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

7 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

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

The only problem I can see using Steel is corrosion if it becomes damp/wet at any time . It is also harder to bend and cut.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
20 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

'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. 

This is something I have been giving though to recently, mostly because I am trying to use a set of Bachmann wheels under a kit built chassis for a 2251 that I am working on (at least as a stop gap until the budget stretches to some Markits for it).   If successful my aim is to then re rod some of the other RTR locos on the layout.  The problem as far as I can see is that Bachmann use a much thicker crank pin than Romford Markits / Gibson / Ultrascale so a scale rod will not fit (and would be too week if you removed enough metal to clear it).  If only there was a replacement Romford style crank pin with the Bachmann thread diameter.

 

At the moment it appears the only option is to drill and rethread the holes to take the Romford product.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, polybear said:

 

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

Better to look at, almost certainly (though there's little wrong with Tony's model beyond the handrail knobs which are "of the time"), and with better running, I would hope. But is that the point? Back when that Metro was constructed, most of us owned little more than a handful of locos, however they were made. Nowadays, many beginners in r-t-r exceed that in their first year or two. 

 

Technology feels as if it develops exponentially these days, and "Joe Public" has seemingly become addicted to what his gadgets can do rather than what he needs them to do. I am staggered at the apparent willingness of many people to buy what is, in practical terms, the same stuff over and over, as soon as the recharge interval of the battery begins to shrink. Modern products seem to be designed to last long enough for their successors to be developed plus a couple of years for luck. Commercial logic, pure and simple.

 

Looking at swap-meet prices for 15-to-20-year-old r-t-r locos in almost-new condition, I'd say many in the hobby are by no means divorced from mainstream thinking as to what constitutes "obsolescence". Anything over the 20-years mark seems to have lasted beyond the point where anybody is interested, unless they are mint, boxed and rare items for the gloat-pile.  

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

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. 

 

I think many of us have mixed feelings over such things. We don't want the RTR people to produce poor products even though we may prefer building things than buying them ready made.

 

If a superb V2 model, which pulls and runs as well as it looks, had been available a few years ago, would you have been building kits for that loco or would you have used the RTR ones and spent your time building more Thompson pacifics instead?

 

On the chimney and dome post, I was really trying to say that it is very difficult to get such things right. No drawing shows all the different radii that go into making the flare where a fitting meets a curve. Most people, myself included, try our best and maybe get close but very few models are spot on in that area, so the Bachmann tank is no better or worse than many others if it is less than perfect.

 

i don't even know if the base of a chimney should be round or oval on a plan view. People use different ways of making the flare and some create an oval base and some a round one. If a round bar is turned to shape, hollowed out and squashed onto a bar, it will end up oval as the sides wrap round the curve. If it is turned and the flare turned and filed away, it ends up round. I have no idea which matches the real thing.

 

in the end, I suppose if it looks right, that is good enough!

 

I am sorry to say that I just don't believe that an alternative chimney costs £6000 to produce. If each component cost that, they would have to sell many thousands of models at silly prices to make any money.

 

If you ask any of our kit manufacturers how much it costs to produce a chimney, it won't be £6000! So why does it cost so much out in China? If the cost is for a whole new boiler, smokebox and firebox with new fittings, perhaps that figure may be right but just for a separately fitted chimney, I doubt it.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Fatadder said:

This is something I have been giving though to recently, mostly because I am trying to use a set of Bachmann wheels under a kit built chassis for a 2251 that I am working on (at least as a stop gap until the budget stretches to some Markits for it).   If successful my aim is to then re rod some of the other RTR locos on the layout.  The problem as far as I can see is that Bachmann use a much thicker crank pin than Romford Markits / Gibson / Ultrascale so a scale rod will not fit (and would be too week if you removed enough metal to clear it).  If only there was a replacement Romford style crank pin with the Bachmann thread diameter.

 

At the moment it appears the only option is to drill and rethread the holes to take the Romford product.


Markits do a hex crankpin which allows you to use Bachmann rods without modifying them, ive used them on my j11 and o4 locos when modifying them to EM gauge. The J11 was very easy. Ive since stuck a Gibson nut over them to improve prove the look.

