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

3 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

It occurs to me that the Hornby A3 valve gear on your example could be simply improved by moving the motion bracket up to were it should be under the running board. There seems to be a kind of 'flap, extra material, on the top of the motion bracket that needs removing or bending out of the way. If the motion bracket was repositioned, the radius rod would then the straight, as it should be if positioned in mid gear as represented by the model.

 

There is a bit extra at the top, yes.  It's less obvious when painted black, but still there.  I was a bit disappointed that the Brassmasters A3 detailing kit didn't really provide any parts with which to address the shortcomings of the valve gear; what you suggest might be worth a try.  I've got a failed A3 (gear slipping on driven axle - suspect Tony is right re. longevity of RTR vs kit built locos!) to tackle soon so I might give that a try at the same time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

That looks beautiful!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sadly, the proportions of the valve gear on Trigo, although better than the Hornby version, are still quite different to what Sir Nigel designed.

 

The expansion link is too far forward and the pivot is too low down or the link too long from top to bottom. It means that the valve rod is inclined too steeply.

 

If you want to see what it should look like, try this.

 

 http://www.brassmasters.co.uk/lner_kits.htm

 

There is a delicacy and finesse about Gresley valve gear that really jumps out when it is right.

 

That is also modelled in forward gear and you can see the difference.

 

Edited by t-b-g
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, t-b-g said:

So it is a bit of a trap to look at colour photos from 1963 and weather your locos for your 1955 layout based on how they looked.

Whilst I think this is true of passenger locomotives, certainly in my chosen location,  photos of the early to mid 1950s show the goods locomotives (well a good proportion of them, anyway) to be pretty dirty. - Soot, ash and limescale all feature, though not so much for rust compared to later years. It must be nice to model pre-grouping locomotives where the amount of weathering is very limited and subtle. I always have a little pang of regret when weathering a newly built locomotive, especially if  I've made a half decent job of the painting.

Edited by Clem
spelling
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Sadly, the proportions of the valve gear on Trigo, although better than the Hornby version, are still quite different to what Sir Nigel designed.

 

The expansion link is too far forward and the pivot is too low down or the link too long from top to bottom. It means that the valve rod is inclined too steeply.

 

If you want to see what it should look like, try this.

 

 http://www.brassmasters.co.uk/lner_kits.htm

 

There is a delicacy and finesse about Gresley valve gear that really jumps out when it is right.

 

That is also modelled in forward gear and you can see the difference.

 

Considering much of that valve gear is hewn from the raw metal, Tony, I think it’s very good.  However I agree that the proportions are challenging (they were on the P2).  I think the increased angle on the radius rod might be due to it sitting too high at the front end , i.e. the combination lever is a tad too tall / long.  Everything gets very claustrophobic behind the valve guides on Gresley valve gear.  So much better to see than flimsy etches tho’.

 

Tim

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone modeled valve-gear at 1:76.2 scale correctly? A servo could adjust the reverser position to replicate forward/reverse and cutoff. Technically it's possible with DCC. Personally I won't be bothering ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 31A said:

 

 

When the Hornby L1 came out, I asked a friend what he thought of it.  He is a retired loco driver who had worked on L1s, and also a pretty decent modeller, who had built one from an ABS kit.  He said it looked OK but what were the big lumps on the roof?  Which made me think about the ventilators and on a couple of mine I have replaced the chunky moulded sliding ones with rectangles of thin metal sheet; aluminium I believe cut from drinks cans.  Here is 67773 which has had the cab roof ventilators replaced; it was second hand and had the front and rear headlights missing on the fireman's side (which I have replaced) and the windshield glasses missing on the driver's side (which I haven't replaced).  I must admit I hadn't noticed anything wrong with the chimney, either!  I agree the valve gear is much better on these, although the radius rod still passes a long way behind the eccentric link rather than looking as though it passes through it.  Sorry about the front coupling but it has to pull trains backwards as well as forwards!

 

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_11/P1020940.jpg.2f6e1cfc71bba19657f3292a8b2ce9ec.jpg

 

That looks very convincing, Steve,

 

However, I'd still be tempted to put the correct-sized numerals on the bunker. Those shown are too small.

 

It's still far more detailed than my ECJM's examples, but, as I mention all the time, they're far more 'mine' than any RTR loco, especially the one I built completely (the other I rebuilt). 

 

In many ways the 'ultimate' 4mm L1 would have been the one Mike Russell (DMR) was working on. He'd just put together the first test etches for the kit (which looked brilliant) when Hornby announced their RTR version, nearly a decade ago. It killed it immediately!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Share this post


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

That looks very convincing, Steve,

 

However, I'd still be tempted to put the correct-sized numerals on the bunker. Those shown are too small.

