Jump to content

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Tony Wright

Wright writes.....

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Clem said:

 

 

I have modelled in OO, P4 and EM in that order. I have tried to take the best things out of each from my experience. A flexible (compensated or sprung) chassis is always preferable for me because although it takes a little longer, you can rest in the knowledge that all wheels are picking up - important for me as a jack of all trades and master of none as my track work isn't always the best. The biggest problem I have in EM is with clearances and it is usually that that takes the extra time. Incidentally, it's often as difficult in EM as it is in P4 due to the wider wheel standards. 

Good morning Clem,

 

'I have modelled in OO, P4 and EM in that order.'

 

It's interesting that your modelling progress is in that line. Most who follow that path, I would suggest, transpose the middle and last gauges. Why did you 'abandon' P4?

 

I've only built locos/stock in OO (the vast majority), EM (a few) and O (again, a few). The finest 4mm Gauge sets too high a standard for my range of skills.

 

'it's often as difficult in EM as it is in P4 due to the wider wheel standards.' 

 

Very interesting you should say that. At the Spalding Show, I was asked to put the valve gear back on an EM Gauge V2 built by the late Colin Scoffin (one of the great EM pioneers and mentor to the even greater, late Roy Jackson). The only way Colin had been able to achieve the clearances between the front crankpins and the back of the crossheads was to fit the little end of the connecting rods OUTSIDE the crossheads! 

 

I built two chassis for Retford's locos for Roy; one was an A2/2, and the only way I got the necessary working clearance was by plugging the cylinders, and re-drilling the holes for the piston rods 1mm outwards, setting the crossheads further out accordingly. The subterfuge was invisible, unlike the rod being on the outside. Thompson Pacifics have very tight clearances in OO as well. 

 

The discussions about rigid and compensated frames have been mentioned on here many times, and I can only reiterate my own findings/observations. Granted, I don't build in P4 (which the great Mike Sharman did - he had the requisite skills), so I can only comment on the chassis I've built in OO, EM and O. Loco chassis that is, I've never compensated rolling stock. I've built about six/seven compensated sets of frames in OO - from a 4-4-0, 0-6-0 to a Pacific. Not one, despite taking at least four times as long to erect as a rigid equivalent has shown the slightest improvement over the rigid ones. No better haulage, no better pick-up; in fact, the opposite! They've all wobbled and waddled far more than my rigid ones. I accept, it could be my in-built prejudice, but these are my findings. The greatest aid to adhesion is weight - plenty of it! I've stuck to rigid in EM and O. 

 

Roy Jackson once built two A3s (did they appear in the MRJ?). One was rigid, the other compensated. He told me that there might have been the slightest benefit from the compensated one, but that was debatable. Certainly not enough to offset the vastly-increased time needed to build it. 

 

Having seen (and photographed) both Malcolm Crawley's and Tony Gee's EM locos run under exhibition conditions and at their respective homes, I can tell you that Tony's run better than most of Malcolm's. Much better! I never ever believed the 'It'll run-in in time, and that tight spot will go' statement from the great man. It never will, or would, Malcolm. 

 

I suppose, I'm really interested in results. My wants/needs are quite specific - as is illustrated in Little Bytham. I do have very good trackwork, laid on baseboards built by a master carpenter. It's in OO, so is far more tolerant than the most-accurate 4mm gauge. I wish it were in EM, but the cul-de-sac is far too long now! I only allow smooth, powerful, quiet and consistently-good running (as you've seen, and, I hope, other visitors will testify to). Stuttering, jerking and derailments are not tolerated, and many of the trains have to run fast - very fast! All of this is achieved through great-rigidity. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited by Tony Wright
to clarify a point
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

This is an interesting film - what craftsmen they were back then !! - We can't design a flying tin box properly these days !! (real railway that is).

 

 

Interesting to read about all the models built, frames chassis etc. Locos are not for me I'm afraid. This year I've made / modified several O scale freight cars, a couple from old craftsman wooden kits and I'm pleased with those.

