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

 

In the days of public smoking, I’m sure quite a lot of pipe smokers tapped out their pipes on the baseboard edge to help engines to start.  I believe the Groves (the original 2mm FS layout) had an electric reciprocating razor strapped to the underside of the layout).   None of these dodges have any chance of working on CF as the whole lot is just too solid.  
 

Scale speed is much slower than you realise and track level video cameras show that very easily. However, the dawdling way that many layouts are shunted is really tedious, but then the operator often doesn’t leave time for the little man to couple / uncouple - so the illusion is lost. 

It’s terribly easy to criticise... some people are just better operators than others. 
 

Tim

  • Like 4
  • Agree 4

Share this post


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

In my limited experience of show attendance I have experienced the same. It is certainly frustrating and ruins the illusion.

 

My only comment would be that as a modeller who attends shows to hopefully learn and certainly to enjoy the modelling, the drama and make believe of the operation only forms part of the reasons I go (and not the main part as for myself I would get far more entertainment from actually operating the layouts). On a couple of layouts over the past 3 years, which I had been very interested and keen to see, I can report that the running was far from satisfactory and I did not spend much time watching the trains. However, both were very nicely modelled with marvellous landscaping and representations of buildings. The observation of the track and accompanying paraphernalia was also superb, and the quality of the rolling stock and locos in terms of detail, painting and weathering were also of a very high order. In both cases I therefore spent a lot of time studying the layout itself whilst letting the train movements carry on in the background.

 

Not a good situation if you come to shows to be entertained by the 'live show', but from my perspective thoroughly enjoyable and inspirational non the less.

 

Having everything is obviously optimal ... at Scaleforum I spent a long time watching and studying Pulborough & London Road both of which ran faultlessly .... but for myself given the choice I would rather see a fine piece of modelling with the annoyance of gremlins than a so so piece of modelling with perfect running.

I similarly appreciate fine modelling more than running, with the caveat that it is the 'make believe' that I seek most of all, so good running is still necessary to suspend disbelief (without wishing to build a fully-furnished flat up anyone's backside, Little Bytham is one of very few layouts that I get anything out of merely by watching trains, albeit through a superlative setting). Having never lost the childlike wonder of viewing interpretations of 'reality' in miniature, the 'hand in the sky' does nudge me gently out of my reverie, though I do understand that it's almost impossible to be Gremlin-free in an exhibition setting, but does not fall into the same flung-out-of-reverie category as big paws resting on backscenes or hand-held controllers being waved at the object they're controlling: akin to seeing how a magic trick is done. I do appreciate that mine is a very minority, if not entirely personal view...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modern RTR on well laid track is capable of very reliable running and pickup, and reasonably plausible slow running, so long as track, wheels, and pickups are clean.  Well built scratch or kit locos have always been capable of better than RTR performance, but this depends on the ability of the builder and we are not all as good as Tony; that said, I have managed to build well running 6-coupled kit chassis.  Outside Walchearts is probably (by which I mean beyond any doubt) beyond my sausage fingers and shaky hands.  If you are exhibiting, it is IMHO important to establish layout standards regarding buffers, couplings, minimum radius curves, minimum wagon weight and 'rollability'.

 

If those conditions are all achieved, and you have joined your baseboards correctly, the layout should run properly, and if you have incorporated an automatic coupling system that actually works properly (a very rare thing in my experience), there should never be any need for the hand of god or tapping the baseboard to get stuff moving.  So such matters are down to operator error, and it is clear that this is a neglected area.  I understand and sympathise that manning layouts for the duration of a show can be an issue, but trained operators who understand both how the layout in particular and the railway in general actually work are essential, irrespective of the standard of modelling.  You can operate a wooden pushalong layout correctly if you want to...

 

Not saying it's easy.  Good operators have to have the above knowledge and a sense of scale speed and the required finesse; they also get hungry, thirsty, bored, grumpy, hot, develop withdrawal symptoms without ciggies or beer, get distracted, want time off to look around the show themselves; in other words they are unreliable and inefficient.  Finding the right driver towards the end of a long weekend can be a bit of an issue even on well staffed layouts.

