, grahame said:

 

Aren't the chassis in them steel with probably very little brass and nickel silver as these days they are mostly plastic.

 

 

No, most RTR chassis are Mazak alloy. Certainly in OO and N, not sure what in Hattons O, but certainly not steel on the Dapol O gauge I have. Dapol in N have used tungsten for some chassis parts.

 

Mazak is a zinc/aluminium alloy.

Cheers,
Alan

[Atso]

37 minutes ago, Dr Al said:

 

 

No, most RTR chassis are Mazak alloy. Certainly in OO and N, not sure what in Hattons O, but certainly not steel on the Dapol O gauge I have. Dapol in N have used tungsten for some chassis parts.

 

Mazak is a zinc/aluminium alloy.

Cheers,
Alan

 

I don't know what the Dapol A3/A4, Britannia and Hall chassis plates are made out of (not brass for sure) but they take solder very well. All the Farish steam locomotive chassis I have are almost certainly Zamak (similar to but more common that Mazak) alloy and, but comparison, is unsurprisingly not a great alloy to try and solder.

Edited July 2, 2019 by Atso

[Steamport Southport]

2 hours ago, Anglian said:

The discussion about the prices of commissioned models suggest that R-T-R OO remains very good value for money, all things considered. I'd be interested to know how long it takes to complete a coach from a kit – that's where R-T-R must really offer exceptional value for money. 
 

 

It probably depends on the person making them.

 

I was at an exhibition recently and someone was doing a soldering demonstration. In the three hours or so that I was there he had soldered up about a dozen etched brass carriage kits. That included all the hinges, door handles and such. The kits looked like they were all Chowbent/51L LNWR suburban or similar.

 

This type I think.

 

https://www.wizardmodels.ltd/shop/carriage/lnwr-diagram-338-general-service-non-corridor-suburban-brake-third-lnwd338/

 

Obviously he was just soldering the body shell and chassis with no bogies, buffers, interior, roof, etc. being added or painting. But it was batch building on an industrial scale.

 

 

 

Jason

[zr2498]

7 hours ago, Clearwater said:

Tony

 

If you’ve not seen it, this picture may be of interest:

 

 

https://transportsofdelight.smugmug.com/RAILWAYS/MIDLAND-GREAT-NORTHERN-JOINT-RAILWAY/MGNJR-MISCELLANY/i-DPnPg3v/M. Someone called Paul Johnson - interesting collection of photos.

 

David

 

What a good find!

Pity we haven't got one of those Star Trek viewers so we can get a closer look and see the bridge deck

David

[Tony Wright]

8 hours ago, Clearwater said:

Tony

 

If you’ve not seen it, this picture may be of interest:

 

 

https://transportsofdelight.smugmug.com/RAILWAYS/MIDLAND-GREAT-NORTHERN-JOINT-RAILWAY/MGNJR-MISCELLANY/i-DPnPg3v/M. Someone called Paul Johnson - interesting collection of photos.

 

David

 

This is very interesting, David,

 

Many thanks for showing it. 

 

It would appear that the bridge is virtually brand-new (with chaps still working on it?), and thus dates from around 1897 when the MR/M&GNR link was completed. As such (and is obvious in the picture) it pre-dates the quadrupling of the main line over a decade later. It was a condition of the bridge's length when erected that it would be able to span future expansion on the main line.

 

Other points of interest? The telegraph poles on the Up side (we're looking north). After quadrupling, the telegraph poles were placed on the Down side, and remained that way until mechanical signalling disappeared from here in the mid-'70s. Also note the ballast over the sleepers - typical Victorian practice at the time. Though not really visible here, adjacent to where the houses are in the village (just to the left), the railway is carried across the the village on two viaducts. On quadrupling, four further viaducts were built, on both sides of the existing pair, to carry the respective slow roads (the ECML, in its four-track sections, was paired by direction, not speed; unlike the L&NWR or the GWR). The arches don't match up, so, had we had the space to take the model further north, that would have been a very interesting modelling challenge. 

 

This bridge's abutments still stand, of course, though the ends are now taken back at 45 degrees. They used to provide a wonderful vantage point for photography on the main line, but a decree went out about five years ago that 'all the world will be fenced'. Now metal (and totally-unsympathetic to its environment in appearance) fencing prevents access to view the main line. 