 

At the moment I'm experimenting with a plank type layout utilising lightweight plastic fascia boarding and lightweight bathroom tile foam board. The "baseboard" (foamboard) will  be reversible and have OO track on one side and O on the other (for my Dapol 08). It will sit within the plastic fascia board and on quickly erected & dismantled clip on legs and stand in font of the main loft layout. Scenery will be minimal and buildings etc will be lift off . I'm new to British O gauge and intend to make some O wagons from kits also. As it's experimental I'll describe & illustrate it in the new year (if all goes well). It's coming along well, but work stopped now till the New Year. (by higher authority !!)

 

Anyway, to all Wright writers, Tony & Mo,  have a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.

 

Brit15

Edited by APOLLO
typo
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking back I have managed to undertake a variety of tasks... from wagon and coach building to sound fitting and loco weathering this year although holdiays and cricket umpiring has reduced my modelling time.

 

Shap needed a particular vehicle in one of the freight trains used in the sequence. Step forward a very old Maj ex L&Y long wheelbase van.

 

1982070241_MAJexlYVan.JPG.9b4ef9b6d97057649eddf14dbda38c0a.JPG

 

Notice the "inside out" planking.. this has since been weathered and is in one of the Shap freights.

 

I kit bashed a Palvan Shock - it isn't correct but I couldn't see and obvious place where BR shortened the body.. (I have now got a dimensioned sketch so another be will be built)

 

1274734114_OthersideofPalvanshockbaz.JPG.5bad9ba5d82af3f087f99b4f628fff19.JPG

 

weathered to match a photograph of one of these.. why the clean section?

 

An ex LMS 12 wheel dining car..

 

1262135550_PeriodIIRKFkitchenatrightend.JPG.8815b92331b09442d3e6851684a59430.JPG

 

and a bit of commissioned sound fitting/weathering

 

1479141863_BRStd4MT750563qtrfront.JPG.38420e3111e7a0c703999857a739499e.JPG

 

A Bachmann 4MT  which had been rewheeled to EM Gauge, sound chip fitted and speaker in the loco body, stay alive in the tender then weathered to match a photograph supplied by teh loco owner Pete Rigby.

 

And next year? Already started a number of projects , more coaches, more locos and a lot more wetahering.

 

Have a great Festive Season!

 

baz

 

.

 

 

  • Like 14
  • Craftsmanship/clever 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

When I started again after several years, I was fortunate to meet several modellers using P4 (including John Redrup of LRM, then working in Puffers at Kenton). Through their guidance and support and by using for the first time a consistent set of standards for which assembly jigs and gauges were available, I found I could build models that worked better than I had ever achieved before. Yes it takes more time to build and paint locos and carriages, as well as the time required to build the track, signals, etc. However I find the challenge worthwhile .....

That in a nutshell is what I am in the process of experiencing .... though pretty much at the start :victory: Fantastic fun!

  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Barry O said:

Looking back I have managed to undertake a variety of tasks... from wagon and coach building to sound fitting and loco weathering this year although holdiays and cricket umpiring has reduced my modelling time.

 

Shap needed a particular vehicle in one of the freight trains used in the sequence. Step forward a very old Maj ex L&Y long wheelbase van.

 

1982070241_MAJexlYVan.JPG.9b4ef9b6d97057649eddf14dbda38c0a.JPG

 

Notice the "inside out" planking.. this has since been weathered and is in one of the Shap freights.

 

I kit bashed a Palvan Shock - it isn't correct but I couldn't see and obvious place where BR shortened the body.. (I have now got a dimensioned sketch so another be will be built)

 

1274734114_OthersideofPalvanshockbaz.JPG.5bad9ba5d82af3f087f99b4f628fff19.JPG

 

weathered to match a photograph of one of these.. why the clean section?

 

An ex LMS 12 wheel dining car..

 

1262135550_PeriodIIRKFkitchenatrightend.JPG.8815b92331b09442d3e6851684a59430.JPG

 

and a bit of commissioned sound fitting/weathering

 

1479141863_BRStd4MT750563qtrfront.JPG.38420e3111e7a0c703999857a739499e.JPG

 

A Bachmann 4MT  which had been rewheeled to EM Gauge, sound chip fitted and speaker in the loco body, stay alive in the tender then weathered to match a photograph supplied by teh loco owner Pete Rigby.

 

And next year? Already started a number of projects , more coaches, more locos and a lot more wetahering.

 

Have a great Festive Season!

 

baz

 

.

 

 

Nice stuff, Baz,

 

Thanks for showing us.