 

 

Thank you Tony.

 

Do you really think the numbers are too small?  That hadn't occurred to me.  I renumbered it by just altering the last digit - the numbers on the HMRS sheet match the printed Hornby ones, albeit very slightly paler (disguised by weathering).

 

https://rcts.zenfolio.com/steam-lner/l-2-6-4/l1/hA891970A#h810f5e6c

 

P1020941.jpg.3eca895a19fa0c29fd592d48c8355882.jpg

 

 

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

This is the Hornby A3 converted to EM gauge with new etched frames added outside the original mazak block (keeping the original drive mechanism). The motion is all etched, including properly proportioned slidbars as mentioned by tbg above. With the additional bearings in the new outer frames these Hornby locos run very well.

 

 

That does look a great deal better!

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Clem said:

Whilst I think this is true of passenger locomotives, certainly in my chosen location,  photos of the early to mid 1950s show the goods locomotives (well a good proportion of them, anyway) to be pretty dirty. - Soot, ash and limescale all feature, though not so much for rust compared to later years. It must be nice to model pre-grouping locomotives where the amount of weathering is very limited and subtle. I always have a little pang of regret when weathering a newly built locomotive, especially if  I've made a half decent job of the painting.

I see what you mean, but I have thought that subtle weathering can be harder to get right. in some ways I reckon it's easier if the effects (rust, dirt etc) are obvious, in my case it was with the last years of the Cavan and Leitrim rather than BR.

On the other hand I'd suspect that effects enough to tone down toy-like brightness to look used without over-doing it might be harder (though I've not done such a prototype myuself yet.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

In many ways the 'ultimate' 4mm L1 would have been the one Mike Russell (DMR) was working on. He'd just put together the first test etches for the kit (which looked brilliant) when Hornby announced their RTR version, nearly a decade ago. It killed it immediately!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Unless anyone knows otherwise this may be the only DMR L1 tank model, made by Ian Forsyth, seen here running on Borchester Market. The photo does not do the model justice, I extracted it from a word document.

Regards

Charlie

67766.jpg

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, johnarcher said:

I see what you mean, but I have thought that subtle weathering can be harder to get right. in some ways I reckon it's easier if the effects (rust, dirt etc) are obvious, in my case it was with the last years of the Cavan and Leitrim rather than BR.

On the other hand I'd suspect that effects enough to tone down toy-like brightness to look used without over-doing it might be harder (though I've not done such a prototype myuself yet.)

 

In 2mm scale I think doing the extremes convincingly is tricky. Less is generally more. That's fine when you are just trying to give a light to intermediate weathering; distinctions between the more matt hot smokebox and the sheen on the boiler cladding, and the mucky running plate and sooty boiler top are relatively (!) easily achieved. However an ex-works loco with just a bit of evidence of priming on the smokebox would be a nightmare - fine streaks of off-white will almost inevitably look overdone. Likewise heavy weathering needs variation. Less is more still needs to apply, but that means that those filthy A3s Tony posted photos of would need a lot of work to build up the variation of colour and sheen (or lack of it). All too easy to get a flat uniform grey or brown grey that makes your model less lifelike or to go mad with bright orange rust. That's one of the reasons I've yet to tackle a Trafford Park Jubilee in 1950 condition. To back up Clem's comments above, they were often as filthy as any loco 10 or more years later due to the shortage of cleaners (I've half a dozen photos of one and still no idea whether it's plain black or tatty red!), but they were steamtight and mechanically sound. When I get around to it my weathering will need to reflect that.

 

Simon

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CF MRC said:

Considering much of that valve gear is hewn from the raw metal, Tony, I think it’s very good.  However I agree that the proportions are challenging (they were on the P2).  I think the increased angle on the radius rod might be due to it sitting too high at the front end , i.e. the combination lever is a tad too tall / long.  Everything gets very claustrophobic behind the valve guides on Gresley valve gear.  So much better to see than flimsy etches tho’.

 

Tim

 

 

Very much better than many a valve gear. It just seems a bit of a shame that if you decide to make your own parts, rather than use commercial items and all the information is available as drawings and a real one exist, that you still don't quite capture "the look". I haven't made outside valve gear often (the GCR didn't have much!) but when I have, constant reference to photos and drawings and being willing to replace or modify etched parts was worthwhile. 

 

The Mike Edge variety does, on the other hand, capture "the look". I wonder if a set of etched parts might be available to purchase for those who want to improve their LNER pacifics.