 

What does all this mean to me? The 'wisdom' (if anything I'm associated with can ever be called wise) of always modelling an actual prototype. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

[grahame]

10 hours ago, Dr Al said:

 

. . . most RTR chassis are Mazak alloy. Certainly in OO and N, not sure what in Hattons O . . .

 

Mazak (a licensed derivative of Zamak) is an alloy primarily used for castings and is made from other raw materials such as aluminium with some zinc and a little magnesium and copper. There are other metals used in models such as pressed steel (for tension lock couplers?, motor cans?, and other sheet requirements) and brass/copper (wire, pick-ups, etc).

 

However this thread was about the percentage cost of raw materials in models which is a small amount of the total cost and selling price. Nonetheless discussions seem to have moved on although the cost premise still holds true.

 

G

[Dr Al]

1 hour ago, grahame said:

 

Mazak (a licensed derivative of Zamak) is an alloy primarily used for castings and is made from other raw materials such as aluminium with some zinc and a little magnesium and copper.

There are other metals used in models such as pressed steel (for tension lock couplers?, motor cans?, and other sheet requirements) and brass/copper (wire, pick-ups, etc).

 

 

The volume of other metals used in components such as listed is tiny as compared the main chassis block castings. Those components may have more machining or manufacture costs, but based on volume the relative material cost per unit will be tiny compared the Mazak, albeit dependent on the individual constituents cost.

 

Threads move on, and as such it is worth correcting that most RTR does not use steel for chassis blocks so anyone reading is not misled. Steel would be a very bad choice in many ways as it's so prone to corrosion.

 

Cheers,
Alan

 

[Tony Wright]

19 hours ago, Anglian said:

There is something very 'right' about the new bridge. Without any knowledge of the prototype and writing purely on aesthetic merits, this replacement fits the overall scene so well. I guess that stands as testament to modelling the prototype.

The discussion about the prices of commissioned models suggest that R-T-R OO remains very good value for money, all things considered. I'd be interested to know how long it takes to complete a coach from a kit – that's where R-T-R must really offer exceptional value for money. 
 

Speaking from my own experience, it can take 'almost' as long to complete a metal coach kit as it does to make a locomotive. I place 'almost' in speech marks because its dependent on both the type of coach and the size of the loco. If it's a fairly complex coach (say, a diner) and an inside-cylinder tender 0-6-0 we're considering, then the build/finish times will be pretty much the same. That's one of the reasons why I gave up building carriages professionally - not remunerative enough! 

 

Looking at recent RTR carriages, price-wise they're about the same as an equivalent kit - in the £40.00/£50.00 bracket. The kits, of course, have to be built, which is where the huge price-differential occurs when factoring in a professional builder's time. In my own case, I don't 'pay' myself for the carriages I build, and it's an enjoyable process (I need to keep on convincing myself of that when the glazing reveals evidence of glue when viewed from the outside!). 

 

Anyway, perhaps a few comparisons?

 

 

Now (at last!) released in maroon, Bachmann's latest Porthole LMS BTK sees service on a Nottingham-Lynn train. All I've done here is to change the couplings and weather this.

 

 

A Larry Goddard-built equivalent (Larry mentions 'piggly' numbers from time to time!). Interestingly, there's no internal handrail present. 

 

All the Larry Goddard-built carriages featured here came my way in a rather 'battered' state, some minus bogies. I've repaired them as well as I can. 

 

What's the Bachmann RTR one cost? What might this one cost in perfect condition? A lot more, yet it's not so well-detailed. 

 

 

 

Two Hornby D1905 Brake Thirds, in the two BR liveries offered. Again, just new couplings, concertina gangways fitted and some weathering (the maroon one weathered by Gilbert Barnatt). As is often the case, the footboard is coming away.

 

 

 

To Larry Goddard-built D1905s by way of a comparison. Again, received in a rather battered state, but now repaired and certainly good enough as 'layout carriages'. More 'piggly' numbers, and no roof conduits. I'm sure these ex-LMS Brake Thirds all had these. In mint condition, what price by way of a comparison with the RTR Hornby ones? Yet, it's not as detailed!

 

 

This time an old BSL D1905. Builder unknown, but again received in somewhat tatty state, with no bogies. I repaired it and made the bogies. This one does have the roof conduits. Certainly not as good as the Hornby equivalent, but I'm a softy when it comes to taking pity on old model railway items. And, as a layout coach? 