 

One question - would a van with brakes only on one side still be running in the '50s (the MAJ one)? The reason I ask is I have one.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tony

 

according to the photograph ( about 1955 I believe) yes it was...

 

Baz

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Good morning Clem,

 

'I have modelled in OO, P4 and EM in that order.'

 

It's interesting that your modelling progress is in that line. Most who follow that path, I would suggest, transpose the middle and last gauges. Why did you 'abandon' P4?

 

I've only built locos/stock in OO (the vast majority), EM (a few) and O (again, a few). The finest 4mm Gauge sets too high a standard for my range of skills.

 

'it's often as difficult in EM as it is in P4 due to the wider wheel standards.' 

 

Very interesting you should say that. At the Spalding Show, I was asked to put the valve gear back on an EM Gauge V2 built by the late Colin Scoffin (one of the great EM pioneers and mentor to the even greater, late Roy Jackson). The only way Colin had been able to achieve the clearances between the front crankpins and the back of the crossheads was to fit the little end of the connecting rods OUTSIDE the crossheads! 

 

I built two chassis for Retford's locos for Roy; one was an A2/2, and the only way I got the necessary working clearance was by plugging the cylinders, and re-drilling the holes for the piston rods 1mm outwards, setting the crossheads further out accordingly. The subterfuge was invisible, unlike the rod being on the outside. Thompson Pacifics have very tight clearances in OO as well. 

 

The discussions about rigid and compensated frames have been mentioned on here many times, and I can only reiterate my own findings/observations. Granted, I don't build in P4 (which the great Mike Sharman did - he had the requisite skills), so I can only comment on the chassis I've built in OO, EM and O. Loco chassis that is, I've never compensated rolling stock. I've built about six/seven compensated sets of frames in OO - from a 4-4-0, 0-6-0 to a Pacific. Not one, despite taking at least four times as long to erect as a rigid equivalent has shown the slightest improvement over the rigid ones. No better haulage, no better pick-up; in fact, the opposite! They've all wobbled and waddled far more than my rigid ones. I accept, it could be my in-built prejudice, but these are my findings. The greatest aid to adhesion is weight - plenty of it! I've stuck to rigid in EM and O. 

 

Roy Jackson once built two A3s (did they appear in the MRJ?). One was rigid, the other compensated. He told me that there might have been the slightest benefit from the compensated one, but that was debatable. Certainly not enough to offset the vastly-increased time needed to build it. 

 

Having seen (and photographed) both Malcolm Crawley's and Tony Gee's EM locos run under exhibition conditions and at their respective homes, I can tell you that Tony's run better than most of Malcolm's. Much better! I never ever believed the 'It'll run-in in time, and that tight spot will go' statement from the great man. It never will, or would, Malcolm. 

 

I suppose, I'm really interested in results. My wants/needs are quite specific - as is illustrated in Little Bytham. I do have very good trackwork, laid on baseboards built by a master carpenter. It's in OO, so is far more tolerant than the most-accurate 4mm gauge. I wish it were in EM, but the cul-de-sac is far too long now! I only allow smooth, powerful, quiet and consistently-good running (as you've seen, and, I hope, other visitors will testify to). Stuttering, jerking and derailments are not tolerated, and many of the trains have to run fast - very fast! All of this is achieved through great-rigidity. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Hi Tony. 

I think it's a complicated topic. People choose what standards/gauge they use according to their final aims for a model. To address your first question, I always wanted a layout that could emulate a busy main line with the opportunity to shunt/back wagons into sidings. I built firstly in OO but was definitely 'wowed' by the look of P4 so, towards the end of the 1980s,  in the loft of my first house in Ipswich I started a scaled down version of Awsworth Junction in P4. I certainly managed to get a number of locos working well pulling trains over the track work without derailments but no matter how I tried, I couldn't back a coal train across a single slip and into sidings without wagons derailing. I did work at it for some time, but without ever solving the problem. However, about the year 2000 I saw a layout by Andy Cooper (Spotland, I think)  and loved how it came close to that P4 look which had initially attracted me to P4 but, with deeper flanges, offered an operational solution. I realised that there may be a good compromise to be made which could give me both better running but on that wider gauge. I tested it out and haven't looked back or changed my mind. Yes P4 still has the edge for looks but, for a larger layout, I think EM is the best solution.

