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.

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

I am currently on a mission to collect Airfix air conditioned coaches, just had a delivery of 3 more, so getting near end of required.

 

I am being asked if I really need all those coaches the same.

 

YES, they are the open seconds, up to 6 or 7 per set. 15 to 20 should be enough for 3 sets.

 

5 of the new ones though require E or F conversion.

 

The perils of 1980s modelling all those coaches, and I cannot build even one set without modelling, least work are 2D TSOs with laserglaze and etched frames, most work are 2D BFKs 2C BSOs and any 2F.

 

But they are all worked on by me therefore they are mine, unlike a straight out of box.

WR-AC.JPG

 

From top

 

Hornby RMB on Commonwealths and air, flush glazed complete

Lima 2B TSO with frames (currently painted awaiting glazing)

Replica SO ex FO complete

Airfix 2D BFK now complete

Airfix 2E TSO now complete

Airfix 2E TSO now complete

 

No need to spend a lot on brand new models when old ones can scrub up so well.

 

Prize for best Mark 2 body profile I think is the ancient Triang Hornby model, detailed, it looks right. Bit of work on Airfix and they go together fine.

 

 

  • Like 7
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

736277054_Midland1PBR.jpg.e79a55e7b41fe3d93ffe25293bae8b48.jpg

 

736616655_58072_08(BATH).jpg.9587739302f61f7455b4e65cc258cec7.jpg

 

Not too sure about that chimney - it looks somewhat over-excited to me !!

 

... and the dome lacks the rather evident bolted cover plate where the Ramsbottom valves were originally located.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited by cctransuk
  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

It's a sort of in between, Steve,

 

It's not as fixed as Hornby's, but there isn't the same amount of sideplay as in the A1 and A2 arrangements. The loco went round 3' curves with ease.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Thanks Tony, I await its arrival with interest.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Clem said:

Hi Mick,

It's been a while since I did it. It think it was Phoenix Precision can't remember for definite what shade but I pretty sure it was bog standard track colour.

Clem, many thanks for your reply, whatever you used, it certainly looks the part. Yours, Mick.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

 

I learned it at primary school when it was drummed into us by rote without any real explanation - much like the times tables (times' tables?). I learned virtually no English grammar in English classes - that came largely from French and German and especially from English lessons in a German "Gymnasium" when I was an exchange student in 1969.

I agree - Having studied Russian, Hindi and German where the presence of several cases and formal distinction between transitive and intransitive actions affect how a sentence is structured, there is no doubt that one comes away from that activity with a better understanding of how one's own language works. 

Obviously transitive and intransitive verbs exist in english but few passing by in the street understand these terms even though most normally use these verbs successfully. The French make life slightly easier for foreigners learning their language by creating reflexive verbs which have a broadly similar effect.

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Following on from the recent discussion of signals, operating or otherwise, i thought I'd post a few pictures of some recent additions. My layout is a made-up location so I can't claim any authenticity with regards to the exact arrangements but hopefully there's nothing too ridiculous.

 

These two are the platform and bay starters, both adapted from Dapol signals that had failed for one reason or another. In both cases they were cut down in height, with the severest alteration being to the platform starter.

 

signals1.jpg.56ed4fc5be43777e88ff20e4c7c0ab67.jpg

 

 

This  view along and under the footbridge hopefully shows why the platform starter needed to be lowered. From a driver's viewpoint, the bay starter wouldn't be in line with the platform one.

 

 

signals5.jpg.9a5960bf4ef995e8b5ad63a261795c8f.jpg

 

The signals use my standard servo arrangement:

 

signals2.jpg.48ba4931ac1682445de079fa44a58e49.jpg

 

The mount is made from three bits of thick plastic card, including the signal base. The servo is just lightly glued into position, and the existing operating wire from the Dapol mechanism tucked into a hole in the servo horn.

 

This junction signal (not yet properly bedded down into the scenery) is from the Ratio kit. I made a simple wooden jig to solder up the handrails on the platform.

 

signals3.jpg.634af93830758be68700fc8f0b7ac6cc.jpg

 

But the underlying servo mechanism is exactly the same, except for there being two servos mounted back to back:

 

signals4.jpg.fdf32b30962adac8062abe74c220af23.jpg

 

All of these are driven by a Megapoints servo control board which will operate 12 arms, with simulated bounce, and the board in turn is operated by a DCC Concepts lever frame.

 

Al

 

 

  • Like 13
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Poppys 8 coupled chassis jig - I was given one a while back as a gift by a kind relative,  but I only recently built it up to try. Perhaps it's just me, but I couldn't set up a 8' x 8'6" 6-coupled chassis on it. It did look as though shorter wheelbases would be fine though. No doubt future projects of mine will use it, but for the loco in question, the old Perseverence tapered rods & springs (which have served me well) were used once again. There is a rumour that a Poppys 6-coupled jig might be heading my way in 2 weeks - we will see :)

 

Mark

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Barry Ten said:

Following on from the recent discussion of signals, operating or otherwise, i thought I'd post a few pictures of some recent additions. My layout is a made-up location so I can't claim any authenticity with regards to the exact arrangements but hopefully there's nothing too ridiculous.