 

Two people who knew how to make good looking valve gear were Roy Jackson and Malcolm Crawley.

 

This photo of Roy's last pacific build appeared earlier in the thread but is a very good example of how to model valve gear with correct proportions and sizes.

 

image.png.28d4224c93e61a651caac182541bd82f.png

 

 

  • Like 6
  • Craftsmanship/clever 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the valve gear errors, if any, are eclipsed by the thickness of the steam loco model wheels and deep flanges. They just shout "model" rather than "real" to me. I know it's been very difficult to scale down wheels in the past, but with today's manufacturing technology, it should be pretty straightforward now.

 

Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Hitchin Junction said:

I find the valve gear errors, if any, are eclipsed by the thickness of the steam loco model wheels and deep flanges. They just shout "model" rather than "real" to me. I know it's been very difficult to scale down wheels in the past, but with today's manufacturing technology, it should be pretty straightforward now.

 

Tim

 

We all have things in the hobby that we regard as acceptable and some that we would rather do something about.

 

I agree with you about wheels but unless you go to P4 or Scale7 type standards, you are going to have to live with some element of over thick wheels and deep flanges. They can be disguised with some judicious use of chemical blackening, which certainly helps. It is the shiny tread and flange, kept brightly polished under an otherwise weathered loco, that draws attention to it.

 

I have been told that blackening doesn't cause a problem with electrical pick up but the only time I did the treads on a loco it ran like a pig afterwards so I ended up polishing most of it off. Enough was left to tone down the shiny appearance.  Perhaps I did it wrong!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest pacific to join the stud on Sowerby Road M.P.D . DJH no 60147 North Eastern . Valve gear as per kit , I'm no Roy Jackson .

      Ray .P1010261a.jpg.2c30a1bb965411b2f83319b32f872855.jpg1317082290_P1010258-Copy.jpg.d3224aa75a8f9d4e1f6d2d3b89125ea9.jpg

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question, if I may, to Tony W or any other contributors here about 4mm scale footplate crews.

 

I have dutifully lamped up all of my 50+ steam locos (mostly Lanarkshire Models, with some slightly over-scale Springside), but have thus far not embarked on the exercise of fitting loco crews. I'd appreciate any thoughts on suitable sources; the ModelU figures look good, but the expense of manning my entire fleet looks rather daunting. Any advice warmly welcomed...

 

David C.         

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've largely used the ModelU figures (or the almost as good ones by Andy Hardy, but I'd say where cabs are very enclosed you can get away with the cruder plastic or whitemetal ones.  If you want them leaning out or the cab is very open (e.g. Hornby J15) then the finesse of the 3D printed figures shows.  Where you have a cavernous (e.g.) NER cab and they're only vague forms in the gloom, use the cheaper ones.

 

These are ModelU:

 

Gibson-F6-67230-1.jpg

 

Gibson-F6-67230-2.jpg

 

The much less distinct figure in the A4 cab (who came with the loco) is, I think, a Hornby figure.   The blue could maybe do with toning down, but it's the presence of a figure which is important, the lack of detail is much less apparent (and even less so when the loco is moving).

 

Grantham-4479-4466-small.jpg

 

 

Edited by jwealleans
  • Like 11
  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


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

By a factor of at least ten, my Brassmasters Black 5 is the undisputed holder of the long-term, part-built loco trophy !

 

Oh I don't know ....

 

I made the crankaxle for this Anchoridge K3 as a project to test out the new 4 jaw chuck for my little Unimat.  I think I bought the chuck in about 1984.  

 

Of course, it might also provide supporting evidence that modelling in P4 is just time consuming (where's my tin hat!) although, to be fair, you do actually have to do some modelling in order to make any progress whatsoever which maybe where I've fallen down!

 

Alan

 

Img_9793.jpg

Img_9790.jpg

Img_9791.jpg

Edited by PupCam
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

I've largely used the ModelU figures (or the almost as good ones by Andy Hardy, but I'd say where cabs are very enclosed you can get away with the cruder plastic or whitemetal ones.  If you want them leaning out or the cab is very open (e.g. Hornby J15) then the finesse of the 3D printed figures shows.  Where you have a cavernous (e.g.) NER cab and they're only vague forms in the gloom, use the cheaper ones.

 

 

 

 

I also use "premium" figures such as ModelU where they're visible, and cruder or older ones where the cab is enclosed. Out of the white metal ones, I personally find the Monty's Models figures to be excellent.

 

shill132.jpg

Edited by Barry Ten
  • Like 9
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew Stadden , some of mine in the next post below, and Mony Models . Modelu are expensive in 4mm.

Edited by micklner

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.