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

3 hours ago, micklner said:

Agreed the Hornby A4 (and its sisters A1 A3 ) valve gear is a bit weedy , however looking at Faringdon, the awful fit of the Cylinder Covers is far more noticable to me at least.  It looks like the Finecast Body to me/  as their W1 was just as bad a fit in that area . As soon as Graeme made the A4 to W1 upgrade  mine was sold on, as it has such poor detail ,as on the juggernaut weighing Whitemetal Tender. As I model LNER the A4 valve gear is hardly seen behind the valances anyway.

It will be interesting to see what the A2/2/3 gear looks like on its arrival ,as that will will require complete new valve gear to be made.

The cylinder fit was as good as I could make it, Mick (I could make it perfect in Photoshop!). 

 

It is a Bachmann body on 60034 (packed with lead), which had the old Trix one as an ancestor!

 

The Graeme King conversions from an A4 to the W1 are excellent, but mine is all SE Finecast. It'll haul anything, which no Hornby-derived one will.

 

These might well have been seen before, but they are pertinent.......

 

1856918305_DavidWestW1.jpg.ec35a2b2d8760edcbf2a98f827e23ffe.jpg

 

David West's Hornby/King W1.

 

764008757_TomRanceW1.jpg.a630998b3ef58830db0b873386c17dcb.jpg

 

Tom Rance's Hornby/King W1.

 

646143777_overallview11W1.jpg.706472a11676cacf0c9537276761ac9f.jpg

 

1075793535_morefigures02W1.jpg.47c838aadbf4753cae0d92af213ea7fe.jpg

 

My SE Finecast W1, painted by Ian Rathbone. Yes, a bit 'chunky' by comparison, but better-looking motion and great power.

 

815586718_21W1andCravensBW.jpg.76b8f0cbe8efb97f9874ec66241ed86f.jpg

 

It used to guest on Biggleswade.

 

W1.jpg.c121ba78a4458a72bf741a8a4fb2ba54.jpg

 

Speaking of 'chunky', this is an SEF original W1 I sold on on behalf of a bereaved family (builder/painter unknown). What 'price' something like this in a year's time?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 16
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1

Share this post


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

Agreed the Hornby A4 (and its sisters A1 A3 ) valve gear is a bit weedy , however looking at Faringdon, the awful fit of the Cylinder Covers is far more noticable to me at least.  It looks like the Finecast Body to me/  as their W1 was just as bad a fit in that area . As soon as Graeme made the A4 to W1 upgrade  mine was sold on, as it has such poor detail ,as on the juggernaut weighing Whitemetal Tender. As I model LNER the A4 valve gear is hardly seen behind the valances anyway.

It will be interesting to see what the A2/2/3 gear looks like on its arrival ,as that will will require complete new valve gear to be made.

The cylinder fit was as good as I could make it, Mick (I could make it perfect in Photoshop!). 

 

It is a Bachmann body on 60034 (packed with lead), which had the old Trix one as an ancestor!

 

The Graeme King conversions from an A4 to the W1 are excellent, but mine is all SE Finecast. It'll haul anything, which no Hornby-derived one will.

 

These might well have been seen before, but they are pertinent.......

 

1856918305_DavidWestW1.jpg.ec35a2b2d8760edcbf2a98f827e23ffe.jpg

 

David West's Hornby/King W1.

 

764008757_TomRanceW1.jpg.a630998b3ef58830db0b873386c17dcb.jpg

 

Tom Rance's Hornby/King W1.

 

646143777_overallview11W1.jpg.706472a11676cacf0c9537276761ac9f.jpg

 

1075793535_morefigures02W1.jpg.47c838aadbf4753cae0d92af213ea7fe.jpg

 

My SE Finecast W1, painted by Ian Rathbone. Yes, a bit 'chunky' by comparison, but better-looking motion and great power.

 

815586718_21W1andCravensBW.jpg.76b8f0cbe8efb97f9874ec66241ed86f.jpg

 

It used to guest on Biggleswade.

 

W1.jpg.c121ba78a4458a72bf741a8a4fb2ba54.jpg

 

Speaking of 'chunky', this is an SEF original W1 I sold on on behalf of a bereaved family (builder/painter unknown). What 'price' something like this in a year's time?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

P.S. I have no idea why this post has appeared twice!

Edited by Tony Wright
  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 2750Papyrus said:

Have you been asked for help by Hornby with the Wi models?

No, though I knew about it......