 

If you want to see how it's done properly on a complex layout, look at video of Borchester Market, which was built at a time when a lot of the tech we now rely on wasn't yet twinkles in it's inventors' eyes.

 

I reckon I deserve some sort of credit for using the word twinkle on a model railway forum...

  • Like 4
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, James Fitzjames said:

.... the 'hand in the sky' does nudge me gently out of my reverie, 

Although this is not what you were referring to, I have a real dilemma about the hand in the sky.

 

I know I am in a minority, but I really do like correct couplings on trains and even find Alan Jackson couplings something of a visual jolt ... particularly when shunting and this wholly unrealistic magic force causes them to descend and uncouple. I accept that they are very discrete and very clever if somewhat difficult to ensure faultless operation over time ... but for me they just don't feel right.

 

But then the only other option is a large hand descending from above (preferably with a nicely made shunters pole) coupling and uncoupling the stock. Now in some ways this is very prototypical as it is very much what happens on the real thing. It will also ensure that there is a sensible time allocated to such actions ... but for the viewer the pretence is shattered. Interestingly, the pretence is probably enhanced for the operator from a role playing standpoint.

 

On balance i think I actually prefer an oversized hand with a shunting pole and the correct 3 link couplings rather than some form of wholly unrealistic automatic system .... but if I'm honest, for exhibition purposes rather than playing trains, all options are something of a bodge. :cry:

Edited by Lecorbusier
  • Like 3
  • Agree 4
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

For those who might still be puzzled as to why Hornby aren't going to make an 'original' A2/2 perhaps these pictures of models I've made might help. All have been painted by Ian Rathbone.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2020_01/311235789_6050404.jpg.455795b09e3d04ea105206894d388bab.jpg

 

To all intents and purposes, this (along with 60503) was how the originals looked on rebuilding. Yes, they'd be in LNER green then, have a stovepipe double chimney and the nameplate would be further back, but it's pretty much how they looked. 60504 and 60503 kept this appearance until withdrawal. 

 

Note the long smokebox, short central footplate section, more forward position of the 'S' bend in the footplate, the arrangement of washout plugs, the length of the lower horizontal firebox handrail, the boiler in four segments, the far-back position of the streamlined dome, the firebox lever arrangement for raking the grate and the full 'V'-fronted cab. 

 

It's built from a Crownline kit. 

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2020_01/60506.jpg.9ab67b9a164e5f17b0e225676c84c607.jpg

 

Now we have an A2/2 with a Peppercorn D.118 boiler. Note the differences from 60504; the (though still long) shorter smokebox, long central footplate section, further back position of footplate 'S', part of the lower firebox exposed below the running plate, boiler washout plug positions, the combustion chamber ahead of the firebox (only a feature of No. 506 on rebuilding), the part 'V'-fronted cab, the shorter length of the lower horizontal firebox handrail, the boiler in five segments, the different grate lever arrangement and the more-forward position of the dome. 

 

This is built from a DJH kit.

 

There are some differences which are down to the kits. If anything, the Crownline cylinders are too big and the superheater header covers too small. 

 

With the exception of the different cab, the grate lever and smoke deflectors, the features above are exactly the same as on an A2/3 with the same boiler.....

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2020_01/129090740_6051303.jpg.895d179e1dc57223ee2ab47d349024bc.jpg

 

And, of course, a different tender. 

 

I hope the logic now comes across. Though still with financial imperatives present, it is reasonably easy to make one of the four A2/2s fitted with a Thompson/Peppercorn boiler from an A2/3, but it would be much more expensive to make an A2/3 from an original A2/2. 

 

Why is this fiscal decision considered to be 'silly' by Hornby by some? It makes sound common sense to me. 

 

What it will mean at the end of the year is that (by renumbering/renaming if necessary) any of the 15 A2/3s can be 'made', at just about any time in their lives. All RTR! It will also mean that four of the six A2/2s can be made, but later in their lives. 

 

The alternative would be to only have available the six A2/2s on rebuilding, with two in later life. 

