Tony Wright Posted December 22, 2019 Author Share Posted December 22, 2019 10 minutes ago, gr.king said: Nice when somebody shows so little faith in your creative modelling skills isn't it? Why do it that way? Presumably because there isn't yet any known law to say that you can't. I quite enjoy it at times when others think I'm wrong or insane. Is that most of the time? Graeme, Isn't it a fact that those who complain the most, those who say you should do it this way, or like this, and ask why you've made something in such a way, and why it's wrong, and why it should be better, more realistic and more accurate, and why you should have used different materials, and so many other criticisms, when asked to show what they've made, you can't see their ar$es for dust?! Thank goodness this thread contains posts from nobody like those! Regards, Tony. 4 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium t-b-g Posted December 22, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 22, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, St Enodoc said: Yeah but no but yeah but... That's certainly true of the prototype of course, Mike, but in model form we have - at the very least - the frames, motor, gears, wheels, coupling rods and (sometimes) motion, brake gear and other bits. I've always thought of those, collectively, as the chassis (in the way that you could buy a whitemetal body kit to fit a Jinty chassis). The late Malcolm Crawley used to say, in his non PC way, that cars, radios and women have chassis, locos have frames. For him, saying a loco, model or otherwise, had a chassis was about as bad as using "train line" or "train station". He could not see why we would use the wrong terms when perfectly good ones were available for use. His locos had frames and so do mine. A set of wheeled frames, with motor and pick ups is a mechanism. Not that it matters what we call things at all but I used to really enjoy his reaction when we were out at a show and somebody would ask how he had built the chassis. "I didn't! It doesn't have one!" Edited December 22, 2019 by t-b-g 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium TrevorP1 Posted December 22, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 22, 2019 33 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said: Clive, it's part of an ever increasing social trend - rather like football supporters - where people believe they know how things should be done, without actually having the experience of actually doing it. Jol As the old saying goes, "Empty vessels make the most noise". 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium TrevorP1 Posted December 22, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 22, 2019 Time for one of these I think! Merry Christmas everyone and a great modelling 2020. Looking at this photo underlines to me (again) how time flies. It was taken at Christmas 2008. 92212 was taken out of service for overhaul shortly after. Since then it has completed another period in service and has just been withdrawn for overhaul once more. (Please be aware this was taken 'inside the fence' and I had a full MHR PTS. Just for good measure the loco crew knew I would be there.). 16 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium St Enodoc Posted December 22, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 22, 2019 29 minutes ago, t-b-g said: The late Malcolm Crawley used to say, in his non PC way, that cars, radios and women have chassis, locos have frames. For him, saying a loco, model or otherwise, had a chassis was about as bad as using "train line" or "train station". He could not see why we would use the wrong terms when perfectly good ones were available for use. His locos had frames and so do mine. A set of wheeled frames, with motor and pick ups is a mechanism. Not that it matters what we call things at all but I used to really enjoy his reaction when we were out at a show and somebody would ask how he had built the chassis. "I didn't! It doesn't have one!" Well Tony, I never dared argue with Malcolm about work or about model railways and I'm not going to start now! Notwithstanding, I think that your "mechanism" is synonymous with my "chassis" *, both of which include a set of frames. Perhaps we could start another little excursion on the difference between a locomotive and an engine... * Perhaps "mechanism" was a little more upmarket than "chassis" - Hornby-Dublo rather than Tri-ang, or Model Railway News rather than the Modeller. There, having thrown that little pebble into the pond I'll sit back and watch where the ripples go. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahame Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Clive Mortimore said: I think the best I have had from Mr Authority at a show was being told repeatedly that the demilitarised Airfix figure pushing his lawn mower made from scrap bits of plastic and microstrip was a kit and where did I get it from , because there was no way I had built it. Yep, I've had a lot of "where do you buy/get that/those from?" questions at exhibitions. And when you explain that it is made from bits of card, plastic and wire, they turn and walk off, either disbelieving you or not interested in how to make one themselves. 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denbridge Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Jol Wilkinson said: Clive, it's part of an ever increasing social trend - rather like football supporters - where people believe they know how things should be done, without actually having the experience of actually doing it. Jol It also seems to be a growing trend that people can't comprehend someone actually making something, rather than purchase it ready built. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahame Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 6 minutes ago, St Enodoc said: Notwithstanding, I think that your "mechanism" is synonymous with my "chassis" *, both of which include a set of frames. Maybe. I'm probably wrong but I was always under the impression that the 'frames' were a non-mobile part of the loco construction (side plates and spacers?), whereas the 'chassis' (in modelling terms) was the frames with motor, gear drive chain and wheels fitted, and could run on it's own without a body on top. Such is my ignorance. 1 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