 

Regards,

 

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, copleyhill007 said:

Tony may not remember - but here is his model of the W1 in 1979!

screen.jpg

Gosh Dave,

 

Over 40 years ago! In fact, I built it in the mid-'70s, maybe still in my 20s (just). 

 

If I recall, it's a Wills A4 with  scratch-built firebox/cab, running on a scratch-built chassis with Jamieson valve gear. I painted it. 

 

Haven't things moved on? I'm not sure where it is now.

 

I suppose it's an example of how personal modelling can (must?) improve with experience. I look at that W1 and it's a bit naff, isn't it? No brakes, no beading round the cabside windows, and a bit of a fudged tender. It must have satisfied me over 40 years ago (if only just), but I think it's best to call it a 'product of its time'.

 

Thanks for posting the picture. Did you take it? I can't remember if I did. If I did, then my model photography has also improved over the last four and a bit decades! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The cylinder fit was as good as I could make it, Mick (I could make it perfect in Photoshop!). 

 

It is a Bachmann body on 60034 (packed with lead), which had the old Trix one as an ancestor!

 

The Graeme King conversions from an A4 to the W1 are excellent, but mine is all SE Finecast. It'll haul anything, which no Hornby-derived one will.

 

These might well have been seen before, but they are pertinent.......

 

1856918305_DavidWestW1.jpg.ec35a2b2d8760edcbf2a98f827e23ffe.jpg

 

David West's Hornby/King W1.

 

764008757_TomRanceW1.jpg.a630998b3ef58830db0b873386c17dcb.jpg

 

Tom Rance's Hornby/King W1.

 

646143777_overallview11W1.jpg.706472a11676cacf0c9537276761ac9f.jpg

 

1075793535_morefigures02W1.jpg.47c838aadbf4753cae0d92af213ea7fe.jpg

 

My SE Finecast W1, painted by Ian Rathbone. Yes, a bit 'chunky' by comparison, but better-looking motion and great power.

 

815586718_21W1andCravensBW.jpg.76b8f0cbe8efb97f9874ec66241ed86f.jpg

 

It used to guest on Biggleswade.

 

W1.jpg.c121ba78a4458a72bf741a8a4fb2ba54.jpg

 

Speaking of 'chunky', this is an SEF original W1 I sold on on behalf of a bereaved family (builder/painter unknown). What 'price' something like this in a year's time?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

P.S. I have no idea why this post has appeared twice!

My Hornby/King  W1'S, I cant find a photo of my old Finecast version at the moment .

 

 

post-7186-0-76875600-1450194068_thumb.jpgpost-7186-0-66260300-1450274571_thumb.jpg

 

  • Like 5
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, micklner said:

My Hornby/King  W1'S, I cant find a photo of my old Finecast version at the moment .

 

 

post-7186-0-76875600-1450194068_thumb.jpgpost-7186-0-66260300-1450274571_thumb.jpg

 

Nice work, Mick,

 

Thanks for posting.

 

Though it's all but invisible on the pre-War version, might it not be worth altering the angle of the return crank on the post-War one? On this side. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Share this post


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

Nice work, Mick,

 

Thanks for posting.

 

Though it's all but invisible on the pre-War version, might it not be worth altering the angle of the return crank on the post-War one? On this side. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony I will get the Hammer out !!

 

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kevin Roche said:

The High Dyke to Aldwarke Class C Iron Ore Train  was another interesting Freight working on The ECML. There was a regular service between High Dyke and Aldwarke for many years, utilising unfitted Iron Ore Tipplers, hauled by O2’s and occasional V2’s. Following a reorganisation in The Eastern Region Divisional Management Structure, a fully fitted C Service was introduced utilising vacuum fitted Iron Ore Tipplers in the distinctive bauxite livery. This Train only ran from March 1962 until March 1963, utilising A3’s from Grantham MPD and A1’s from elsewhere, loaded to about  27 wagons. However it proved difficult to keep the rake of vacuum fitted Tipplers together iin daily service. Apparently it was quite an experience in the early evening  when the train headed North through Grantham at 50mph as the driver got to work with the train.

Yes Kevin , I have fired on both those iron ore workings you mention . The loose coupled train with 02s as far as Doncaster in my time , where we would leave it in the down Decoy yard , and invariably come home light engine .