 

 

Next, a Hornby D1899 TK. Once more, just my usual mods.

 

 

And a BSL one for comparison (they even have the same number, which I've only found out by taking these pictures!). Again battered and bogie-less on receipt, but now 'acceptable'. In fairness, I didn't pay much for all these BSL ex-LMS carriages, but a fair bit of remedial/replacement work was necessary. 

 

 

 

Of course, in many cases, there is no RTR equivalent to kit-building. A pair of BSL all-steel ex-LMS cars, once more a bit battered and bogie-less on receipt, but now up and running, and certainly interesting (well I think so). Are the numbers right, though, for BR days?

 

 

There's no RTR equivalent for this long BCK either. Builder unknown, and it didn't run well when I acquired it ('soapy' RTR bogies). Now, with Comet bogies it's now an all-Comet kit. 

 

 

Bachmann's latest Thompsons are super models. Just my usual mods here................. At under fifty quid new, what a bargain!

 

 

The alternative prior to the new Thompsons (the old Bachmann ones were awful!) was to kit-build. John Houlden built this Comet equivalent which ran on his Gamston Bank. When John changed to O Gauge, I found new homes for loads of his OO stuff. Cars like this went for around £100.00 each - a give-away in my opinion. Just about twice the price of the complete kit!

 

 

Back in the day (a long way back), I built Thompsons from BSL kits. This one is over 40 years old. That long ago, who asked about things like door lines, hinges, grab rails and handles? Certainly not me, and it shows! This is nowhere near in the same league as Bachmann's RTR offerings, though at least it's in the more popular BR maroon. 

 

Despite the availability of much better RTR carriages in OO, to get a full representation then kit-building/adaptation will still be necessary. As such, the following two cars have no RTR equivalent..................

 

 

A made/painted this Gresley TO using MJT sides over a Hornby donor

 

 

And also this Gresley RK from the same source, adding HD bogies as well (it should really have an SC prefix). 

 

With regard to the last pair, it was just not worth my while undertaking conversions like these on a professional basis. I make things like these for myself, but there's no money to be made doing them for customers. Well, not enough money, given the work involved.

 

I hope all of these are of interest. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 3, 2019 by Tony Wright
typo error

[gr.king]

My own continuing attempt to build a 4mm scale model of an old ECJS D.79 composite diner (albeit largely from scratch rather than any kit) seems to have taken longer than any loco scratch-builds I've attempted, although there have been many distractions and interruptions, along with an unexpected struggle to find details of the prototype, having failed to appreciate at the outset just how much I would need to know.....

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, gr.king said:

My own continuing attempt to build a 4mm scale model of an old ECJS D.79 composite diner (albeit largely from scratch rather than any kit) seems to have taken longer than any loco scratch-builds I've attempted, although there have been many distractions and interruptions, along with an unexpected struggle to find details of the prototype, having failed to appreciate at the outset just how much I would need to know.....

Thanks Graeme,

 

I think you've highlighted a point very well there. That of the time-imperative for making models, especially when there are 'interruptions'. 

 

Like you, I make models for myself, never really factoring in the time. However, when 'earning a crust' depended on making things, then time was at a premium. That's why I gave up doing conversions for others, and (I wish I could always take my own advice here!), not taking on projects which had been started by others.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Anglian]

Tony,

Thank you for a wonderful walk through of some of your coaching stock. It's very interesting to make the comparisons between hand built and ready to run and to see how the later has improved over time. The thing I notice is that it's not until the Bachmann Thompson that the R-T-R glazing is as good as that of the hand built version.

 

The other aspect that I find interesting is the different level of gloss to the finish. Larry G's being quite glossy. Do you have a view on whether gloss or matt better replicates the right prototypical appearance at 4mm scale, or is it a case of both, depending on the age of the vehicle?

Piggly numbers – the companies making the transfers ought to do some research and produce decal sets of the full running numbers. I think it's a bit much expecting modellers to be able to line-up a row of tiny digits. To overcome this I've designed decal sets (for small scale aeroplanes) to get round the potential issue but it can be very time consuming to do. The sheets I've had printed are waterslide so nudging the decal into a precise position isn't too bad.