 

These two are the platform and bay starters, both adapted from Dapol signals that had failed for one reason or another. In both cases they were cut down in height, with the severest alteration being to the platform starter.

 

signals1.jpg.56ed4fc5be43777e88ff20e4c7c0ab67.jpg

 

 

This  view along and under the footbridge hopefully shows why the platform starter needed to be lowered. From a driver's viewpoint, the bay starter wouldn't be in line with the platform one.

 

 

signals5.jpg.9a5960bf4ef995e8b5ad63a261795c8f.jpg

 

The signals use my standard servo arrangement:

 

signals2.jpg.48ba4931ac1682445de079fa44a58e49.jpg

 

The mount is made from three bits of thick plastic card, including the signal base. The servo is just lightly glued into position, and the existing operating wire from the Dapol mechanism tucked into a hole in the servo horn.

 

This junction signal (not yet properly bedded down into the scenery) is from the Ratio kit. I made a simple wooden jig to solder up the handrails on the platform.

 

signals3.jpg.634af93830758be68700fc8f0b7ac6cc.jpg

 

But the underlying servo mechanism is exactly the same, except for there being two servos mounted back to back:

 

signals4.jpg.fdf32b30962adac8062abe74c220af23.jpg

 

All of these are driven by a Megapoints servo control board which will operate 12 arms, with simulated bounce, and the board in turn is operated by a DCC Concepts lever frame.

 

Al

 

 

Nice work Al. Can you do something about the stripes on the Dapol arms so that they look more like the Ratio ones? They look awful as they are.

 

The handrails on the bracket look good too. I failed miserably when I tried to make them so I gave up and left them off completely. Funnily enough, it doesn't really show.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

1819471366_RMweb736277054_Midland1PBR.jpg.e79a55e7b41fe3d93ffe25293bae8b48line.jpg.d61b3e6b87d5f20a4d33b292db476360.jpg

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

I applied a striaght edge to the photo of the real thing in your previous post and it seems to be about the same to me, John.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MarkC said:

The Poppys 8 coupled chassis jig - I was given one a while back as a gift by a kind relative,  but I only recently built it up to try. Perhaps it's just me, but I couldn't set up a 8' x 8'6" 6-coupled chassis on it. It did look as though shorter wheelbases would be fine though. No doubt future projects of mine will use it, but for the loco in question, the old Perseverence tapered rods & springs (which have served me well) were used once again. There is a rumour that a Poppys 6-coupled jig might be heading my way in 2 weeks - we will see :)

 

Mark

 

I have to say that I was surprised to discover the limitations of my Poppy's jig; some very common wheelbases have proved to be problematic - when a slight lengthening of certain axle slots would have accommodated them.

 

I even slightly (and VERY carefully) modified my jig to allow its use for a couple of projects; it seems to me that insufficient thought was put into the design in order to optimise the range of wheelbases that could be built.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

I have to say that I was surprised to discover the limitations of my Poppy's jig; some very common wheelbases have proved to be problematic - when a slight lengthening of certain axle slots would have accommodated them.

 

I even slightly (and VERY carefully) modified my jig to allow its use for a couple of projects; it seems to me that insufficient thought was put into the design in order to optimise the range of wheelbases that could be built.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

'I even slightly (and VERY carefully) modified my jig to allow its use for a couple of projects;'

 

Whisper it low, John,

 

But I've done the same; without any loss of function.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, teaky said:

I applied a striaght edge to the photo of the real thing in your previous post and it seems to be about the same to me, John.

Apparently, if one puts a straight edge from the top of the chimney, along the top of the dome to the top of the safety valves, they're all in line (on the prototype).

 

I've been informed that the chimney fitted to the BR 1P example is incorrect - it's the MR one. Obviously, this will be corrected on the production batches.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited by Tony Wright
to clarify a point
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Chimneys, domes and such fittings are an area where many models get it nearly correct but not quite!

 

The shapes are so subtle and the ways the bases fit the curve of the smokebox and boiler with barely a visible line, just a flowing curve, are rarely captured perfectly. Big gaps and really chunky edges are the order of the day on most kits. As if the radius of the boiler and the radius of the bottom of the dome casting are different.

 

Comparing the dome on the prototype photo of the 0-4-4T and looking at the shape (are the sides vertical on the model or do they taper in?) and the flare at the bottom (gentle curve on the real one, almost a crease on the model) illustrates my point. The chimney is not 100% convincing either but if anything, it looks slightly too big a diameter rather than too tall to me. Again, the flare at the base just doesn't seem to capture the flowing curve of the prototype.