The fully fitted No1 speed train was Always one our A3s in on the few occasions I went on it . It was a No2 link job so not often for young chaps like me . But I used to swap fireman Jake Garland for his main line jobs sometimes  . Jake was the local poacher and If I was rostered up the Stainby branch dragging iron ore down to Highdyke , he would swap me so he could maybe bag a few pheasants !      Anyway I remember on the Aldwarke job going off the main line at Doncaster and squealing  round a sharp bend seemingly uphill a bit . Quite a drag going slow with 6' 8" A3 wheels . A challenge for the driver to make sure she "keeps her feet" . Also going "under the wires in the Sheffield area , which seemed a bit scary at the time   ( must remember to watch it if you wanted to use a fire iron !) , as we did a circular tour and rejoined the main line with the empties at Retford North . 

Happy days .

 

Regards , Roy.

  • Like 10
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, [email protected] said:

Yes Kevin , I have fired on both those iron ore workings you mention . The loose coupled train with 02s as far as Doncaster in my time , where we would leave it in the down Decoy yard , and invariably come home light engine .

The fully fitted No1 speed train was Always one our A3s in on the few occasions I went on it . It was a No2 link job so not often for young chaps like me . But I used to swap fireman Jake Garland for his main line jobs sometimes  . Jake was the local poacher and If I was rostered up the Stainby branch dragging iron ore down to Highdyke , he would swap me so he could maybe bag a few pheasants !      Anyway I remember on the Aldwarke job going off the main line at Doncaster and squealing  round a sharp bend seemingly uphill a bit . Quite a drag going slow with 6' 8" A3 wheels . A challenge for the driver to make sure she "keeps her feet" . Also going "under the wires in the Sheffield area , which seemed a bit scary at the time   ( must remember to watch it if you wanted to use a fire iron !) , as we did a circular tour and rejoined the main line with the empties at Retford North . 

Happy days .

 

Regards , Roy.

Did you ever fire an A1 on the working, Roy?

 

There's a magnificent picture in Colin Walker's Trails of Steam, Volume 6, Trails Through Grantham of Class A1 60137 REDGAUNLET belting through Grantham on a High Dyke-Aldwarke fully-fitted (and very heavy) ironstone train. Strangely, the loco is Tyneside-based, or even at Tweedmouth! An odd diagram for a loco based far away? 

 

I've seen pictures like this where the caption writer has suggested 'What a come-down for a top-link Pacific'. Hardly; this must have been a very tough job indeed!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tony

 

Regarding A4 cylinders on the Hornby body you may or may not recall that I bought this along to a running session at your place a few years ago now.

 

post-118-0-40986100-1411984188_thumb.jpg

 

Yes there is a line visible on the cylinder side but I felt it was an acceptable compromise to get a good looking turn under.  Below the line the cylinder side is part of the chassis.  A fuller description of the model and constituent parts is at the end of this link (page 97 of your thread).

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64295-wright-writes/page/97/&tab=comments#comment-1588616

 

 

Along with some of your excellent photos of my and David West's work

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64295-wright-writes/page/97/&tab=comments#comment-1588196

 

Cheers...Morgan

Edited by 45609
added image in different way
  • Like 9
  • Craftsmanship/clever 4
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


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

Did you ever fire an A1 on the working, Roy?

 

There's a magnificent picture in Colin Walker's Trails of Steam, Volume 6, Trails Through Grantham of Class A1 60137 REDGAUNLET belting through Grantham on a High Dyke-Aldwarke fully-fitted (and very heavy) ironstone train. Strangely, the loco is Tyneside-based, or even at Tweedmouth! An odd diagram for a loco based far away? 

 

I've seen pictures like this where the caption writer has suggested 'What a come-down for a top-link Pacific'. Hardly; this must have been a very tough job indeed!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

No I didn't Tony . As say , it was a job in No2 link and not generally for the likes of my seniority . But I did go on it a few times , always an A3 . Indeed , I can't recall seeing an Ai on it , though as you say there is one in Colin Walker's book . But they would be well boss of it I think . As you know with slightly higher boiler pressure , and slightly bigger cylinder diameter I believe : is that correct ? They were certainly a powerful , free steaming engine .

 

Regards,

 

Roy.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, 45609 said:

Hi Tony

 

Regarding A4 cylinders on the Hornby body you may or may not recall that I bought this along to a running session at your place a few years ago now.

 

post-118-0-40986100-1411984188_thumb.jpg

 

Yes there is a line visible on the cylinder side but I felt it was an acceptable compromise to get a good looking turn under.  Below the line the cylinder side is part of the chassis.  A fuller description of the model and constituent parts is at the end of this link (page 97 of your thread).