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

unlike Hornby I can produce an A2/2 in original condition any time I wish, I'm a free self-reliant modeller who has started modelling again after being a bit poorly for a while. Freedom smells like hot solder. Incidentally there are up to seven livery variations with the original style A2/2 up to 1952. That's around thirty or so options as models across the class. I think that there are only two liveries for the later style.

 

P.s. I would still rather see your Wright / Rathbone Thompson Pacific's. They look much more realistic, if a bit clean.

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose my issue with Burntisland stems from the fact that I've seen three other P4 exhibition layouts and although none were on the same scale all three worked nearly faultlessly. There was one derailment in about two hours of running on one layout, I watched it for so long they gave me a stool and sat me on the operators side. I gathered the derailment was rare – they were genuinely surprised.

Functionality aside I think they could take another look at how they model the water on Burntisland – it wasn't as convincing as I've seen elsewhere. The layout is fabulous though and could be really an amazing tour de force with some further development to ensure it works to showcase its full potential.

 


 

Edited by Anglian
  • Agree 2

Share this post


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

Good morning Tony,

 

'I am sorry that you feel I was wrong to give people the chance to operate Leighton Buzzard at shows. It made those who had a go happy and seeing their pleasure made me happy too. Some of them turned out to be very good operators too. Seeing grown modellers shed tears of joy at being able to drive those famous old models was worth every moment.

 

There may even be one or two RMWebbers who had a go. Hopefully they were happy enough that I don't follow all your rules.' 

 

 

I'm not sure I ever stated that you were wrong to let others operate Leighton Buzzard, nor do I expect anyone to 'follow my rules'.

 

I was asked what I thought were 'essentials' for successful model railways at exhibitions, one of those being fully-trained operators. 

 

It might be interesting to find out how many 'guest' (untrained) operators we've had on Stoke Summit and Charwelton down the years. Loads and loads, but never at the busiest times. That's my point - I'm all in favour of allowing others to operate the trainsets I've been involved with at shows, including the young (who often grasp the fundamentals far more quickly than the more mature), but only when there isn't a large crowd watching. 

 

However, by my letting others have a go, I've never brought them to tears!  

 

Am I really that much of a zealot? I will not tolerate poor running, derailments, stuttering locos/stock, poor operation (of which I'm often guilty, which is why I rarely operated at shows) and incompetence in driving. I really do tire of poor running at shows. Last weekend (on a well-known layout) I watched a chap (not a guest operator) flick switch after switch, turn knob after knob, look, look, look and look again at a loco, and still it didn't move; until he nudged it. It then went, and, as I watched, some wagons derailed elsewhere on the layout! I walked away!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

     

 

I don't think our views are very far apart on these matters!

 

The only difference seems to be that you would prefer a novice to have a go when the show is quieter and I am happy to seize the chance to put them in the hot seat at any time and turn the situation into part of the show.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MJI said:

I think I may have found a good primer.

 

Tamiya fine surface primer, the car ones are too lumpy, I had a HobbyCraft voucher so primer and No11 knife blades.

 

Sprayed 4 aircons in it and it appears to cover plastic, brass and whatever the frames are (stainless steel?) pretty well.

 

Will have to wait until spring for blue and grey

 

Some car primers do work but I've found I have to obey a 60/60 rule of thumb. That is less than 60% relative humidity and more than 60 degree temp. The brand I use is Clostermans, available on ebay. Up to about 77 degrees they are good and you can gently waft on very thin coats of acid etch primer in white, grey or black. You have to keep the can moving as the paint flow can be a bit rapid. If it gets too warm the paint dries in the air before it hits the model and then you get too rough a surface. They also do the same primer in a tin but that needs thinning to spray.

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dave John said:

Interesting debate on reliable running. One issue I have from time to time is starting. You know, you roll a train to a perfect stop at a platform, then when you open the throttle to move off it just sits there. Aye, usually when folk are round to have a look at the layout. Harumpf ..... 

 

 

So on Kelvinbank 2 I  added a small pushbutton with a quite stiff action down there on the bottom lhs of my walkabout controllers. 