08E78494-078C-4574-8CEF-EB6B14891AC0.jpeg.0bf0e4ced5e37f5941e74190a9965e64.jpeg
 

D58B4D8B-01B4-40B0-84C5-8FA3C301DCFC.jpeg.4cde903e26ea540a304795bc57f5ade1.jpeg

 

Edited by Michael Delamar
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

The figure I had been told was about £10,000 for a set of tools about 18" square. What I'm suggesting is that a small detail be added to a space on an existing tool, since we know that they can altered. One of my other modelling hobbies uses the same production technique and manufacturers have become expert in including all sorts of small extra details to their tooling. With planning this makes for the very best use of the space available to them whilst enabling a significant range of options to be covered.

I've never tried but how easy is it to remove a large dome from an existing 4mm R-T-R product? I'd rather like to replace the pseudo-brass painted dome on a Bachmann C Class with a better item that actually looks like polished metal rather than matt finished painted plastic.

Edited by Anglian
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
30 minutes ago, Michael Delamar said:


Markits do a hex crankpin which allows you to use Bachmann rods without modifying them, ive used them on my j11 and o4 locos when modifying them to EM gauge. The J11 was very easy. Ive since stuck a Gibson nut over them to improve prove the look.

08E78494-078C-4574-8CEF-EB6B14891AC0.jpeg.0bf0e4ced5e37f5941e74190a9965e64.jpeg
 

D58B4D8B-01B4-40B0-84C5-8FA3C301DCFC.jpeg.4cde903e26ea540a304795bc57f5ade1.jpeg

 

I can see how that could be useful, certainly easier than soldering in the Gibson washers to reduce the hole diameter.

 

However in my case I have a set of Finney rods (and another set of High Level rods) which are a lot finer than the Bachmann part.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Regarding the Midland 0-4-4 tanks, the dome covers were 1/4 inch thick soft cast-iron, not sheet metal, and whilst some of the early rebuilds with Belpaire boilers received new covers with flattened tops, others retained their original covers with the bellmouths removed and curved plates welded, not bolted, in place. The different types of cover got swapped around during repairs and when later replacements were necessary they were sometimes of a slightly different shape. Not all the engines received Stanier chimneys. The only way to be sure which engine had what at any particular time is to consult photographs.

 

Having helped Bachmann slightly with details of the engines, I know that they went to great lengths to ensure accuracy in what they produced within the constraints of  making things fit 00 gauge and cost considerations. 

 

Dave Hunt

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
13 minutes ago, Dave Hunt said:

Regarding the Midland 0-4-4 tanks, the dome covers were 1/4 inch thick soft cast-iron, not sheet metal, and whilst some of the early rebuilds with Belpaire boilers received new covers with flattened tops, others retained their original covers with the bellmouths removed and curved plates welded, not bolted, in place. The different types of cover got swapped around during repairs and when later replacements were necessary they were sometimes of a slightly different shape. Not all the engines received Stanier chimneys. The only way to be sure which engine had what at any particular time is to consult photographs.

 

Having helped Bachmann slightly with details of the engines, I know that they went to great lengths to ensure accuracy in what they produced within the constraints of  making things fit 00 gauge and cost considerations. 

 

Dave Hunt

 

 

There are certainly at least two different thicknesses of dome cover when you examine photos. Were later replacements cast too? Many later period photos show a very thin edge, almost invisible to normal viewing.

 

One of the problems I have come across when researching for modelling is that most available drawings are of things "as new" and proper drawings detailing later alterations are a bit scarce.

 

As always, observation of the prototype is the key to getting models right.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Anglian said:


I've never tried but how easy is it to remove a large dome from an existing 4mm R-T-R product? I'd rather like to replace the pseudo-brass painted dome on a Bachmann C Class with a better item that actually looks like polished metal rather than matt finished painted plastic.

Removal of domes etc are pretty easy. Usually a razor saw or sidecutters or knife will do the job.

The problem would be the making good subsequently. The replacement fitting needs to fit exactly the area where the original sat or very slightly larger. The curvature of the rim needs to match the boiler curvature, and then you need to touch up any cosmetic paint damage around the work area to the same color as the RTR original. So usually its a simple task, on a complex or unusual livery the "finishing" is the key to the project.

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

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.'

