Jump to content

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Tony Wright

Wright writes.....

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

Would they have still been in that colour scheme In the late 50s Tony’? Or will they be undertaking a re paint? 

There's no way I'm repainting those, Jesse,

 

They're painted so well. 

 

I might contemplate changing the numbers to early BR-style. However, though the GN main line depiction on LB is fairly tight to 1958, the MR/M&GNR bit is much more flexible (Rule 1!). The period represented is the last decade of the line's existence; thus at the start of the period, Nationalisation has just taken place, so a lot of stock will still be in 'Big Four' condition. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might add an 'E' to the numbers using an ex-LNER transfer, Tony.  That was very common in the immediate post-nationalisation years.  Pregrouping carriages were generally slated for early withdrawal and not painted Crimson, although the brown might be touched up or patch painted. 

 

We run two of the matchboard 3rds on Wickham Market - they're a very distinctive (if somewhat ugly) carriage.  I have a number of clerestories as well as these were the most numerous of the different types which were cascaded.

 

WM-pass-up-2.jpg

Edited by jwealleans
  • Like 8
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

 

 

Thanks for thoughts guys.

 

The weight is where it should be John and the rear pony is free to flop about in the vertical direction (no sniggering at the back). The loco IS better with the weight added but still can't manage 11 up the bank. I have previously improved a Bachmann Jubilee which does have weight in it as manufactured - but packed into the smokebox making them front heavy. There is just room to get an approx 4mm thick piece of lead behind the motor, up against the inside of the backhead (ie squarely over the rear driver) and that increased its haulage power up the bank by two coaches (eight instead of six).

 

The theory about wheel profiles is a good shout - that's sound logic if that is indeed the difference between the current and previous Hornby offerings. I'll check that out as I can compare with my 46256.

 

30 coaches is indeed impressive behind a Bachmann Jubilee ... but up a 1-in-90 incline? (I've compromised slightly on the Shap layout - it should of course be 1-in75 - due to the need to lose the height again round the back of the layout)

 

More nice photos, thanks Tony. Of course the blue Ford Anglia is an anachronism for the late 1950s (it is plated up as my Dad's 1967 E reg) ... but at least it isn't flying above Glenfinnan viaduct.

Of course, the problem of limited haulage capacity on Shap can be solved relatively easily..................

 

1442714290_Shap203IvattMickeyMouse.jpg.3c8d655ccc5a4d2bdf679a4b9ad04a83.jpg

 

Pity about that prominent obese NEM pocket and the lack of front (proper) coupling. As you say, 'work in progress'. 

 

1174287236_Shap219Doubleheadedparcelstrain.jpg.7f0d6fd232b0bed8c8c5f6255774424f.jpg

 

Or do (as you do most successfully) what the real railway did and double-head.

 

259158415_Shap22270044onUpexpress.jpg.4ad1bef30bb3f59f77c1e43d4b5be2a5.jpg

 

Going downhill is a doddle, but (I assume?) all trains must either climb or descend again in the fiddle yard dependent on the direction of travel. This 'Brit' looked beautifully-natural, but lamps? 

 

Speaking of lamps, and the opportunity to fix them all on by December, as requested I've been in touch with Andy and he'll do the pictures for BRM at the Peterborough Show. It'll be interesting to see how the (three) different photographers approach taking pictures of Shap. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

  • Like 18
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, davefrk said:

ICI liquified ammonia tankers.

Tank barrel and ends from EMA (Plastruct) temporarily held together with blu-tac, wagon chassis from Dapol (possibly temporary), castings from Lanarkshire Models. Photo by Tony Lambert.

End supports drilled,tapped and bolted to the Dapol chassis as glue doesn't work on shiney plastic....

Tank saddles just hanging loose for the moment. Tank filler/dome still to be made and cast and walkway/ladders still to be etched, just wish I had more time.

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_10/image.png.291ce7fc2d6cef5ff205e42915b5a381.png

 

Hope that helps,

 

Dave Franks

Thanks Dave

 

There are not many people who model tank wagons. Here is one I built from a bit of pipe (from B&Q), plastic card and a Parkside (I think) chassis.  The manhole came from a Trix tank wagon. I was going to try and upgrade the Trix wagon like I have done some old Tri-ang ones by replacing the chassis with a Parkside one. The barrel was too short.