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2020_01/1384990031_cont1.JPG.90f497a0db04870660a17af2b53a9bd2.JPG

 

 

That button, via some electrickery,  fires the coil on a hefty old contactor, one mounted up at the back corner of each of the main baseboards like so.

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2020_01/cont_2.JPG.cbd3b7e3bdc5df6ac3ae2f513728d708.JPG

 

 

This imparts a knock to the baseboard quite sufficient to get over the moment of sticktion or tiny amount of dust and lo, the train moves off neatly without the hand of god or the operators knuckles being hurt by a sharp rap to the baseboard top. 

 

Also you can see a small LED on the top of the controller. Thats a loco present light. Comes on if the controller senses the resistance of a loco motor, even with the controller shut. So if its not on then you look at section switches and point settings as a first thing, rather than prodding the loco and then realising the siding is switched off. 

 

It also has another function. It is fast enough to detect tiny open circuits to the motor and amplify them a bit. If it starts to flicker while a train is running then that tells me that track or wheels need a clean.

 

A couple of dirty tricks perhaps, but if it keeps the trains running without the hand of god I'll go with them. 

 

 

 

 

 

Many years ago, a chap called Harry Teasdale was one of the members of the Doncaster Model Railway Club. He had a layout n his garage and some parts of it were very hard to reach, so if a loco stalled (as they often did) it was tricky giving it a nudge.

 

The layout was built in and very well constructed and tapping the baseboard did nothing. One day he announced that he had "cured the problem" by attaching a washing machine motor to one of the baseboard legs. Not as subtle as your solution! 

  • Like 2
  • Funny 12

Share this post


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

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

unlike Hornby I can produce an A2/2 in original condition any time I wish, I'm a free self-reliant modeller who has started modelling again after being a bit poorly for a while. Freedom smells like hot solder. Incidentally there are up to seven livery variations with the original style A2/2 up to 1952. That's around thirty or so options as models across the class. I think that there are only two liveries for the later style.

 

P.s. I would still rather see your Wright / Rathbone Thompson Pacific's. They look much more realistic, if a bit clean.

Good evening Andrew,

 

I hadn't realised you'd not been well. I hope you're recovering. 

 

I realise there are more livery variations for the A2/2s as first rebuilt - LNER black, LNER green, LNER green but with BR lettering/numerals, BR green and so on, but they would not all be seen at the same time. Thus, if one is modelling a 'strict' time period, then any two styles would be the most one might expect; which, again, limits how many one could have - and there'd still only be six to choose from, not 19 examples of A2/2/A2/3 as will (potentially) be available RTR. 

 

Unless one is considering having every loco in every livery? I once saw a display where it was claimed every A4 variant and every A4 livery was on view - there were well over 100 examples! There was much individual loco duplication of course, and all seemed to be repainted (if necessary) RTR, from a variety of sources. It was interesting, but who'd use the lot on a layout?

 

Thanks for the comments on the locos. However (and I admit this), to obliterate such fine painting would be unthinkable.

 

That said, I don't mind heavy-weathering if it's a Thompson Pacific I've painted myself...........

 

1935821118_A2360515.jpg.e498fc1f6da1b58a2460509ac49f6924.jpg

 

1035460240_6051505.jpg.ad7638e7e9768d38a0ba98f0193fe4b9.jpg

 

1755018135_A236051501.jpg.692e1f4204ddaa42f5980482bea4206a.jpg

 

1137101178_A236051502.jpg.2478175a3947999401f2d613b21d2b05.jpg

 

This has been seen before, but it illustrates the point. 

 

It's a Bachmann A2/Graeme King conversion which Graeme did for me as a form of barter. I detailed it, fitted decent bogie wheels, patch-repainted it, numbered/named it and weathered it.

 

When Tony Gee saw this loco (at Wells, last year), he thought it looked more realistic than two other (kit-built) Pacifics I had on display - one painted by Ian and one by Geoff Haynes! 

 

I have occasionally asked Ian to more-weather locos he's painted for me......

 

70329990_A2360500.jpg.8f5eb6b61d6d0649fffefc0182e13599.jpg

 

Here's 60500 in the condition it was in in 1958 - still with its boiler in four segments, a round dome and rimmed double chimney. The real thing got a lipped chimney prior to its acquiring a D.118 boiler. 