 

On the real thing, the chimney has a visible edge where it meets the smokebox, due to it being a big cast lump. The dome has virtually no visible edge as it was formed from thin metal sheet. On the model, they both have the same thickness of edge showing.

 

Little things I know but they do cause it to look "not quite right somehow".

 

I nearly finished a Craftsman kit for one of these many years ago. When the model was announced, I thought I might get my Midland tank without having to finish the kit. Having seen it, if it has traction tyres which might make an EM conversion awkward, I may stick with the kit!

 

 

Edited by t-b-g
To correct poor language use!
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tony Wright said:

Apparently, if one puts a straight edge from the top of the chimney, along the top of the dome to the top of the safety valves, they're all in line (on the prototype). They are on the model. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Tony,

 

When you say "line up" - would that be horizontally, or just on an inclined line?

 

It MAY just be a result of the angle of the photo but, IMHO, the chimney of the BR version dominates in an exaggerated manner.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, t-b-g said:

I nearly finished a Craftsman kit for one of these many years ago. When the model was announced, I thought I might get my Midland tank without having to finish the kit. Having seen it, if it has traction tyres which might make an EM conversion awkward, I may stick with the kit!

 

I, too, am wondering whether the sale of my Craftsman kit was such a good idea.

 

I cancelled (for other reasons) my Bachmann order before I saw these photos, and I don't now regret that.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cctransuk said:

 

Tony,

 

When you say "line up" - would that be horizontally, or just on an inclined line?

 

It MAY just be a result of the angle of the photo but, IMHO, the chimney of the BR version dominates in an exaggerated manner.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood

An inclined plane, John,

 

Though I haven't tried it.

 

As I've mentioned in my last post, the BR version was fitted with the MR-style (taller?) chimney in error. It is the first decorated sample, and it'll be correct on the production batches.

 

Isn't it a lovely little loco, though?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

I, too, am wondering whether the sale of my Craftsman kit was such a good idea.

 

I cancelled (for other reasons) my Bachmann order before I saw these photos, and I don't now regret that.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

Mine ground to a halt when a change of modelling period from the 1930s to pre WW1 left me with a 90% finished loco with a Belpaire firebox!

 

Thinking about changing the firebox to a round top one put me off but one day I will pluck up courage and attack it.

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

With the greatest of respect to recent commentators, the little 1P tank is still a 'prototype', and, as mentioned, the BR version has the wrong chimney. 

 

When I build a loco, I spend ages (at times) fiddling with chimneys and domes to get them looking right. With regard to a plastic-bodied RTR loco, there are obvious limitations on how chimneys and domes (and other fittings) can be 'truly' represented. They have to come out of a mould for a start - not a rubber one (which will flex, allowing for straight sides), nor can the chimneys and domes (economically) be turned from metal. 

 

So, as with many things in life, the modeller has a choice. Except, it's not an equal choice across the board. To the builders out there, I say 'Please go ahead, make your models as accurate as you like. You have the skills and the time, and also the self-discipline to make sure your models are right'. However you (the generic 'you') are in a very small minority in this hobby. Compared with the 'masses', you are very few in number. Most can't build to anything like the standard of that latest Bachmann 1P (overall, I don't think I could; not with that finish). Those who can better it (the chosen few?) will do so, and those who are so unhappy with the appearance of the boiler fittings will easily replace them with turned-brass items sourced elsewhere. 

 

As for price? Buy a kit, acquire the wheels/motor/gearbox, build it and paint it - all for less than what the 1P will cost? I think not. Having built two (years ago), I know! 

 

As a builder myself, what I've written above might appear as hypocrisy (so be it). That I choose to build my own locos is well known, as is why (though this 1P will pull a house down!), but there are far more out there who cannot.  It is for the likes of that majority to which this model is aimed, and that should not be forgotten in my view. 

  • Like 6
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
9 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Nice work Al. Can you do something about the stripes on the Dapol arms so that they look more like the Ratio ones? They look awful as they are.

 

 

 

I hadn't really noticed the stripe, but now you mention it, it does need something doing to it.

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Never mind the height of the chimney.... are they going to do something with those terrible toy-like coupling rods???

 

No matter how I tried to improve the Craftsman kit, and it has always been a favourite of mine, It never quite looked right 

 

 

DSC03145.JPG.5a30c1b7bb38f7b802fa0ab8c8f01533.JPG

 

....and now someone needs to think about producing the pull-push coach....other than the very old and hard to come by...Perseverence kit.....

 

 

DSC03148.JPG.71d93d495a1d6817113fcbb584827b66.JPG

 

 

  • Like 9
  • Agree 1
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...