 

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. 

 

Indeed you have, and I agree with you. What I am saying, though, is that when a new model is offered at today's prices, we should not have to replace components that are inaccurate. Those with the necessary skills, but lacking in time, would welcome the opportunity to devote their efforts to other projects.

 

'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! 

 

You miss my point - the plate covered the hole originally provided for the Salter valves. Locos that had Ross Pop valves fitted had cover plates on their domes - the model of 58072 is missing this plate, as will all models with Ross Pop valves. The cost of including this plate on the dome moulding would be negligible.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited by cctransuk
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

My digital copy of RM available today. We had a sleepless night and with the rain teeming down outside I felt no guilt in reading it straight away and turned to Tony’s piece on Bytham. Excellent I thought, that’s most encouraging thing I’ll read today...

 

Then I spotted the ‘Comment’ piece by Bryony Gordon wherein she extols the virtues of creative hobbies. It should be noted that this is a piece which first appeared in the national press. Never mind Brexit, the election and all the other stuff, her words should be shouted from the rooftops. 
 

Once again Ian Rice’s words come to mind about railway modelling being a pointless hobby but it may just stop someone loosing their marbles.

 

As a good friend of mine is fond of saying, “Railway modelling is the new  rock and roll!”.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I think many of us have mixed feelings over such things. We don't want the RTR people to produce poor products even though we may prefer building things than buying them ready made.

 

If a superb V2 model, which pulls and runs as well as it looks, had been available a few years ago, would you have been building kits for that loco or would you have used the RTR ones and spent your time building more Thompson pacifics instead?

 

On the chimney and dome post, I was really trying to say that it is very difficult to get such things right. No drawing shows all the different radii that go into making the flare where a fitting meets a curve. Most people, myself included, try our best and maybe get close but very few models are spot on in that area, so the Bachmann tank is no better or worse than many others if it is less than perfect.

 

i don't even know if the base of a chimney should be round or oval on a plan view. People use different ways of making the flare and some create an oval base and some a round one. If a round bar is turned to shape, hollowed out and squashed onto a bar, it will end up oval as the sides wrap round the curve. If it is turned and the flare turned and filed away, it ends up round. I have no idea which matches the real thing.

 

in the end, I suppose if it looks right, that is good enough!

 

I am sorry to say that I just don't believe that an alternative chimney costs £6000 to produce. If each component cost that, they would have to sell many thousands of models at silly prices to make any money.

 

If you ask any of our kit manufacturers how much it costs to produce a chimney, it won't be £6000! So why does it cost so much out in China? If the cost is for a whole new boiler, smokebox and firebox with new fittings, perhaps that figure may be right but just for a separately fitted chimney, I doubt it.

Thanks Tony,

 

I don't think it costs thousands to produce a chimney out in China, or anywhere else. 

 

To fit, say, a double chimney on an RTR V2 (in place of a single one) would require (I'm guessing here, I admit) at least a new smokebox moulding or even a whole new boiler! It's a question of if the chimney is separately-fitted, or not.

 

The figure I've quoted was the figure given to me. Now, it could be a fib, but I doubt it.

 

I state again, it's both a pleasure and a privilege to be involved (in a tiny way) with the production of new RTR models. I hope you realise that (I'm sure you do) I'm nobody's puppet!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

 

There are certainly at least two different thicknesses of dome cover when you examine photos. Were later replacements cast too? Many later period photos show a very thin edge, almost invisible to normal viewing.

 

One of the problems I have come across when researching for modelling is that most available drawings are of things "as new" and proper drawings detailing later alterations are a bit scarce.

 

As always, observation of the prototype is the key to getting models right.

 

 

 

 

Thanks Tony,

 

'As always, observation of the prototype is the key to getting models right.'

 

If you'd have written that same statement (as I did, give or take) and had it published in the RM a year ago, it would have made your hair curl as to what was said about you in some social media!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.'

 

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. 

 

Indeed you have, and I agree with you. What I am saying, though, is that when a new model is offered at today's prices, we should not have to replace components that are inaccurate. Those with the necessary skills, but lacking in time, would welcome the opportunity to devote their efforts to other projects.

 

'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! 