 

Granted, it's not as dirty as EDWARD THOMPSON usually was, but it's a bit grubby.

 

I built it from a Crownline kit, substituting a SE Finecast A2 cast metal boiler. I dislike resin as a modelling medium.

 

Having already got 60500/1/4/6/8/13/15/16/23 running on Little Bytham, I can't see myself needing/wanting any RTR Thompson Pacifics. But, like you, if I need/want any more, I'll make them. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

  • Like 13
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tony,

 

Thank you for your concise summation of A2 boilers,

 

"If Hornby were to produce an original A2/2, it would suit just six locos as first rebuilt, and 60503/4 until the end of their lives. There would be subtle differences, but for the most-popular period (the steam/diesel transition), they'd only have two to sell. 

 

Now, by doing the A2/3, they have 15 to choose from. Nos. 500 and 511 had a different boiler band configuration (fewer segments) as built. (60)500 kept it until the early-'60s, but (60)511 lost it quite early in its life. The original boilers were D.117 (based on the shortened P2 boiler, but not the same), and (60)512-(60)524 had boilers with more segments as built. All had round domes on the second ring. Eventually, all the A2/3s received the later, Peppercorn D.118 boiler, with the same, more typical boiler band configuration but with a streamlined dome placed further back. Several A1s and A2s received D.117 boilers. The two types were entirely interchangeable.  Since 60501/2 and 60505/6 eventually got D.118 boilers (and 60505 got a D.117 towards the end of its life), it would seem to me to make economic sense for Hornby to do the A2/2s fitted with these later boilers. That gives a total of 19 locos for Hornby to pick from.  

 

It is not just a 'simple' matter of making just different boiler moulds for the original A2/2s. The cabs were fully 'V'-fronted, the smokebox was longer and the 'S' in the footplate was in a different position. One is talking serious money there! 

 

Yes, I know the four A2/2s fitted with the later boiler had a part 'V'-fronted cab, but I imagine a segment will be fitted into firebox mould to match the flat cab front of the A2/3. Just as DJH did."

 

Nice to have clear(er) idea of the issues, and again a wonderful endorsement of this thread.

 

All power to Paul Isles and Hornby and thanks again for sharing your wisdom with them.  If they do as well as they have with the B1 and O1 then we shall have to enshrine Thompson ....  

 

I have to say after reading a little about the A2s and Thompson's inheritance of the CME position in late 1941 that I admire him hugely. People do get heated!

 

I was reading the memoirs of an Annesley fireman and he liked the O1 better than the 8Fs BR brought in to replace the Thompsons. With other engines he initially didn't like the J6 because you had to take a step or two with a loaded shovel to feed the box, but he was advised by a mature driver that the J6 had 'the sweetest front end you could ever find'...   marvellous!   

 

I also have some minor contact with people older than myself who fired spaceships out of Annesley and New England but this not overly relevant to LB, (?) except to say there are still a few alive today who DO fondly recall their youthful firing experiences on the 50s-60s engines. I suspect a few buy or are, or have been, given RTR models of the relevant machines, too. They may not be modelers in the true sense but they appreciate the art and the engineering.  I concoct pictures using models and they are complete gentlemen and very kind. :)

 

Cheers.

Edited by robmcg
typos and italics
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Many years ago, a chap called Harry Teasdale was one of the members of the Doncaster Model Railway Club. He had a layout n his garage and some parts of it were very hard to reach, so if a loco stalled (as they often did) it was tricky giving it a nudge.

 

The layout was built in and very well constructed and tapping the baseboard did nothing. One day he announced that he had "cured the problem" by attaching a washing machine motor to one of the baseboard legs. Not as subtle as your solution! 

Also many years ago at Leeds MRS we had a length of 2 x 1 with a red rubber glove on the end, stuffed so that the index finger was pointing. That was a very effective way to nudge a reluctant loco into action.

  • Like 2
  • Funny 13

Share this post


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

Good evening Andrew,

 

I hadn't realised you'd not been well. I hope you're recovering. 