 

Now, I have to say most of the locomotives I use on my layout are inside cylinder or have inside valve gear. But I have successfully converted RTR chassis including a WD, B1, K3 and L1s,  and built chassis for a K2 and B1. The valve gear clearance problem often leads to an awful lot of fiddling about, but so far I have managed to solve all problems without taking any major drastic action. But for instance, the Little Engines O4/8 required completely new slide bars to give enough clearance.

 

On the subject of flexible versus rigid, I have two locos with rigid chassis. A J39/1 and the O4/8. They aren't my best runners although the O4/8 has been improved greatly with additional tender pick-ups. I find flexible chassis are more forgiving - they can actually run well even if slightly out of square. But - the key thing is - they are adjustable. For me, often the time consuming element of chassis building is the decision making of whether to go compensated or sprung and the following design to bring it to fruition. But that's another topic.

I think the only reasonable conclusion from this discussion is to say 'each to their own' and if people find a method that suits them, by all means stick to it. You are a professional loco builder and so have very different factors coming in to play and I can see why, for sheer consistency, the rigid method works best for you and what is apparent is just how sweet your locomotives run.

Finally, my trains prototypically don't need to run fast - certainly not over scale speed of 50mph, but they do need to be able to haul prototypical loads round curves that are tight for OO and probably too tight for EM (governed by width of layout room). 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


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

Good morning Clem,

 

'I have modelled in OO, P4 and EM in that order.'

 

It's interesting that your modelling progress is in that line. Most who follow that path, I would suggest, transpose the middle and last gauges. Why did you 'abandon' P4?

 

I've only built locos/stock in OO (the vast majority), EM (a few) and O (again, a few). The finest 4mm Gauge sets too high a standard for my range of skills.

 

'it's often as difficult in EM as it is in P4 due to the wider wheel standards.' 

 

Very interesting you should say that. At the Spalding Show, I was asked to put the valve gear back on an EM Gauge V2 built by the late Colin Scoffin (one of the great EM pioneers and mentor to the even greater, late Roy Jackson). The only way Colin had been able to achieve the clearances between the front crankpins and the back of the crossheads was to fit the little end of the connecting rods OUTSIDE the crossheads! 

 

I built two chassis for Retford's locos for Roy; one was an A2/2, and the only way I got the necessary working clearance was by plugging the cylinders, and re-drilling the holes for the piston rods 1mm outwards, setting the crossheads further out accordingly. The subterfuge was invisible, unlike the rod being on the outside. Thompson Pacifics have very tight clearances in OO as well. 

 

The discussions about rigid and compensated frames have been mentioned on here many times, and I can only reiterate my own findings/observations. Granted, I don't build in P4 (which the great Mike Sharman did - he had the requisite skills), so I can only comment on the chassis I've built in OO, EM and O. Loco chassis that is, I've never compensated rolling stock. I've built about six/seven compensated sets of frames in OO - from a 4-4-0, 0-6-0 to a Pacific. Not one, despite taking at least four times as long to erect as a rigid equivalent has shown the slightest improvement over the rigid ones. No better haulage, no better pick-up; in fact, the opposite! They've all wobbled and waddled far more than my rigid ones. I accept, it could be my in-built prejudice, but these are my findings. The greatest aid to adhesion is weight - plenty of it! I've stuck to rigid in EM and O. 

 

Roy Jackson once built two A3s (did they appear in the MRJ?). One was rigid, the other compensated. He told me that there might have been the slightest benefit from the compensated one, but that was debatable. Certainly not enough to offset the vastly-increased time needed to build it. 

 

Having seen (and photographed) both Malcolm Crawley's and Tony Gee's EM locos run under exhibition conditions and at their respective homes, I can tell you that Tony's run better than most of Malcolm's. Much better! I never ever believed the 'It'll run-in in time, and that tight spot will go' statement from the great man. It never will, or would, Malcolm. 