 

You miss my point - the plate covered the hole originally provided for the Salter valves. Locos that had Ross Pop valves fitted had cover plates on their domes - the model of 58072 is missing this plate, as will all models with Ross Pop valves. The cost of including this plate on the dome moulding would be negligible.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

As always,

 

Thanks John.

 

'You miss my point - the plate covered the hole originally provided for the Salter valves. Locos that had Ross Pop valves fitted had cover plates on their domes - the model of 58072 is missing this plate, as will all models with Ross Pop valves. The cost of including this plate on the dome moulding would be negligible.'

 

An ideal opportunity, then, for an after-market supplier to offer just such a thing (in etched brass?), taking moments to fit. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
49 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Tony,

 

I don't think it costs thousands to produce a chimney out in China, or anywhere else. 

 

To fit, say, a double chimney on an RTR V2 (in place of a single one) would require (I'm guessing here, I admit) at least a new smokebox moulding or even a whole new boiler! It's a question of if the chimney is separately-fitted, or not.

 

The figure I've quoted was the figure given to me. Now, it could be a fib, but I doubt it.

 

I state again, it's both a pleasure and a privilege to be involved (in a tiny way) with the production of new RTR models. I hope you realise that (I'm sure you do) I'm nobody's puppet!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

When Bachmann did the J11 with the original Robinson chimney as a "Collectors Club" GCR liveried version, I was hugely impressed by the cleverness of their design in the smokebox and chimney area. It had the chimney towards the front of the smokebox, as a superheated version but I wanted one in original condition with the chimney more in the centre of the smokebox.

 

Once I had got a thin blade under the chimney to release the lightly glued joint, I was delighted to find that the fixing lug was off centre on the chimney and but turning it round, the lug now put the chimney in exactly the right place.

 

That is what "design clever" should be all about.

 

If they have planned the 0-4-4T with various chimneys from the start, I would be very surprised if they haven't made it a separate moulding based on their past work.

 

Having said that, there are many different features on the 0-4-4T smokebox (unlike the J11) so maybe it is more cost effective for them to do a whole new smokebox.


I know little about commercial manufacturing but it would be interesting to know just how a figure like that £6000 is arrived at. It is probably a business sensitive matter not for public discussion but if you take that as the cost of a single component and then look at how many components there are in a loco, which may be a limited edition of, say, 500 units, the maths just don't seem right to me.

 

Perhaps it is the cost of booking a factory for a special production run, rather than adding another part to an already booked run.

 

I don't doubt for one second anything you have written. I have too much respect to even think like that!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The chimney on the MR liveried version doesn't look at all like a Johnson chimney, which is the type worn by No. 1273 in the photo that Bachmann have used to advertise this model. It may be that the chimney on the model is in fact intended to represent the Deeley chimney, though I'm not convinced. Of course one could replace it with an aftermarket component; the problem is that the beautiful chimney that Craftsman used to do for their 1532 Class kit is, as far as I'm aware, no longer available. (My intention is to backdate mine to full Johnson condition, which will require a new smokebox door too - so I'm not quite so bothered whether Bachmann's door is flat or dished!)

 

The point is that the shape of the chimney is one of the key defining elements of Johnson's style, making a more prominent contribution to the look of the whole engine than does the short little annulus on the smokebox of, say, an East Coast pacific.

 

 

Edited by Compound2632
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

When Bachmann did the J11 with the original Robinson chimney as a "Collectors Club" GCR liveried version, I was hugely impressed by the cleverness of their design in the smokebox and chimney area. It had the chimney towards the front of the smokebox, as a superheated version but I wanted one in original condition with the chimney more in the centre of the smokebox.

 

Once I had got a thin blade under the chimney to release the lightly glued joint, I was delighted to find that the fixing lug was off centre on the chimney and but turning it round, the lug now put the chimney in exactly the right place.

 

That is what "design clever" should be all about.

 

If they have planned the 0-4-4T with various chimneys from the start, I would be very surprised if they haven't made it a separate moulding based on their past work.

 

Having said that, there are many different features on the 0-4-4T smokebox (unlike the J11) so maybe it is more cost effective for them to do a whole new smokebox.