 

I realise there are more livery variations for the A2/2s as first rebuilt - LNER black, LNER green, LNER green but with BR lettering/numerals, BR green and so on, but they would not all be seen at the same time. Thus, if one is modelling a 'strict' time period, then any two styles would be the most one might expect; which, again, limits how many one could have - and there'd still only be six to choose from, not 19 examples of A2/2/A2/3 as will (potentially) be available RTR. 

 

Unless one is considering having every loco in every livery? I once saw a display where it was claimed every A4 variant and every A4 livery was on view - there were well over 100 examples! There was much individual loco duplication of course, and all seemed to be repainted (if necessary) RTR, from a variety of sources. It was interesting, but who'd use the lot on a layout?

 

Thanks for the comments on the locos. However (and I admit this), to obliterate such fine painting would be unthinkable.

 

That said, I don't mind heavy-weathering if it's a Thompson Pacific I've painted myself...........

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2020_01/1935821118_A2360515.jpg.e498fc1f6da1b58a2460509ac49f6924.jpg

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2020_01/1035460240_6051505.jpg.ad7638e7e9768d38a0ba98f0193fe4b9.jpg

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2020_01/1755018135_A236051501.jpg.692e1f4204ddaa42f5980482bea4206a.jpg

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2020_01/1137101178_A236051502.jpg.2478175a3947999401f2d613b21d2b05.jpg

 

This has been seen before, but it illustrates the point. 

 

It's a Bachmann A2/Graeme King conversion which Graeme did for me as a form of barter. I detailed it, fitted decent bogie wheels, patch-repainted it, numbered/named it and weathered it.

 

When Tony Gee saw this loco (at Wells, last year), he thought it looked more realistic than two other (kit-built) Pacifics I had on display - one painted by Ian and one by Geoff Haynes! 

 

I have occasionally asked Ian to more-weather locos he's painted for me......

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2020_01/70329990_A2360500.jpg.8f5eb6b61d6d0649fffefc0182e13599.jpg

 

Here's 60500 in the condition it was in in 1958 - still with its boiler in four segments, a round dome and rimmed double chimney. The real thing got a lipped chimney prior to its acquiring a D.118 boiler. 

 

Granted, it's not as dirty as EDWARD THOMPSON usually was, but it's a bit grubby.

 

I built it from a Crownline kit, substituting a SE Finecast A2 cast metal boiler. I dislike resin as a modelling medium.

 

Having already got 60500/1/4/6/8/13/15/16/23 running on Little Bytham, I can't see myself needing/wanting any RTR Thompson Pacifics. But, like you, if I need/want any more, I'll make them. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Thanks, Tony,

 

I haven't felt able to do any modelling for probably the longest period in the last twenty years, I'm getting back into it though. A bit of soldering each night and some engagement with RM web and the mojo is starting to return. It's taken three times as long as normal to do a job tonight but I'm happy with the results and it is progressing. When you're been under the weather, a bit of instant gratification railway model purchasing has a quick fix appeal. There is no substitute for me, than the feeling I get from putting the work in to get what I would like. When you can't do it, it is most frustrating and a little sad, now that I can again it is very therapeutic.

 

I think that 60513 is my personal favourite out of the locomotives that you have shown, that one really sings. 60506 is another lovely model and...................... there you go.

Edited by Headstock
add ,
  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A simple question, not sure if on here is the appropriate  place to ask.

 

How heavy do you think a coach should be weighted? I've bought a bunch of Hornby Railroad Mk1s, which I feel will pass muster as layout coaches with a bit of titivating, and of course replacement of the horrible plastic wheels. But they seem awfully light and sorely in need of some extra ballast.

 

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks for that, Andrew,

 

I'm glad your mojo is returning, and examples of your (beautiful) work are always welcome on here.

 

If it's any consolation, I've been in similar circumstances; where what is usually a 'life-blood' becomes an intolerable burden to achieve.

 

My making of models has been a passion for as long as I can remember. At times, by not being able to even look at something I'm building, let alone work on it (not because of any physical problems), has been very hard.