 

I suppose, I'm really interested in results. My wants/needs are quite specific - as is illustrated in Little Bytham. I do have very good trackwork, laid on baseboards built by a master carpenter. It's in OO, so is far more tolerant than the most-accurate 4mm gauge. I wish it were in EM, but the cul-de-sac is far too long now! I only allow smooth, powerful, quiet and consistently-good running (as you've seen, and, I hope, other visitors will testify to). Stuttering, jerking and derailments are not tolerated, and many of the trains have to run fast - very fast! All of this is achieved through great-rigidity. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Thanks for the kind words regarding the running of my locos. I tend to keep mine well hidden until any problems have been fettled and sorted.

 

Malcolm tended to have two different types of loco. There were the ones for running on layouts and the ones for his showcase. If he could get something to lurch up and down the test track and it was a showcase model which didn't fit into any of our layout scenarios, then that was it, the poor thing got put away and any running problems got put away with it.

 

Then there would be a running day on Retford and he would say "I will take the XYZ and give it a run, it will do it good". I would suggest that if he wanted to do that, a private visit with no others there might be better but trying to tell Malcolm that he had made a mistake was pretty much impossible. As far as I know, he never admitted to being wrong about anything!

 

His big problem was that he had so much self confidence that he would assemble the frames, wheels, coupling rods, pick ups and any valve gear then check it for free running and tight spots. If there was one, as there often was, finding it was a nightmare. I have never been that brave and check over and over again at each stage of construction.

 

So the showcase locos with the poor running would come out on a running day on Retford, stagger round, fail and get put away again. At the time, neither of us had a layout set up permanently at home for proper testing purposes, so he would take it home, tinker with it and take it to the next running day, where the sequence would be repeated! 

 

It was a shame as when he did take the trouble to fettle the running, the results were superb. The stud of locos on Thompson's End and the ones we ran on Tickhill and my other layouts couldn't be bettered. One of his last locos, a scratchbuilt P1 with working inside motion, was like a sewing machine and would pull anything put behind it at a lovely slow crawl.

 

Roy did build two A3s together. One rigid and one sprung with home made individual adjustable wire springs. The article was written as part of the "Locomotives of Dunwich" series for MRJ but never appeared for various reasons, which I won't go into here! It was to be called "The strange tale of the Flying Scotsman and the Gay Crusader" or suchlike. The rigid one ran superbly first time and would haul any train on the layout. The identical DJH kit with sprung wheels needed much added weight and fiddling about with getting the weight distribution just right before it would pull a full length train but when it was weighted, it was ever so slightly quieter and smoother through pointwork. The conclusion was that the springing wasn't worth the extra effort especially if you wanted dozens of locos!

  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


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

Nice stuff, Baz,

 

Thanks for showing us.

 

One question - would a van with brakes only on one side still be running in the '50s (the MAJ one)? The reason I ask is I have one.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Tony,  yes.  Most pre grouping company wagons were built with brakes on one side.  They had to have levers on both sides and they had to face to the right.  This meant a clutch system such as Morton or lift link.  Of course, by 1960 anno domini would have caught up with the majority of pre grouping wagons.

Bill

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Thanks for the kind words regarding the running of my locos. I tend to keep mine well hidden until any problems have been fettled and sorted.

 

Malcolm tended to have two different types of loco. There were the ones for running on layouts and the ones for his showcase. If he could get something to lurch up and down the test track and it was a showcase model which didn't fit into any of our layout scenarios, then that was it, the poor thing got put away and any running problems got put away with it.

 

Then there would be a running day on Retford and he would say "I will take the XYZ and give it a run, it will do it good". I would suggest that if he wanted to do that, a private visit with no others there might be better but trying to tell Malcolm that he had made a mistake was pretty much impossible. As far as I know, he never admitted to being wrong about anything!

 

His big problem was that he had so much self confidence that he would assemble the frames, wheels, coupling rods, pick ups and any valve gear then check it for free running and tight spots. If there was one, as there often was, finding it was a nightmare. I have never been that brave and check over and over again at each stage of construction.

 

So the showcase locos with the poor running would come out on a running day on Retford, stagger round, fail and get put away again. At the time, neither of us had a layout set up permanently at home for proper testing purposes, so he would take it home, tinker with it and take it to the next running day, where the sequence would be repeated! 

 

It was a shame as when he did take the trouble to fettle the running, the results were superb. The stud of locos on Thompson's End and the ones we ran on Tickhill and my other layouts couldn't be bettered. One of his last locos, a scratchbuilt P1 with working inside motion, was like a sewing machine and would pull anything put behind it at a lovely slow crawl.

