Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

36 minutes ago, ROSSPOP said:

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 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

Very nice work,

 

Thanks for showing us.

 

Despite some 'issues', the lining is complete on the Bachmann loco, with no gaps, and no overlaps where corners meet straight edges. And yes, I know it's very difficult with transfer lining, or even bow-pen lining.

 

'are they going to do something with those terrible toy-like coupling rods???'

 

Rather unlikely, but those who can do it will (no doubt) replace them.

 

That carriage is gorgeous, by the way! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[cctransuk]

Tony,

 

You seem to be saying that those who can build their own locos should do so; or at least be prepared to replace components that are inaccurate. I don't accept that argument.

 

As I progress through my seventies, I am increasingly aware that the time remaining to me is finite, and that a strategy for speeding-up the achievement of my model railway ambitions is needed. In particular, if Evercreech Junction 1961 is ever to become a reality, I need to make a start on it and spend less time building locos and stock.

 

To that end, when Bachmann announced 58072, an S&DJR stalwart, I immediately put my Craftsman kit on the market, despite having acquired all of the wheels, motor, gearbox, etc. to go with it. The time saved in constructing the kit could be put to better use.

 

As it happens, a recent, more radical review of priorities concluded that 58072 fell outside my chosen timeframe, so the order was cancelled as being an indulgence; (nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the Bachmann model). Nonetheless; (and whilst I await sight of 58072 with its correct Stanier chimney); I would be having qualms over a model that is fitted with traction tyres.

 

My view is that, unless we accept a return to 'Design Clever'; and having regard for the pricing of current models; it is reasonable to expect models that will satisfy the needs of those who can build their own locos, but would welcome the opportunity to devote their efforts to subjects not available as RTR. In this respect, you are fortunate in having a group of professionals / friends who can contribute to the achievement of your ambitions; something not at the disposal of most of us.

 

We may be in a minority of railway modellers, but I would guess that we have a significant spending power which manufacturers can ill afford to dismiss. I cannot believe that it would be prohibitively expensive to reproduce, for instance, the bolted coverplate on the top of the dome - which has been produced as a separate component to suit this particular version.

 

Moreover, if manufacturers choose to have their models photographed and published via a popular model railway forum, in a form that makes them appear less than accurate, then they are making a calculation that the publicity benefits outweigh any criticism of inaccurate fittings, traction tyres, etc.

 

I know that some potential purchasers clamour for daily updates, but there are dangers in publishing images of hybrid models which can lead to discussions such as we are now having.

 

Just my two p'ennorth.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

PS. Evercreech Junction 1961 will now be a garage (rather than a loft) layout, concentrating on the (for me) most interesting part - the through lines, the bank of sidings and the goods yard. The platform ends and the centre road for banking locos will be modelled, but the station buildings will be, conveniently, off-scene. The multiple fiddle-yard roads will be reduced to two through roads and a pair of train cassette loops, with several cassette storage drawers beneath the fiddle-yard. Some reduction in radii will also have to be accepted.

Edited December 11, 2019 by cctransuk

[ROSSPOP]

Thankyou Tony,

 

I really like the Bachmann IP , at least, above the footplate. Declining eyesigh,  for modelling that is, has pushed me away to 7mm work nowadays so I look at the new 4mm creations with a little envy .......

[queensquare]

58 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

Tony,

 

You seem to be saying that those who can build their own locos should do so; or at least be prepared to replace components that are inaccurate. I don't accept that argument.

 

As I progress through my seventies, I am increasingly aware that the time remaining to me is finite, and that a strategy for speeding-up the achievement of my model railway ambitions is needed. In particular, if Evercreech Junction 1961 is ever to become a reality, I need to make a start on it and spend less time building locos and stock.

 

To that end, when Bachmann announced 58072, an S&DJR stalwart, I immediately put my Craftsman kit on the market, despite having acquired all of the wheels, motor, gearbox, etc. to go with it. The time saved in constructing the kit could be put to better use.