micknich2003 Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 (edited) Locomotive or Engine? Take your pick and see the attached. Edited December 22, 2019 by micknich2003 13 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium t-b-g Posted December 22, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 22, 2019 It gets even more complicated when you can have a locomotive with more than one engine. 2 4 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium St Enodoc Posted December 22, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 22, 2019 1 minute ago, micknich2003 said: Locomotive or Engine? Take your pick and see the attached. Jolly good, thanks for stirring the pot! 2 2 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertcwp Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 2 hours ago, dibateg said: Lovely picture of 60911 at Amersham, and notice the black and I presume LM lamps. I mixed lamps on a loco on Charwelton once, one black, one white. An 'authority' at a show said 'That wouldn't have happened'. I had copied it from a photograph...... Have a great Xmas everyone and all the best for your modelling endeavours in 2020. Tony Amazing how different people spot different things in photos. I completely missed the black lamps as I was much more focused on the stock. The set is the ex-Master Cutler, easily identified by the BCK, FO, RF (probably running unclassed) at the London end then what looks like a Gresley open second, formerly third. Unfortunately, I don't have the GC London Extension carriage workings for Winter 1958-9. Disappointingly, they are specifically stated to have been excluded from the LMR Midland Lines book, of which I have a copy. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertcwp Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 1 hour ago, t-b-g said: The late Malcolm Crawley used to say, in his non PC way, that cars, radios and women have chassis, locos have frames. For him, saying a loco, model or otherwise, had a chassis was about as bad as using "train line" or "train station". He could not see why we would use the wrong terms when perfectly good ones were available for use. His locos had frames and so do mine. A set of wheeled frames, with motor and pick ups is a mechanism. Not that it matters what we call things at all but I used to really enjoy his reaction when we were out at a show and somebody would ask how he had built the chassis. "I didn't! It doesn't have one!" I seem to recall that Malcolm Crawley also objected to LNER carriages being called coaches. 2 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertcwp Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 13 hours ago, Tony Wright said: He also painted and slightly weathered this...................... Painted on commission, after the owner built it from an MOK kit. We both thought it rides a little high at the front end. Impressive nonetheless. The 9F looks as though it's about to take off. Perhaps the fireman, having called "Vee One", has just called "Rotate"? 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium t-b-g Posted December 22, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 22, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, robertcwp said: I seem to recall that Malcolm Crawley also objected to LNER carriages being called coaches. He did. For many years he wouldn't join the LNER Coach Association on the grounds that it was named wrongly. He was happy with "car" as an abbreviation but according to him, the LNER didn't use coaches to carry its passengers on the railway. It had carriage working diagrams, carriage shops etc. not coach! I did once see an official document which referred to non passenger coaching stock and tried to argue the case but he decided that vehicles that didn't carry passengers were not admissible as evidence! Edited December 22, 2019 by t-b-g 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted December 22, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 22, 2019 4 minutes ago, t-b-g said: He did. For many years he wouldn't join the LNER Coach Association on the grounds that it was named wrongly. He was happy with "car" as an abbreviation but according to him, the LNER didn't use coaches to carry its passengers on the railway. It had carriage working diagrams, carriage shops etc. not coach! So the people working in the carriage shops weren't coachbuilders? 4 4 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium St Enodoc Posted December 22, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 22, 2019 3 minutes ago, Oldddudders said: So the people working in the carriage shops weren't coachbuilders? Carriage builders (and finishers, trimmers, painters, etc.). 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CUTLER2579 Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Oldddudders said: So the people working in the carriage shops weren't coachbuilders? On LT we had Cars not carriages and we never had Coachbuilders but we did have Bodymakers. PS. ironically we had Coachpainters. When I was a Tech One at Neasden the Coachpainter (Joe Dixon aged 73 & too good to be allowed to retire) was showing me a Draughts Board that he had hand painted, I said thats unbelievable (Meaning it was amazing) he was furious that I should imply he was lying and picked me up by my jacket lapels ,all 14 stone of me. I quickly made it clear that he had misunderstood my remark and as the Depot engineer was not in I was actually in charge and it was a tad embarrassing. Also I think t-b-g might remember when he was exhibiting Tickhill & Wirksworth at a show a Gentleman told Ken Hill that Runner Beans shouldn't be in the garden of the Station Masters house as it was modelled in 1911 and they weren't introduced to the UK until 1912. I may have the actual years wrong but I thought at the time thank goodness it's Ken and not his father an ex-LMS driver or said gent might be laying down.As it was Kens blood pressure had increased significantly. Edited December 22, 2019 by CUTLER2579 5 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted December 22, 2019 Author Share Posted December 22, 2019 2 hours ago, Denbridge said: It also seems to be a growing trend that people can't comprehend someone actually making something, rather than purchase it ready built. I've come across this on many occasions..................... The incredulity of one guy on seeing my making of a B17 from a kit. 