1564069944_008small.jpg.b7e53f49563302a0bbf95b16ee2e0fcb.jpg

739419754_9small.jpg.f3890bc447f223f2b83267ec7982192a.jpg

966725719_12small.jpg.ea6ac371d22a6a7e408f5f46f1e188cc.jpg

Here it is with some refurbished Tri-ang B tanks.

1481946266_14small.jpg.e20bdf178eb2be80b94afdb7d49aa329.jpg

 

  • Like 11
  • Craftsmanship/clever 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/10/2019 at 21:41, dibber25 said:

No, Neville lived in Whitley Bay but he was an avid collector of railway photos related to the North-East. (CJL)

He still does, and still is....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re haulage capacity, check the back set of driving wheels?  I have a Hornby Black 5 and a friend has a Battle of Britain (I think, 4-6-0 anyway one of them wrong green locos that all look the same) of about the same time period as your loco.  I upgraded my Black 5 with a Brassmaster Kit and it looked great but it struggled to manage 5 Bachmann Mk1s. whereas my  footballer, also a 4-6-0, will pull 9/10.  Had a good look at it and found that the back set of drivers are on some sort of sprung suspension system that perhaps improves electrical contact but the spring load is so light that effectively it is a 4-4-0.  Examination of the Hornby drawing confirmed this set-up.  My friend had been complaining about his Battle of Britain, on checking it was the same sort of suspension.   Hornby seem to have eliminated this set-up on more recent models although I have no idea what recent means.  One of this winters projects is to see if I can modify this arrangement.

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/10/2019 at 23:10, Headstock said:

 

 

 

Edited by Willie Whizz
Reply started in error and can't work out how a post can be deleted!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Willie Whizz said:

 

 

 

Use hide post. I asked the same question recently and that was the given answer.  Once hidden there isn't an unhide so be careful.

  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

Tony

 

I bought a part built D&S NE Newspaper van a couple of weeks back whilst in Canberra for the BRMA Convention - an interesting vehicle - seems like there was only one built, it was a test case but the NE only built 6 wheel vans for this traffic thereafter. Hope I can build it as well as the one above?

 

I also have one of the 3rds illustrated above which I bought many years ago - its in the roundtuit drawer!  

 

During the convention weekend I also bought an unbuilt D&S non-gangwayed elliptical roof composite. as well a a range of other NE stock, including a part built a D&S NE horsebox and a part built Chivers 4 wheel NE CCT - something I've been looking for for a while.

 

Regards

 

Andrew 

Andrew, if you need any info sing out as I am slowly assembling NER information. I am glad you have a few interesting projects to go on with, I have just about completed the Dave Bradwell J39 chassis, but I have a heap of things to finish off which came from the same convention. I am most interested to get on with the NEr Auto coach to go with my G5 or G6. 

 

Chat soon. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DougN said:

Andrew, if you need any info sing out as I am slowly assembling NER information. I am glad you have a few interesting projects to go on with, I have just about completed the Dave Bradwell J39 chassis, but I have a heap of things to finish off which came from the same convention. I am most interested to get on with the NEr Auto coach to go with my G5 or G6. 

 

Chat soon. 

 

 

Thanks Doug

 

Andrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Theakerr said:

Re haulage capacity, check the back set of driving wheels?  I have a Hornby Black 5 and a friend has a Battle of Britain (I think, 4-6-0 anyway one of them wrong green locos that all look the same) of about the same time period as your loco.  I upgraded my Black 5 with a Brassmaster Kit and it looked great but it struggled to manage 5 Bachmann Mk1s. whereas my  footballer, also a 4-6-0, will pull 9/10.  Had a good look at it and found that the back set of drivers are on some sort of sprung suspension system that perhaps improves electrical contact but the spring load is so light that effectively it is a 4-4-0.  Examination of the Hornby drawing confirmed this set-up.  My friend had been complaining about his Battle of Britain, on checking it was the same sort of suspension.   Hornby seem to have eliminated this set-up on more recent models although I have no idea what recent means.  One of this winters projects is to see if I can modify this arrangement.