I know little about commercial manufacturing but it would be interesting to know just how a figure like that £6000 is arrived at. It is probably a business sensitive matter not for public discussion but if you take that as the cost of a single component and then look at how many components there are in a loco, which may be a limited edition of, say, 500 units, the maths just don't seem right to me.

 

Perhaps it is the cost of booking a factory for a special production run, rather than adding another part to an already booked run.

 

I don't doubt for one second anything you have written. I have too much respect to even think like that!

Thanks Tony,

 

I can make some more enquiries.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

The chimney on the MR liveried version doesn't look at all like a Johnson chimney, which is the type worn by No. 1273 in the photo that Bachmann have used to advertise this model. It may be that the chimney on the model is in fact intended to represent the Deeley chimney, though I'm not convinced. Of course one could replace it with an aftermarket component; the problem is that the beautiful chimney that Craftsman used to do for their 1532 Class kit is, as far as I'm aware, no longer available. (My intention is to backdate mine to full Johnson condition, which will require a new smokebox door too - so I'm not quite so bothered whether Bachmann's door is flat or dished!)

 

The point is that the shape of the chimney is one of the key defining elements of Johnson's style, making a more prominent contribution to the look of the whole engine than does the short little annulus on the smokebox of, say, an East Coast pacific.

 

 

Many thanks,

 

'making a more prominent contribution to the look of the whole engine than does the short little annulus on the smokebox of, say, an East Coast pacific.'

 

Get even a pair of 'dustbins' the wrong shape on the top of the smokebox of a model of an ECML Pacific, and the loco loses a lot of its character as well. 

 

What is it that Robinson said? He who produced the most elegant of chimneys bar none. 'A chimney is like a top hat to a gentleman - the finishing touch!'. 

 

I think everyone who's commented about chimneys on here is dead right. They are one of the most-vital components of all on a model loco for getting it to look absolutely right.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Tony,

 

'As always, observation of the prototype is the key to getting models right.'

 

If you'd have written that same statement (as I did, give or take) and had it published in the RM a year ago, it would have made your hair curl as to what was said about you in some social media!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

My hair has curled up, whitened and fallen out since I tried to make that point about "modelling track" in the USA press and on-line. Accurate track parts are actually banned from NMRA competitions and their MMR qualification submissions. Completely false stuff is however welcomed.

 

Andy

 

 

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

Love the new railway crane. The original was made by Ransomes and Rapier, a world renowned Ipswich engineering company sadly no more. I recall that they had their name as a casting along the jib which this one seems to miss. I was interested in Clive's scratch built one which looks fine but is a product of  the rival Cowans Sheldon company. Strange as I had Clive down as an east anglian type! 

 

There are models and drawings of the Ransomes cranes in the Ipswich Transport Museum where I have been known to do the odd stint. The museum has the custody of the Ransomes archives which are available to researchers along with a huge number of official photographs.

 

Martin Long

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

  • RMweb Premium
50 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

 - bar one!

 

Bah humbug! Robinson every time!

 

To be fair, how anybody can decide a winner between Robinson and Johnson, both great artists, is beyond me.

 

If I didn't model pre-grouping GCR, it would be pre-grouping Midland.

 

The only difference is that Robinson improved the look of the locos he inherited. Deeley did the opposite! 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Bah humbug! Robinson every time!

 

To be fair, how anybody can decide a winner between Robinson and Johnson, both great artists, is beyond me.

 

If I didn't model pre-grouping GCR, it would be pre-grouping Midland.

 

The only difference is that Robinson improved the look of the locos he inherited. Deeley did the opposite! 

'The only difference is that Robinson improved the look of the locos he inherited. Deeley did the opposite!' 

 

They did indeed.

 

Looking at some the M&GNR locos which had Midland influence, why was the beautiful, original smokebox door replaced with that nasty 'Midland' thing with dogs instead of two handles to secure it? The smokebox door is the 'face' of the locos, and, in my view, the later Midland style (the like of which the original 'Pats' and 'Scots' received) is rather ugly. It has no 'nose'! 

 

And I wonder who decided that Robinson's most-elegant chimneys would be replaced with stumpy 'flowerpot' types by the LNER. Someone at Gorton, because that's where it took place? I know the originals were prone to cracking, but a better looking type could have been substituted, surely? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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...