 

As it happens, a recent, more radical review of priorities concluded that 58072 fell outside my chosen timeframe, so the order was cancelled as being an indulgence; (nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the Bachmann model). Nonetheless; (and whilst I await sight of 58072 with its correct Stanier chimney); I would be having qualms over a model that is fitted with traction tyres.

 

My view is that, unless we accept a return to 'Design Clever'; and having regard for the pricing of current models; it is reasonable to expect models that will satisfy the needs of those who can build their own locos, but would welcome the opportunity to devote their efforts to subjects not available as RTR. In this respect, you are fortunate in having a group of professionals / friends who can contribute to the achievement of your ambitions; something not at the disposal of most of us.

 

We may be in a minority of railway modellers, but I would guess that we have a significant spending power which manufacturers can ill afford to dismiss. I cannot believe that it would be prohibitively expensive to reproduce, for instance, the bolted coverplate on the top of the dome - which has been produced as a separate component to suit this particular version.

 

Moreover, if manufacturers choose to have their models photographed and published via a popular model railway forum, in a form that makes them appear less than accurate, then they are making a calculation that the publicity benefits outweigh any criticism of inaccurate fittings, traction tyres, etc.

 

I know that some potential purchasers clamour for daily updates, but there are dangers in publishing images of hybrid models which can lead to discussions such as we are now having.

 

Just my two p'ennorth.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

PS. Evercreech Junction 1961 will now be a garage (rather than a loft) layout, concentrating on the (for me) most interesting part - the through lines, the bank of sidings and the goods yard. The platform ends and the centre road for banking locos will be modelled, but the station buildings will be, conveniently, off-scene. The multiple fiddle-yard roads will be reduced to two through roads and a pair of train cassette loops, with several cassette storage drawers beneath the fiddle-yard. Some reduction in radii will also have to be accepted.

 

I find it hard to understand how modelling the yard and through lines at Evercreech and completely missing off the very distinctive station with its center road, tall signal box and level crossing resulting in a fan of sidings which could be almost anywhere is an acceptable compromise  yet possibly having to change the chimney and  maybe one or two other details on an otherwise superb RTR model is not.

Evercreech Junction without the station, particularly as there is no natural scenic break to 'loose' the station will look most odd. Baccmann's 1P at least looks like a 1P even if there are a few compromises which, as Tony argues, can be changed if they bother you.

Despite being a 2FS modeller I may well treat myself to one for the cabinet.

 

Jerry

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, cctransuk said:

Tony,

 

You seem to be saying that those who can build their own locos should do so; or at least be prepared to replace components that are inaccurate. I don't accept that argument.

 

As I progress through my seventies, I am increasingly aware that the time remaining to me is finite, and that a strategy for speeding-up the achievement of my model railway ambitions is needed. In particular, if Evercreech Junction 1961 is ever to become a reality, I need to make a start on it and spend less time building locos and stock.

 

To that end, when Bachmann announced 58072, an S&DJR stalwart, I immediately put my Craftsman kit on the market, despite having acquired all of the wheels, motor, gearbox, etc. to go with it. The time saved in constructing the kit could be put to better use.

 

As it happens, a recent, more radical review of priorities concluded that 58072 fell outside my chosen timeframe, so the order was cancelled as being an indulgence; (nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of the Bachmann model). Nonetheless; (and whilst I await sight of 58072 with its correct Stanier chimney); I would be having qualms over a model that is fitted with traction tyres.

 

My view is that, unless we accept a return to 'Design Clever'; and having regard for the pricing of current models; it is reasonable to expect models that will satisfy the needs of those who can build their own locos, but would welcome the opportunity to devote their efforts to subjects not available as RTR. In this respect, you are fortunate in having a group of professionals / friends who can contribute to the achievement of your ambitions; something not at the disposal of most of us.

 

We may be in a minority of railway modellers, but I would guess that we have a significant spending power which manufacturers can ill afford to dismiss. I cannot believe that it would be prohibitively expensive to reproduce, for instance, the bolted coverplate on the top of the dome - which has been produced as a separate component to suit this particular version.