'Hornby makes one of those, so why bother?' His actual asking of the question led me to the conclusion that he'd never understand why, no matter how I answered. Or, on seeing a loco I'd scratch-built running on a layout being asked 'Whose is it - Hornbachheldap?' Then the questioner being entirely mystified by my answer of 'Mine'. There's also the (compliment?) of being told 'I could never make anything like that. You must have endless patience'. Actually, I don't. My patience-span is very short; I can't wait to get one model finished and then get on with the next one! Regards, Tony. 6 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jamie92208 Posted December 22, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 22, 2019 (edited) 7 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said: Clive, it's part of an ever increasing social trend - rather like football supporters - where people believe they know how things should be done, without actually having the experience of actually doing it. Jol At least making statements like that isn't as dangerous as when one young man who told my good lady that she didn't know how to make a sandwich at our little show in Gildersome. Also when we took Green Ayre to Lancaster we had a very puzzled young Chinese lad who spent ages looking for the computer that was controlling the layout. He then got the chance to actually control a loco, that I was fettling, with an old H & M Duette and was amazed. Jamie Edited December 22, 2019 by jamie92208 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jol Wilkinson Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 Whenever someone says "you must have a lot of patience" I tend to say, " patience is for anglers, I prefer to think I just have a bit of skill and some dedication." 6 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted December 22, 2019 Author Share Posted December 22, 2019 2 hours ago, grahame said: Maybe. I'm probably wrong but I was always under the impression that the 'frames' were a non-mobile part of the loco construction (side plates and spacers?), whereas the 'chassis' (in modelling terms) was the frames with motor, gear drive chain and wheels fitted, and could run on it's own without a body on top. Such is my ignorance. Not ignorant at all Grahame, My OED defines 'chassis' as 'Base-frame of gun-carriage, motor car, etc.' From the 'etc' might we infer locomotive as well? I don't see why not. As far as I'm concerned (and I've never been an employee of the railways), when I build a loco, I start by assembling the frames. By the time I've got the motor/gearbox in place, plus the wheels, pick-ups and rods on (and it works) it's then definitely a chassis. The frames (as the dictionary describes) are the base. 'Frames' is plural, whereas the chassis is a singular entity, so describing the full working part of a (model) loco as a chassis makes much more sense to me. The frames by themselves would just not 'work', as you describe. I suppose it's down to semantics. With regards to all the loco kit instructions I've ever read (and that's not many, to be fair), without fail they split into two - chassis construction and body construction. They might suggest assembling the frames as a first bit of advice, but then go on to describe how to make a 'running chassis', never a 'running set of frames'. RTR manufacturers always state 'How to separate body from chassis' in their instructions. Anyway, how would the two pictures below be described? Frames? I think so. Still just frames? I think not. This is a chassis; much more than a set of frames. Regards, Tony. 11 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flood Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, Denbridge said: It also seems to be a growing trend that people can't comprehend someone actually making something, rather than purchase it ready built. I assume their argument regarding freight stock would be "if a manufacturer doesn't make a wagon then just have the excuse that it wasn't needed to run on the particular day being modelled". I have the opposite thought, I find a photo and work out how to make the vehicles in the train to make something interesting (and unique). The following have been posted on another thread before but as I am particularly chuffed with the results I will post them here. Suffice to say that, apart from the lime wagons, the weathering is not my work and significantly adds to the finished product. PSA lime wagons from Bachmann 45 ton tank VTG slurry tank from Dapol silver bullet: ECC TDA from Bachmann 100 tonne tank The two slurry tanks together after weathering Molasses tank Happy modelling to you all. Edited December 22, 2019 by Flood 10 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted December 22, 2019 Author Share Posted December 22, 2019 Chassis or frames? The late (great) Malcolm Crawley has been mentioned on here recently. He once took me to task for not assembling the 'frames' correctly on the London Road Models K2 I was building (a kit he'd designed). When I pointed it out to him that the 'chassis' I'd made had to be modified by my having to make new coupling rods (because the etched ones supplied didn't match the bearing holes in the frames), he just announced in his inimitable way that 'You're not making it properly. If you'd have followed my instructions it would have worked!'. As chance would have it, I was at a Retford operating day when his (EM) K2 was running. On his set of 'frames', it wobbled and waddled along, finally capsizing before completing a full circuit. I'm too nasty a person not to have responded by telling him 'My K2 (in OO), the 'chassis' of which I've altered in order to get it to work as I insist, has run for hours and hours on Stoke Summit and Charwelton (and continues to run on LB) absolutely perfectly and has never derailed'. His response was typical! Nonetheless, a great man and a great modeller. 5 3 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
landscapes Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, TrevorP1 said: Time for one of these I think! Merry Christmas everyone and a great modelling 2020. Looking at this photo underlines to me (again) how time flies. It was taken at Christmas 2008. 92212 was taken out of service for overhaul shortly after. Since then it has completed another period in service and has just been withdrawn for overhaul once more. (Please be aware this was taken 'inside the fence' and I had a full MHR PTS. Just for good measure the loco crew knew I would be there.). Hi nice photo I know the location very well, I also held a PTS and Lineside photography permit on the Mid Hants railway for about 4 years 2005 until about 2009. I use to sell card mounted photos taken on the line in their main shop at Alresford Station and half the sales monies went to the railway. Happy memories Merry Christmas to you and all RMweb members. Regards David Edited December 22, 2019 by landscapes Spelling mistake 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now