 

Roy did build two A3s together. One rigid and one sprung with home made individual adjustable wire springs. The article was written as part of the "Locomotives of Dunwich" series for MRJ but never appeared for various reasons, which I won't go into here! It was to be called "The strange tale of the Flying Scotsman and the Gay Crusader" or suchlike. The rigid one ran superbly first time and would haul any train on the layout. The identical DJH kit with sprung wheels needed much added weight and fiddling about with getting the weight distribution just right before it would pull a full length train but when it was weighted, it was ever so slightly quieter and smoother through pointwork. The conclusion was that the springing wasn't worth the extra effort especially if you wanted dozens of locos!

Thanks Tony,

 

'I have never been that brave and check over and over again at each stage of construction.'

 

I'd change 'brave' to 'daft' in your statement above!

 

What's the saying? 'You can always tell a Yorkshireman, but you can't tell him much!'. As the son of one, I know. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

  • Like 2
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t usually enter modelling debates but I’ll make an exception for the subject of compensation.

As far as I know there isn’t a standard method of compensation. The nearest to standard would be the ‘three legged stool’ system with a single central beam on the leading two axles (0-6-0) which works ok as long as the movement is restricted. A common error is to allow too much up and down movement, 0.5mm either way should be plenty.

I prefer twin beams which also incorporate the bearing surfaces and use the etched holes intended for the bearings as movement restrictors.

I don’t have any strong feelings about the whys and wherefores of other methods other than the above works for me, and more importantly suits my lazy approach as it’s quick and easy. 
 

Brendan

 

 

B9994FB3-4845-4045-B433-6955D175807D.jpeg

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Coach bogie said:

So what I have done this year? Not as much as planned. I have built several coaches, mainly by task building, shells in the winter, painting in the summer, finishing in Autumn. Sill a few to finish.

609248448_workbenchlr.jpg.697f7e013994c0ef377e103328fadf41.jpg

 

Work has somewhat overtaken everything.  Tony will probably appreciate this. My school senior management ‘wellbeing’ initiative to reduce workload and stress, actually added 40% more GCSE students to my roll, much reducing my available time for proper work like making trains.

 

I still managed to build the SEF/Wills pannier featured previously and a Bulldog from a wreck bought at a show. I converted another Bulldog from a Bachmann Dukedog. Next year's loco project is I a GWR 303 double frame pannier, currently at planning stage being semi – scratchbuilt from various parts, and to complete the few remaing working signals.

735327873_bulldog2lr.jpg.c765354d1aa64f52a697e85353767d52.jpg3417lr.jpg.7b633a46c43f47b2ecba74330877e9a8.jpg

 

The one that stands out was never in the plan. The MSJWR acquired stock from the Midland. The MSJWR was absorbed by the GWR. I had a call that there was a set of Bedford etches for this brake compo available, which ended up on the workbench. I slotted the build in somewhere and here is the result. It will run with a pair of GWR non corridor clerestories.

1284383362_msjwr1lr.jpg.3af6103a1262cbdc9dd68c7346de129a.jpg

 

Just finished, and delivered (I hope the paint had dried??), are these two, both from Worsley Works etches. The left one is a D31 from full body etches, and the right a D33 sides/ends only on a Hornby body. A good friend has been nursing his wife and his modelling has all but stalled and she wanted to give him something for his layout at Christmas and I was asked if I could sort something out for her. As I was building the same for me, I batch built a second pair at the same time. Nice way to end the year.

2047147085_dgpairlr.jpg.e1ede5b4a5ac228145be66524c840586.jpg

 

 

Merry Christmas and a happy modelling new year to you all.

 

Mike Wiltshire

Wonderful stuff, Mike,

 

Thanks for showing us.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perspective, MIke.  The train is SMALL but the photographer is NOT FAR AWAY (apologies to Father Ted).

  • Funny 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to Tony and Mo and all readers and participants.

 

I expect to post some photos of what I've built this year later in the week.

 

Andrew

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to Tony and Mo and all readers and participants.

 

I expect to post some photos of what I've built this year later in the week.

 

Andrew

Thanks Andrew,

 

And a very merry Christmas to all our friends down-under.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.