 

Moreover, if manufacturers choose to have their models photographed and published via a popular model railway forum, in a form that makes them appear less than accurate, then they are making a calculation that the publicity benefits outweigh any criticism of inaccurate fittings, traction tyres, etc.

 

I know that some potential purchasers clamour for daily updates, but there are dangers in publishing images of hybrid models which can lead to discussions such as we are now having.

 

Just my two p'ennorth.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

PS. Evercreech Junction 1961 will now be a garage (rather than a loft) layout, concentrating on the (for me) most interesting part - the through lines, the bank of sidings and the goods yard. The platform ends and the centre road for banking locos will be modelled, but the station buildings will be, conveniently, off-scene. The multiple fiddle-yard roads will be reduced to two through roads and a pair of train cassette loops, with several cassette storage drawers beneath the fiddle-yard. Some reduction in radii will also have to be accepted.

I'm not far off my own 70s, John, and have made compromises from the standards I proudly maintained back when my eyesight and hand/eye co-ordination was better.  I am aware that I probably have 25 years tops left if I'm lucky, and can't guarantee to be capable of fine scale modelling for all of that.  My philosophy is that RTR is fine if it is to a tolerable standard, and modern RTR is well within that spec, but that I am happy to modify it, build kits, or even attempt a scatchbuild if an Item I want is not available from RTR.  None of my RTR is as it was when it came out of the box, btw, though some has had little more than brass number plates and a light weathering.  I am also happy to tolerate RTR 'near misses', such as Hornby Collett suburbans which are incorrect for my area but look very similar to coaches that are correct.  

 

My 'round tuit' box is gradually filling with bits and pieces to be used on future projects which I am 'banking' for a time when I have exhausted the work I am doing to improve my RTR, 'finished' the layout, and need something to satisfy my inner modeller.  In the meantime I am plugging away slowly at the backlog of wanted coaches; next on the list is an A44 cyclops auto trailer.  Illness, incapacity, or withdrawal from service may well defeat these intentions; nothing I can do about that so I'm not gonna waste time worrying about it.

 

Tony is something of a crusader for scratchbuilding in order to achieve not only the best model possible, but also the best performing model possible, understandable as LB needs full length trains to be hauled at scale speeds of 90mph+ without struggle.  He often makes the very valid point that a model you built yourself gives you more satisfaction in it's ownership than an RTR version (I made that), but my main interest is in realistic operation of a realistic looking layout, and much as I enjoy making things and being proud (sometimes) of the results, I need to use RTR, RTL, and RTP for the majority of my layout in order to have something that runs during my lifetime.  This awareness of my impending demise informs my modelling, and I don't think it's morbid, just pragmatic.  

 

It accounts for my continuing bleating on the subject of the Bachmann 94xx.  I promise not to mention this again today...

[cctransuk]

3 hours ago, queensquare said:

 

I find it hard to understand how modelling the yard and through lines at Evercreech and completely missing off the very distinctive station with its center road, tall signal box and level crossing resulting in a fan of sidings which could be almost anywhere is an acceptable compromise  yet possibly having to change the chimney and  maybe one or two other details on an otherwise superb RTR model is not.

Evercreech Junction without the station, particularly as there is no natural scenic break to 'loose' the station will look most odd. Baccmann's 1P at least looks like a 1P even if there are a few compromises which, as Tony argues, can be changed if they bother you.

Despite being a 2FS modeller I may well treat myself to one for the cabinet.

 

Jerry

 

Jerry,

 

In a word - pragmatism !

 

I designed a 9.5 x 3.0 m. loft layout that included all of the features of Evercreech Junction apart from the junction itself, pretty much to scale length.

 

 

Bearing in mind that I am now 70; that the loft is currently totally unconverted; that the roof timbers would severely inhibit construction and operation; and that EVERYTHING would need to be constructed by me, I have come to the reluctant conclusion that it isn't going to happen.

 

I have, over the past 55 years, built and purchased / modified a vast collection of stock; all intended for the eventual EJ 1961 layout. The thought of it never running before it has to be disposed of was unthinkable, so I was forced to the conclusion that I had to lower my sights somewhat.