 

I'm thinking that the best way to simulate prototype haulage in model railways is to have very weak (or deliberately weakened) motors in locomotives, very high inertia in locos and cars, and extremely low stiction and friction in all vehicles. Given the issue of adding high inertia, that is most easily created by weighting everything.  But that does limit the ability to haul up grades. In my case I could forfeit true grades and just have all level trackage. After all one can tilt the vertical in scenic grades to some extent to somewhat fool the sideways viewers.

 

The end result would be that all model locos would be able to pull their prototypical loads at prototype speeds - eventually - but would take a more realistic amount of time getting there. All without extra electronics. Or - getting fanciful - adding a power boost function just for gradients.

 

Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hitchin Junction said:

 

I'm thinking that the best way to simulate prototype haulage in model railways is to have very weak (or deliberately weakened) motors in locomotives, very high inertia in locos and cars, and extremely low stiction and friction in all vehicles. Given the issue of adding high inertia, that is most easily created by weighting everything.  But that does limit the ability to haul up grades. In my case I could forfeit true grades and just have all level trackage. After all one can tilt the vertical in scenic grades to some extent to somewhat fool the sideways viewers.

 

The end result would be that all model locos would be able to pull their prototypical loads at prototype speeds - eventually - but would take a more realistic amount of time getting there. All without extra electronics. Or - getting fanciful - adding a power boost function just for gradients.

 

Tim

 

The driving characteristics you describe can be easily programmed into a DCC chip.  I have a Deltic with the inertia set so that it takes about 30 feet to draw up to a halt.  It certainly makes for different driving characteristics when pulling into a station!

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Chamby said:

 

The driving characteristics you describe can be easily programmed into a DCC chip.  I have a Deltic with the inertia set so that it takes about 30 feet to draw up to a halt.  It certainly makes for different driving characteristics when pulling into a station!

That is fine until you want to stop it accurately on an uncoupling magnet. Having locos with different levels of inertia was a total nightmare so we took it all out and went back to a basic method of allowing the driver to decide how, where and when to stop rather than a microchip with no common sense.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

That is fine until you want to stop it accurately on an uncoupling magnet. Having locos with different levels of inertia was a total nightmare so we took it all out and went back to a basic method of allowing the driver to decide how, where and when to stop rather than a microchip with no common sense.

The Deltic runs on the mainline with a fixed rake and inertia kicks in when decelerating from higher speeds.  If you’re using a loco for shunting, you’d programme in different characteristics, surely.  Horses for courses...

 

I was simply responding to Hitchin Junction’s comment about a situation where he thought inertia was desirable.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Apart from gluing together a couple of Airfix long-wheelbase ESSO tanks wagons many years ago, I cannot claim to have made any. My thanks to those who've just been showing us their efforts. Very good modelling indeed.

 

Speaking of good modelling............................

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_10/1453953887_JohnHouldenV201.jpg.941ed8657bf46542317445873a8769d5.jpg

 

Over ten years ago, in an effort to get a decent 4mm V2, John Houlden put this one together from a mixture of (much modified) DJH parts, Crownline parts, Comet parts and a fair bit of scratch-building. 

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_10/1226970989_JohnHouldenV202.jpg.569844f2c69c86039b667e01a1a06a2d.jpg

 

He painted it, and it ran on Gamston Bank. 

 

When that layout was burnt, John graduated to O Gauge and I found new homes for much of his 4mm stock (with a substantial donation going to CRUK).

 

The unique V2 was not among the items sold. Instead, it was placed on long-term loan on Retford, along with many carriages, where Roy Jackson built an EM chassis for it and 'EMed' those carriages. 

 

With Roy's death, the carriages came up for sale, and all have now gone to loving homes. 

 

What of the V2?