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64295-wright-writes/page/97/&tab=comments#comment-1588616

 

 

Along with some of your excellent photos of my and Davis West's work

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64295-wright-writes/page/97/&tab=comments#comment-1588196

 

Cheers...Morgan

 

The cylinders on that look so much better Morgan. So does the valve gear with the multi layer expansion link. I presume they were made from your own design etches.

 

Lovely stuff.

 

Tony (Gee)

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 45609 said:

Hi Tony

 

Regarding A4 cylinders on the Hornby body you may or may not recall that I bought this along to a running session at your place a few years ago now.

 

post-118-0-40986100-1411984188_thumb.jpg

 

Yes there is a line visible on the cylinder side but I felt it was an acceptable compromise to get a good looking turn under.  Below the line the cylinder side is part of the chassis.  A fuller description of the model and constituent parts is at the end of this link (page 97 of your thread).

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64295-wright-writes/page/97/&tab=comments#comment-1588616

 

 

Along with some of your excellent photos of my and David West's work

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/64295-wright-writes/page/97/&tab=comments#comment-1588196

 

Cheers...Morgan

It was a few years ago Morgan,

 

And many, many pages ago!

 

And it's still one of the best A4s in model form I've ever seen!

 

Just one thing (and I've probably mentioned this before), at least on the off-side for a time, the lining on the bottom of 60012's tender was not parallel with the soleplate. It was higher at the front. The same phenomenon was also apparent on 60010's tender, but earlier. Two painters of different heights? in the case of 12's case, it was after being fitted with a double chimney and repainting after shopping (1958?). 

 

Reproduce it on the model, and, though 'accurate' for the period, it would look very odd indeed. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Share this post


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

It was a few years ago Morgan,

 

And many, many pages ago!

 

And it's still one of the best A4s in model form I've ever seen!

 

Just one thing (and I've probably mentioned this before), at least on the off-side for a time, the lining on the bottom of 60012's tender was not parallel with the soleplate. It was higher at the front. The same phenomenon was also apparent on 60010's tender, but earlier. Two painters of different heights? in the case of 12's case, it was after being fitted with a double chimney and repainting after shopping (1958?). 

 

Reproduce it on the model, and, though 'accurate' for the period, it would look very odd indeed. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

It is like bent handrails, footplates and wrinkles in the sides of tenders. All there on the real thing and if you are modelling a prototype at a date when they had them, you should include them.

 

Yet they are rarely done at all and when they are, it ends up looking like sloppy modelling.

 

I once noticed that on certain GCR period photos, the double white lines on cab and tender sides were not spaced equally on some locos. When you see the corner of the lining, it is clear that the radius of the two curves were not drawn from the same centre as the lines get closer together as you go round the curve. So the vertical white lines are closer together than the horizontal ones. Was that deliberate to keep proportions on shorter and longer lines or was it faulty work? Either way, do it on a model and it will look like somebody can't get their line spacing consistent. 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/01/2020 at 11:53, Tony Wright said:

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. 

 

There are a few rarely talked about factors here. And they apply to exhibitions as well as home layouts

 

1. I'm deliberately testing at the very extremes of whole train operation. That way I know that there will be a big safety factor if exceeding normal operation, even if someone unintentionally pushes the envelope a bit. Nothing is just barely working on the very edge of reliability.

 

2. Every vehicle is heavy. Nothing keeps vehicles firmly down on good track like weight. If it's very heavy, then it takes a lot more energy in a potential rail climbing situation to get a wheel to lift than it does for a light vehicle.

 

3. None of the wheels in the entire train are sprung. It's not well known, but the effectiveness of springing track holding for model trains is mostly cosmetic and varies greatly with speed and weight. Apparently working springing on light vehicles is often a source of "bouncing" at higher speeds. Instead all the track holding shown is managed by equalizing beams. And the theory for those works independently of both speed and weight. And the really good news is that your track no longer needs to be perfect.  In fact for my "00-P" 16.5 mm gauge, I can use almost all commercial track with just some simple and easy modifications.

 

4. "Good" track holding in "00" is significantly helped by "00"'s deep flanges.  When you start modelling with scale depth flanges, then all the common model design flaws and weaknesses "got way with" by having deep flanges become very serious factors to overcome.

 

5. There is a psychology factor at play in a "proto-scale". Very much like the often spoken of here obvious "but it's backwards" link in RTR steam models. Once you have one vehicle fitted with scale wheels, it becomes impossible not to notice the "steam roller" appearance of the remaining wheels in your vehicle roster. For most that try it, there is no going back.