 

 

Now, being a wagon nutter, the sidings at EJ and their shunting ARE, to me, the most interesting part of the track layout; the rest of the layout will be there to allow me to 'watch the trains go by'. The fact that there will be few buildings to construct; (which is a chore that I do not really enjoy); is a bonus. That the scenic part of the layout fades out part of the way along the platforms bothers me not one iota - and no-one else is likely to see the layout. Something akin to prototypical train movements will be possible, and I will get a great deal of pleasure from the layout.

 

The bottom line is that the revised layout is achievable in my lifetime, and will satisfy me - nothing else matters.

 

.......... and that doesn't mean that I should therefore lower my sights as far as stock and locos are concerned; my priorities are my own, and no-one else's!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited December 11, 2019 by cctransuk

[Barry Ten]

I think I've got chimney blindness.

 

i don't think I've ever once looked at a model loco and thought that the chimney looks too big/too small/the wrong shape etc. Plenty of other stuff will catch my eye before the chimney. Even when I've changed a chimney to be more accurate, there's a part of me that knows it's largely wasted work as I'll never really notice the difference and 99% of the

time I'll be the only one looking at the model.

 

Al

[Clem]

49 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

think I've got chimney blindness.

Just goes to show how different we all are. For me, the chimney stands out as much if not more than any other as a distinguishing characteristics and I'll spend loads of time trying to get it right.

[cctransuk]

5 minutes ago, Clem said:

Just goes to show how different we all are. For me, the chimney stands out as much if not more than any other as a distinguishing characteristics and I'll spend loads of time trying to get it right.

 

Clem,

 

I suspect that you are far from being alone in this.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[micklner]

23 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Some more goodies to look at arrived this afternoon, brought by Steve Purves, Bachmann's designer.

 

 

 

He brought the other two V2 proving models with him. They ran beautifully as well, even with their cylinder drain cocks fixed on, and one had the flanged Cartazzi wheelset in place. 

 

I found out a lot more about them. All the DCC gubbins and speaker will be inside the loco, not the tender. The tender has pick-ups fitted, that's all. There's also a firebox glow, and, for those who don't want that, the firehole door can be closed! 

 

I've taken moving footage of these in action which should go on BRM Digital in time. 

 

The first decorated sample of the 94XX was also brought. 

 

 

This has a coreless motor, and ran so quietly we forgot it was still going. It took nearly 40 kit-built wagons with ease.

 

The ex-MR 1P decorated samples also appeared.

 

 

What a stunner!

 

 

Another stunner. Believe it or not (the moving footage will prove it), this tiny loco took 14 kit-built carriages (almost all metal) and a horsebox without even slipping - it's got traction tyres! It took far more than its prototype ever could.

 

Thanks Steve for bringing these along.

 

 

Tony

         It has traction tyres ? Really ? A very backward step to me at least,  if that is correct? Where is it collecting current from just the Bogie?  A big disapointment for many , as it is a beautiful looking Loco.

 

I was looking forward to the TMC LNER G5 also being done by Bachmann , if it does have traction tyres as well, then that will be a big no for me !!

[polybear]

10 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

'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. 

 

Perhaps a word to Poppy's might be worthwhile - maybe the proprietor is unaware of issues under certain circumstances and a small mod to the design would help?

[Tony Wright]

 

8 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

Just my two p'ennorth.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

PS. Evercreech Junction 1961 will now be a garage (rather than a loft) layout, concentrating on the (for me) most interesting part - the through lines, the bank of sidings and the goods yard. The platform ends and the centre road for banking locos will be modelled, but the station buildings will be, conveniently, off-scene. The multiple fiddle-yard roads will be reduced to two through roads and a pair of train cassette loops, with several cassette storage drawers beneath the fiddle-yard. Some reduction in radii will also have to be accepted.

Good evening John,

 

'You seem to be saying that those who can build their own locos should do so; or at least be prepared to replace components that are inaccurate. I don't accept that argument.'

 

You sound surprised by making the above statement. For well over 1,600 pages of this thread, that's what I've always been saying. 