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_10/258252783_JohnHouldenV203.jpg.9cd3ffc6e25557d8e6a8caa15fc47618.jpg

 

Well, it's now on Little Bytham! I've just built a Comet frame set to go underneath it, back to OO. Though this might seem heresy to the purists (and those who seek greater accuracy), but John presented it to me as a gift, and I wanted to be able to use it. When Roy built the EM chassis for it, it was with a new set of Comet (wider) frames, but retaining the original valve gear/motion. I've just done the same thing in reverse. What happened to John's original frames, I don't know, but would anyone like a Roy Jackson-built set of EM frames for a V2? 

 

 

 

Now that's what I call a v2. It'll be interesting to see in a few years what Bachmann's new version will look like.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit, some of this talk about haulage capacity on model railways, where electronics become involved is way over my head.

 

My approach is dead simple (well, I think so). I look at the maximum load the prototype of the loco I'm building would be able to take, and make mine do the same in model form. In the case of, say, that V2 just illustrated, some 20 coaches or so. 

 

Today, three friends from the East Riding came to visit and run LB. One of them brought a Hornby Q6. It ran beautifully, light engine. Out of interest, we put it on a loaded coal train comprising of almost 50 wagons, all kit-built, some out of white metal. It just slipped. Almost full power was needed to get the train started (with a little finger nudge), and all the way around the loco slipped. I stuck my near-50 year old K's O4 on the front and that just walked away with the train. It would have handled double. Very much old-school, a white metal loco packed with extra lead! 

 

I've said before, that is why RTR locos are of little use to me. I'm not making a judgement about that, just stating a fact.

 

No amount of electronic wizardry will increase haulage capacity, will it? 

 

Thanks to Adrian, Dave and Chris for a splendid day, and a most-generous donation to CRUK. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, davidw said:

 

Now that's what I call a v2. It'll be interesting to see in a few years what Bachmann's new version will look like.

A few years, David?

 

It's already been a few. And counting.............................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

A few years, David?

 

It's already been a few. And counting.............................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Indeed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

That is fine until you want to stop it accurately on an uncoupling magnet. Having locos with different levels of inertia was a total nightmare so we took it all out and went back to a basic method of allowing the driver to decide how, where and when to stop rather than a microchip with no common sense.

But if you have an 'Activedrive' Zimo chip fitted which has a braking capability, easy peasy!

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Chamby said:

The Deltic runs on the mainline with a fixed rake and inertia kicks in when decelerating from higher speeds.  If you’re using a loco for shunting, you’d programme in different characteristics, surely.  Horses for courses...

 

I was simply responding to Hitchin Junction’s comment about a situation where he thought inertia was desirable.

 

I wasn't that convinced with those ideas either. A deliberately weak motor? A loco that can only just haul a train? You might get away with it if you have the same loco on the same train all the time but what happens when you add a van on the back?

 

The layout in question was a 90ft run from fiddle yard to terminus. You didn't really want inertia starting up as an express crawling on scene and then accelerating away on the visible portion would be totally wrong. Then you had to judge how far out to start shutting off, which was OK and quite realistic. It caused you to cut speed down to a caution otherwise you were in trouble. It was the setting back onto the magnet that was a nightmare. You would turn the controller to 1 or 2. Wait. Nothing happened as they all started to move at different levels. Up to 3 or 4, it would start and run past the magnet. Stop the loco, run forward and repeat. Hardly realistic.

 

I have long believed that a loco that can haul the train behind it at any speed, with a good quality controller and an operator who can use that controller to give a good impression of how the real thing performed is not only as realistic as any electronic gubbins but also far more fun.

Edited by t-b-g
  • Like 1
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

No amount of electronic wizardry will increase haulage capacity, will it? 

 

Actually it will, because otherwise traction control in cars wouldn't work.  It is about applying the maximum tractive force at which the wheels just slip (maximum friction is actually when the wheel is going a few percent faster than the rolling speed - creep on all UK diesels since the Mendip Rail Class 59s, works on the same principle).

 

Tony: do the RTR locos start long trains better or worse on the scenic section or on the storage roads?  I agree with some of the comments above though that wheel profiles on RTR locos will affect things.  Again, there is prototype equivalence; the Schools on the NYMR was had its wheel re-profiled because its propensity to wheel slip was attributed to a worn profile, which can result in a smaller contact patch through which the force is applied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.