 

Andy

  • Like 5
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎16‎/‎01‎/‎2020 at 23:08, drmditch said:

I believe the actual quotation was 'Pepp, if you design an express locomotive with five driving wheels your name is made!'

 

Now I will have to look up my source for that - but please may I get some sleep first!

 

Allegedly contained in a letter from J F Harrison to Col H C B Rogers, quoted in the latter's "Thompson & Peppercorn Locomotive Engineers".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

There are a few rarely talked about factors here. And they apply to exhibitions as well as home layouts

 

1. I'm deliberately testing at the very extremes of whole train operation. That way I know that there will be a big safety factor if exceeding normal operation, even if someone unintentionally pushes the envelope a bit. Nothing is just barely working on the very edge of reliability.

 

2. Every vehicle is heavy. Nothing keeps vehicles firmly down on good track like weight. If it's very heavy, then it takes a lot more energy in a potential rail climbing situation to get a wheel to lift than it does for a light vehicle.

 

3. None of the wheels in the entire train are sprung. It's not well known, but the effectiveness of springing track holding for model trains is mostly cosmetic and varies greatly with speed and weight. Apparently working springing on light vehicles is often a source of "bouncing" at higher speeds. Instead all the track holding shown is managed by equalizing beams. And the theory for those works independently of both speed and weight. And the really good news is that your track no longer needs to be perfect.  In fact for my "00-P" 16.5 mm gauge, I can use almost all commercial track with just some simple and easy modifications.

 

4. "Good" track holding in "00" is significantly helped by "00"'s deep flanges.  When you start modelling with scale depth flanges, then all the common model design flaws and weaknesses "got way with" by having deep flanges become very serious factors to overcome.

 

5. There is a psychology factor at play in a "proto-scale". Very much like the often spoken of here obvious "but it's backwards" link in RTR steam models. Once you have one vehicle fitted with scale wheels, it becomes impossible not to notice the "steam roller" appearance of the remaining wheels in your vehicle roster. For most that try it, there is no going back.

 

Andy

Good evening Andy,

 

Very sound reasoning, with which I cannot disagree.....

 

However, why is that some who cannot tolerate 'steamroller' wheels, cannot then get their trains to stay on the track when they change them to ..... bicycle wheels? 

 

It's been recorded before, but some guests who operated the 'coarse' standards of Little Bytham, thought it 'wonderful', until one looked at the loco/stock wheels (and by analogy) and narrow gauge trackwork. They were 'impressed' when a P2 I'd built took 14 (heavy) bogies round at near 100 scale mph, without fuss, failure or derailment, but couldn't have lived with the steamroller wheels. 

 

Yet, when I saw the layout they were operating a month or two later at a show, they couldn't get a 2-6-2T with only two carriages from one end to the other of a terminus-fiddle yard layout, without it falling off all over the place! 

 

'No going back'? It's 'no going forward' for me if the finest scale/gauge standards can produce such poor running. 

 

The last said, I've also seen some pretty grim running on layouts with 'steamroller' wheels. But, we have been here before...........

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited by Tony Wright
typo error
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

After too long, the Nu-Cast K2 I started in the autumn is now complete......

 

1969991493_NuCastK102.jpg.53a58bc97797ce8fa9194ec8bf4762a6.jpg

 

It was built really to test the new DJH/motor combination. This a beautifully-smooth prime-mover.

 

The un-prototypical joggles in the radius rods clear the valve guides, and they all but disappear with the body on. 

 

786273729_NuCastK103.jpg.d62415965b7d7eb3f1a5ac535d45afe1.jpg

 

Ready for the paint shop (after much in the way of cleaning up!). 

 

785458696_NuCastK104.jpg.c7f864d8b4a83b231de1179a64bd8a74.jpg

 

On test this afternoon, near 50 wagons (some white metal) were no problem. Why didn't I notice the twisted front coupling? 

 

1493532079_NuCastK105.jpg.f87faeeddcc695d5d1b93f7f49be73a3.jpg

 

Bytham's three K1s together (three's enough). From left to right: Nu-Cast, built/painted/weathered by John Houlden (ex-Gamston Bank), DMR, built/painted by me, weathered by Tom Foster, and the new, Nu-Cast one (still with twisted coupling). 