 

What I've found is how supportive the model railway community has been to me. I'd have to drop out of attending a show (shows are essential to me!), yet, on 'recovery', on learning of it, another invitation was there! 

 

This is a fantastic hobby.

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Again many thanks,

 

I can appreciate how debilitating your own situation must have been. On a brighter note and somewhat ironically, Hornby's Thompson A2's have reignited the creative fires. Is it slightly perverse to wish to rebuild Edward Thompson as Cock 'o' the North ? It will probably never come to fruition but the energy generated will be redirected into future, and now at last, current projects.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chris Higgs said:

A simple question, not sure if on here is the appropriate  place to ask.

 

How heavy do you think a coach should be weighted? I've bought a bunch of Hornby Railroad Mk1s, which I feel will pass muster as layout coaches with a bit of titivating, and of course replacement of the horrible plastic wheels. But they seem awfully light and sorely in need of some extra ballast.

 

Chris

How much weight to add really comes down to matching them to what they'll be running with. Consistency is much more important than attempting to find an ideal weight.

 

The better coaches from Hornby and Bachmann tend to scale out at 150-165 grams. I tend to reduce that on those formed in longer sets to lessen the likelihood that only one or two of my locos will be up to the task. In most cases, running quality doesn't seem to be adversely affected until weight drops below 100 grams, but uniformity is the real key to reliable performance.

 

One oddity I have encountered, but only with Bachmann Mk1s (so far) has been that, irrespective of weight, they became a significantly easier load when fitted with the old style Jackson/Romford wheels in place of Bachmann's metal ones.

 

John

 

 

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Informative/Useful 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

One oddity I have encountered, but only with Bachmann Mk1s (so far) has been that, irrespective of weight, they became a significantly easier load when fitted with the old style Jackson/Romford wheels in place of Bachmann's metal ones.

 

John

 


I’ve come across a lot of Bachmann wheels that have a very rough surface finish. Possibly that may have something to do with the issue. 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Chris Higgs said:

A simple question, not sure if on here is the appropriate  place to ask.

 

How heavy do you think a coach should be weighted? I've bought a bunch of Hornby Railroad Mk1s, which I feel will pass muster as layout coaches with a bit of titivating, and of course replacement of the horrible plastic wheels. But they seem awfully light and sorely in need of some extra ballast.

 

Chris

 

I'm a rebel in that I believe in as heavy as possible, given the pulling, or hill climbing restraints. I also believe in solid engineering and thorough testing.  So along with heavy, I build in working equalization and ball bearings to both stick to the track and reduce the friction for smooth and dependable starting as well as running.

 

 

 

The videos show the running at a prototypically exact speed of 120 mph, with a RTR (Atlas) locomotive and 8 cars weighted to 250 gms each.  I added the reverse testing to make sure the cars nearest the locomotive stood up to the worst case forces involved.  The bogies are low volume "manufactured" by me to my own design. The track holding is Proto:87, rather than ordinary HO. And of course Proto-87 is 7/8 ths  a finer scale than even P4. 

 

So I'm kind of puzzled about the several recent comments here in the apparent poor running of P4 layouts at exhibitions.  To my mind there is no reason for either derailments or stalling on a properly engineered model railway. The trains shown have never derailed unexpectedly.  (or at all that I can remember).

 

I do run my (nostalgic) 4mm models on the same track, also fitted with Protro:87 or P4 wheelsets, which I have named the "00-P standard".  (Effectively P4 - 2.33 so as to match 00's 16.5 mm gauge ).  It's certainly an advantage to have P4 looking wheelsets for the normal sideways viewing, without all the hassle of hand laying all the track and trying to fit all the working  valve gear between scale width cylinders and splashers. But I don't have enough 4mm conversions done yet to make the equivalent videos. If I gewt more time this year, I'll post updates.

 

Andy

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Chris Higgs said:

A simple question, not sure if on here is the appropriate  place to ask.

 

How heavy do you think a coach should be weighted? I've bought a bunch of Hornby Railroad Mk1s, which I feel will pass muster as layout coaches with a bit of titivating, and of course replacement of the horrible plastic wheels. But they seem awfully light and sorely in need of some extra ballast.