 

'I cannot believe that it would be prohibitively expensive to reproduce, for instance, the bolted coverplate on the top of the dome'

 

For an 'extra' like that, add over £6,000.00 for a further tool! 

 

'but there are dangers in publishing images of hybrid models which can lead to discussions such as we are now having.'

 

Manufacturers welcome discussions like this on this thread (as long as they're reasoned - which this is).

 

As always, the bottom line is  - if it doesn't suit you (the generic 'you') because it's 'inaccurate' then there is no power forcing you to buy it.  You're right, the builders do represent a large purchasing power, but nowhere near that of those who can't. And, I can assure you these beautiful little locos will fly off the shelves! 

 

Accepting the limitations of my knowledge of the prototype ex-Midland 1Ps, I ask myself the question 'Could I do better?' In the case of the BR one I illustrated, particularly with that finish, my answer is an emphatic 'No!' Were I interested in it, and I were unhappy with some features on it (it will have the right chimney on the production batches), then I'd change them. 

 

I wonder whether any RTR model will ever satisfy those who set themselves the highest standards.

 

Will this one..................... ?

 

 

 

When Bachmann's designer was over yesterday, he also brought this with him - the latest 45T breakdown crane. I honestly think this is staggeringly good! At a price, mind - near £250.00. Would anyone care to scratch-build one for this amount? 

 

And finally, and to do with making things, mates were over today from Wolverhampton to run the railway. One brought this.......................

 

 

I built/painted this Wills Metro Tank for the Club 35 years ago (scratch-building a chassis for it), to run on Moretonhampstead. Since any loco I build is 'guaranteed for the rest of my life', and this one had started to stutter, I've investigated it, cleaned it and oiled it and, I hope, it's good for another 35 years. 

 

I've no idea whether such a loco is available RTR, but if one were brought out next year, would it be better than this? Yes!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, micklner said:

Tony

         It has traction tyres ? Really ? A very backward step to me at least,  if that is correct? Where is it collecting current from just the Bogie?  A big disapointment for many , as it is a beautiful looking Loco.

 

I was looking forward to the TMC LNER G5 also being done by Bachmann , if it does have traction tyres as well, then that will be a big no for me !!

Mick,

 

It collects current from the bogie and the leading drivers. 

 

And, yes, it has traction tyres, on the trailing coupled wheels. 

 

How does it run? Absolutely-beautifully. Smooth, quiet and incredibly powerful. If you'd like to see it running on LB, it'll be in a digital edition of BRM next year. I'm sure you'll be impressed.

 

As I've said to John Isherwood, 'you' don't have to buy it. Thousands will, though. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[micklner]

4 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Mick,

 

It collects current from the bogie and the leading drivers. 

 

And, yes, it has traction tyres, on the trailing coupled wheels. 

 

How does it run? Absolutely-beautifully. Smooth, quiet and incredibly powerful. If you'd like to see it running on LB, it'll be in a digital edition of BRM next year. I'm sure you'll be impressed.

 

As I've said to John Isherwood, 'you' don't have to buy it. Thousands will, though. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony

It will be interesting to read peoples experience with the LMS one in due course. Personally I havent had a Loco fitted with any for years , they suffered from tyre slippage and failure due to the quality of the material used. Hopefully a new type of material is now being used. 

 

As to buying , as said earlier the Bachamnn/TMC G5 is awaited with interest at this stage .

thanks

Mick

 

 

[Anglian]

 

Tony,

Excuse my lack of knowledge – I'm presuming all the railway companies had their own designs or did they buy the same design from one builder? If the former – which company is this Bachmann crane correct for or is this purely a BR design? 

With regarded to the dome on the 1P could they not add a flat top dome to one of the existing tools? I'm presuming these are stainless steel tools and that there would be space to add a small detail like this so they have it available in their 'kit of parts'.

Edited December 11, 2019 by Anglian

[Barry Ten]

39 minutes ago, micklner said:

Tony

It will be interesting to read peoples experience with the LMS one in due course. Personally I havent had a Loco fitted with any for years , they suffered from tyre slippage and failure due to the quality of the material used. Hopefully a new type of material is now being used. 