 

Are any of these better than a Hornby equivalent? A frequently-asked question regarding RTR/kit-built. In all honesty, I don't really care. There is still something 'special' about an all-metal loco, than no plastic equivalent can achieve.

 

In a way (in every way?), the current RTR stuff should be better - it's the product of far newer technologies and it's factory-finished. But, speaking as a model-maker, so what? At least two of these are 'mine' in a way impossible with just a possession. 

 

 

Hi Tony. That motor/gearbox assembly looks just right, doesn't it? I'm actually putting together a Nucast K1 myself, another eBay bargain from a few years ago that was in the roundtuit pile. Sadly it came without a chassis - one of the reasons why it was cheap - but I had obtained a set of Dave Alexander's K4 frames from the gent himself at a cost of, if I recall, only £3, and with a little fiddling about they have been adapted well to fit the body. I was looking at a way of marrying a High Level gearbox with a Romford Bulldog which I have - probably with some sort of UJ or a simple rubber sleeve and the motor well up in the boiler so as not to have to cut the frames & spoil the look of the loco - but looking at your power source, I am very tempted to use one of those instead.

 

Cheers

Mark

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

However, why is that some who cannot tolerate 'steamroller' wheels, cannot then get their trains to stay on the track when they change them to ..... bicycle wheels? 

I fully accept that this may be an over reaction so apologies .... but .....

 

'steamroller wheels',  ..... bicycle wheels?  The term steamroller wheels has always seemed to me to be a tad rude even in jest .... bicycle wheels doesn't quite cut it as a commensurate riposte! Furthermore, steamroller is a bizarre description for a finally crafted and elegant piece of modelling - which is what Markits 00 finescale wheels are.

 

00 fine scale might have deeper flanges, but these are hardly visible on a layout. As far as wheels are concerned, when comparing fine scale 00 with P4, I contend that on a layout you have to look hard to see the difference and even then you need to be close up. When stock is moving, the differences become irrelevant. Perhaps it is the close up Photograph which should be held responsible for the bruhaha.

 

If you are creating a model for a display cabinet or placing a loco wheeled in P4 directly next to one using 00 Finescale for detailed comparison, you might choose the P4 due to visual preference -  but that is not the comparison being made on layouts.

 

I do think that 18mm track work is visually better than 00 and that a loco viewed head on has a better (more prototypical) stance within the wider gauges, but neither of these things has anything at all to do with 'steamroller wheels'. I also contend that as far as the wider gauges are concerned,  you are going to be very hard pushed to tell any difference visually between EM and P4 on separate layouts - unless again you artificially set one directly next to the other - and even then many will struggle.

 

For what it is worth I model in P4 primarily because I find it intellectually satisfying, in much the same way that I model details which often you would be hard pushed to see and arguably add not one bit to the overall impression. I do this purely for my own enjoyment. It does not effect one jot my admiration and enjoyment of other layouts in other gauges ... and interestingly there are a fair few P4 modellers who model at the same time in other 4mm gauges ..... horses for courses?.

I for one would be extremely happy never to hear the pejorative term 'steamroller wheels' again. :senile:

Edited by Lecorbusier
  • Like 1
  • Agree 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MarkC said:

Hi Tony. That motor/gearbox assembly looks just right, doesn't it? I'm actually putting together a Nucast K1 myself, another eBay bargain from a few years ago that was in the roundtuit pile. Sadly it came without a chassis - one of the reasons why it was cheap - but I had obtained a set of Dave Alexander's K4 frames from the gent himself at a cost of, if I recall, only £3, and with a little fiddling about they have been adapted well to fit the body. I was looking at a way of marrying a High Level gearbox with a Romford Bulldog which I have - probably with some sort of UJ or a simple rubber sleeve and the motor well up in the boiler so as not to have to cut the frames & spoil the look of the loco - but looking at your power source, I am very tempted to use one of those instead.

 

Cheers

Mark

Good morning Mark,

 

Ironically, though the frames for the K1 were in etched brass (rather than the usual, Nu-Cast white metal lump for a chassis), they actually have a large cut-out in them to accommodate an X04/Bulldog/MW005-style, open framed motor.

 

You can see how I've filled this on the completed chassis posted above by using Plastikard cheeks. 

 

 

 

427452751_DJHnewgearbox01.jpg.dd2407c042cd153a5fdb3960632cc0e6.jpg

 

You can see the cut-out here, designed for an X04-type motor to drive off the rear axle. 

 

I have absolutely no hesitation in recommending these latest DJH motor/gearbox combinations. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

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.