 

Chris

I think several have answered your question, Chris,

 

In my own case, though none of my carriages rides badly, wobble or derail (isn't that a hostage to fortune statement?), the most-stable are the kit-built ones; that is those made from brass/nickel silver/white metal/wood (yes, the older ones have wooden roofs!), running in pin-point bearings in white metal bogies. Some are twice the weight of a plastic RTR carriage. Up to a point (obviously), the heavier the better. 

 

However, this good-riding comes at a 'price'. Don't expect a plastic-bodied RTR loco (steam-outline) to pull a full train of such weighty cars. 

 

And, from my experience of watching/photographing Ufford all those years ago, don't expect any of the kit-built locos I saw (no doubt commissioned at a high-price!) to pull anything!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

I'm a rebel in that I believe in as heavy as possible, given the pulling, or hill climbing restraints. I also believe in solid engineering and thorough testing.  So along with heavy, I build in working equalization and ball bearings to both stick to the track and reduce the friction for smooth and dependable starting as well as running.

 

 

 

The videos show the running at a prototypically exact speed of 120 mph, with a RTR (Atlas) locomotive and 8 cars weighted to 250 gms each.  I added the reverse testing to make sure the cars nearest the locomotive stood up to the worst case forces involved.  The bogies are low volume "manufactured" by me to my own design. The track holding is Proto:87, rather than ordinary HO. And of course Proto-87 is 7/8 ths  a finer scale than even P4. 

 

So I'm kind of puzzled about the several recent comments here in the apparent poor running of P4 layouts at exhibitions.  To my mind there is no reason for either derailments or stalling on a properly engineered model railway. The trains shown have never derailed unexpectedly.  (or at all that I can remember).

 

I do run my (nostalgic) 4mm models on the same track, also fitted with Protro:87 or P4 wheelsets, which I have named the "00-P standard".  (Effectively P4 - 2.33 so as to match 00's 16.5 mm gauge ).  It's certainly an advantage to have P4 looking wheelsets for the normal sideways viewing, without all the hassle of hand laying all the track and trying to fit all the working  valve gear between scale width cylinders and splashers. But I don't have enough 4mm conversions done yet to make the equivalent videos. If I gewt more time this year, I'll post updates.

 

Andy

Very impressive Andy,

 

No running problems there.

 

I must admit I've never tried propelling a full rake of carriages at high speed on LB (there is no need), but those from the kick back sidings come out without any trouble.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to the mention of a photo of 60518 Tehran at Knebworth on a train of Presflos in 1961, there is a photo in The RCTS Photo Archive  of 60518 on Kings X Shed on 19/2/61. Although York based Pacifics were common at Kings X, on this occasion 60518 is in a clean condition, unusually for a York based Pacific, and I wonder if this might be on the occasion of the initial trip on The Anglo Scottish Cement Working as the date is around the time when the trial would have taken place. It would be useful to know if it is possible to identify the length of the train behind 60518 Tehran at Knebworth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kevin Roche said:

Further to the mention of a photo of 60518 Tehran at Knebworth on a train of Presflos in 1961, there is a photo in The RCTS Photo Archive  of 60518 on Kings X Shed on 19/2/61. Although York based Pacifics were common at Kings X, on this occasion 60518 is in a clean condition, unusually for a York based Pacific, and I wonder if this might be on the occasion of the initial trip on The Anglo Scottish Cement Working as the date is around the time when the trial would have taken place. It would be useful to know if it is possible to identify the length of the train behind 60518 Tehran at Knebworth.

 

Good evening Kevin,

 

I can't upload the photo, it needs scanning. Some information may be of interest, The locomotive looks to be very clean and shiny, the train itself is rather disappointing given all the fuss about the muscle of different locomotives working the services. Are Presflos particularly heavy? The train is formed of twelve or possibly thirteen wagons and a guards van, the angle is quite tight. The only fly in the ointment is that a closer look at the photo would indicate that the locomotive is 60513 Dante. I can't quite read the shed code but Yeadon says Peterborough New England at this time.

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.