 

As to buying , as said earlier the Bachamnn/TMC G5 is awaited with interest at this stage .

thanks

Mick

 

 

 

Of the more recent British outline models, the Hornby T9 and M7 (and possibly the Wainwright 0-4-4T) have tires and they seem pretty robust in my experience - at least, if something's going to fail on them, it'll be something else initially.

 

All my European steam locos have traction tires, too, and again they seem not to be a problem. I think European modellers are generally more accepting of such things,

as well as tender drives, perhaps because they've tended to be implemented more reliably than in the UK.

 

 

[Woodcock29]

Interesting comment Barry Ten. To me the chimney, dome and smokebox door are all part of the face of a loco and if they're not correct it ain't right.

 

So I'm often to be found sourcing replacements. Currently I'm upgrading an old Craftsman C12 I built 40 years ago as it will be running on a new exhibition layout later next year. I contemplated changing the smokebox door because its diameter is too large and its missing the seating ring, but as its solidly glued in (built before I did much soldering!) I've decided at this stage not to attempt it as I would have had to drill it out, even though I do have a spare LRM door to fit.

 

Andrew

Edited December 11, 2019 by Woodcock29
Typo

[Woodcock29]

Deleted duplicate post

Edited December 11, 2019 by Woodcock29
Deleted duplicate post

[Clive Mortimore]

3 hours ago, Anglian said:

 

Tony,

Excuse my lack of knowledge – I'm presuming all the railway companies had their own designs or did they buy the same design from one builder? If the former – which company is this Bachmann crane correct for or is this purely a BR design? 
 

 

Built for the railways by the government just before WW2. There is a long thread about this model in the Bachmann section.

 

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

Good evening John,

 

Much edited

 

 

Will this one..................... ?

 

 

 

When Bachmann's designer was over yesterday, he also brought this with him - the latest 45T breakdown crane. I honestly think this is staggeringly good! At a price, mind - near £250.00. Would anyone care to scratch-build one for this amount? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Hello Tony

 

It might not be in the same class as the Bachmann model but for the cost of 3 sheets of plastic card, 8 sets of wheels and a sheet of transfers, it was far less than £250 and a lot of fun building it. It was also the right size of crane for my then loco depot layout.

 

 

Here she is with her supporting train.

Edited December 12, 2019 by Clive Mortimore

[Headstock]

31 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

 

Built for the railways by the government just before WW2. There is a long thread about this model in the Bachmann section.

 

Hello Tony

 

It might not be in the same class as the Bachmann but for the cost of 3 sheets of plastic card, 8 sets of wheels and a sheet of transfers, it was far less than £250 and a lot of fun building it. It was also the right size of crane for my then loco depot layout.

 

 

Here she is with her supporting train.

 

Ooh er Clive,

 

your mighty jib is much more exciting than Tony's.

[Anglian]

Clive,

 

Many thanks. I've found the relevant thread and am kind of relieved to discover it's out of period for me. I still think it's a fabulous piece, of course at a price.

 

I very much like your version.

Edited December 12, 2019 by Anglian

[Chuffer Davies]

On 10/12/2019 at 08:14, Jesse Sim said:

Cracked on with the O2 conversion today, just need to put the handrails back on, paint the buffer beams, some transfers and a nice heavy weathering. 

 

 

by the way, anyone know where I can get handrails for the tender and cab side? 

Hi Jesse,
that is an impressive model you are building there, I wish I’d been as capable a modeller as you are at that age.

 

I thought it worth mentioning that very early on in my modelling career I started using 15 thou (approx 0.4mm diameter) steel wire rather than brass or nickel silver for hand rails.  I buy it from Frizinghall Model Railways (my local model shop) labelled as piano wire, it is sold in 3ft lengths.  The main benefits being that it is far more resistant to accidental damage, paint appears to adhere better to the steel, and if the paint does wear the bare metal is quite dark and doesn’t shine through as would brass or N/S.

Regards,

Frank

[polybear]

9 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I built/painted this Wills Metro Tank for the Club 35 years ago (scratch-building a chassis for it), to run on Moretonhampstead. Since any loco I build is 'guaranteed for the rest of my life', and this one had started to stutter, I've investigated it, cleaned it and oiled it and, I hope, it's good for another 35 years. 

 

I've no idea whether such a loco is available RTR, but if one were brought out next year, would it be better than this? Yes!

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

 

Hi Tony,

Better?  Possibly.  But would it have a lifetime guarantee, be easily repairable and still running in a club environment after 35 years?  Answers on a postcard, please....

Brian

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, Anglian said:

 

Tony,

Excuse my lack of knowledge – I'm presuming all the railway companies had their own designs or did they buy the same design from one builder? If the former – which company is this Bachmann crane correct for or is this purely a BR design? 

With regarded to the dome on the 1P could they not add a flat top dome to one of the existing tools? I'm presuming these are stainless steel tools and that there would be space to add a small detail like this so they have it available in their 'kit of parts'.

Tim,

 

It's one of the many privileges I enjoy in this hobby to be asked on loads of occasions by the RTR manufacturers to assist them in the development of a new model, comment on a model, suggest possible prototypes, assist in the making of promotional DVDs, provide prototype material and thoroughly test their products on Little Bytham, among other things. I suppose the ultimate 'hypocrisy' on my part is to either build a model of the prototype they're considering making or loan them ones I've already made, so that their designers can 'see it in the flesh' so to speak. I'm told this is useful. 

 

Through all the above, I get to know them well - well enough to call them friends; good friends. Of course, this means non-disclosure, and when I'm frequently asked as to which loco/item of stock I'm helping such and such a manufacturer with, I just say 'No comment', though anyone can work out it ain't a GWR 0-6-0PT for instance! Once a model is 'out there' it's a different story, of course; hence my being given Bachmann's V2(s) to examine and comment on. To say my comment is 'fantastic' is an understatement! 

 

One of my questions about the V2 concerned the possibility of a double chimney, with which a few were latterly-fitted. That's where the figure of over £6,000.00 came from to provide alternative boiler fittings. You can see now how expensive producing an RTR loco now is. 

 

Which, in a way, brings me back to 'modelling'. In my case, should I require a double-chimney V2 (which I actually don't, but it's hypothetical), using the new Bachmann V2 as by model, I'd just lop off the original single chimney and replace it with an A3 double chimney from the likes of SE Finecast, which will be cast in white metal. Fix it with expoxy, drill out the twin bores and a lick of matt black paint, and it's job done. 

 

We seem to be in a situation today where many 'modellers' expect everything to be done for them (nobody on here!). There are bleats and moans that this or that isn't right, or this or that combination is not available, or why hasn't this been done? And so on. Suggest that some actual modelling take place, and, from some quarters, there's 'outrage'. How dare anyone tell 'us' what to do (actually, not 'tell', but suggest), and, anyway, if they do, the value of the model will be diminished, or the model even ruined! 

 

In a way, I find myself the ultimate hypocrite. Here am I always advocating folk be building things - from kits or scratch, or modify/alter/improve/weather this or that, however humble the results. And yet, I assist the RTR manufacturers wherever I can, when the end result will probably be the demise of an equivalent kit. Poacher? Gamekeeper?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Dunsignalling]

13 hours ago, micklner said:

Tony

         It has traction tyres ? Really ? A very backward step to me at least,  if that is correct? Where is it collecting current from just the Bogie?  A big disapointment for many , as it is a beautiful looking Loco.

 

I was looking forward to the TMC LNER G5 also being done by Bachmann , if it does have traction tyres as well, then that will be a big no for me !!

On a loco such as this, the manufacturers are perhaps "damned if they do, damned if they don't".

 

For every modeller who doesn't want traction tyres, and accepts the limited haulage capacity that not using them will inevitably impose on a r-t-r model of this wheel arrangement, there will be another who will rubbish it for its inability to haul 10-coach empty stock workings up 1-in-30 gradients.

 

It does occur to me, though, that it shouldn't be that difficult to offer models of this kind with either option.

 

John