Wright writes.....

[landscapes]

44 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said:

See here ... caveat emptor

 

 

Hi 
I am sorry to say I started the Johnson’s Klear thread way back in 2011.

 

I don’t know if you are familiar with Johnson’s Klear, please forgive me if you are but do not get conned into paying extortionate prices for the old formula in the clear plastic bottle now only available on Ebay.

 

The new replacement formula which came out about six years ago is exactly the same and does the same job as the old one did, the only difference is it’s a milky colour but still dries clear.

 

having said that the new formula for some reason has also become very elusive now as well.

 

Robert Dyas and Asda both use to sell it, I last purchased a 750 ml bottle about three years ago.

 

Regards

 

David

 

 

[Lecorbusier]

2 minutes ago, landscapes said:

Hi 
I am sorry to say I started the Johnson’s Klear thread way back in 2011.

 

I don’t know if you are familiar with Johnson’s Klear, please forgive me if you are but do not get conned into paying extortionate prices for the old formula in the clear plastic bottle now only available on Ebay.

 

The new replacement formula which came out about six years ago is exactly the same and does the same job as the old one did, the only difference is it’s a milky colour but still dries clear.

 

having said that the new formula for some reason has also become very elusive now as well.

 

Robert Dyas and Asda both use to sell it, I last purchased a 750 ml bottle about three years ago.

 

Regards

 

David

 

 

If the picture is anything to go by then Pledge "revive it" would appear to be clear and not milky? I also purchased a bottle of the milky formula and didn't get on with it.

[landscapes]

5 minutes ago, Lecorbusier said:

If the picture is anything to go by then Pledge "revive it" would appear to be clear and not milky? I also purchased a bottle of the milky formula and didn't get on with it.

Hi 

 

I am sorry obviously you have used the product before and know about it.

 

The bottle in your photo is  that the replacement you are talking about and have you used it?
 

its good to see it back again and in a clear liquid form as well.

 

Regards

 

David

[Lecorbusier]

9 minutes ago, landscapes said:

Hi 

 

I am sorry obviously you have used the product before and know about it.

 

The bottle in your photo is  that the replacement you are talking about and have you used it?
 

its good to see it back again and in a clear liquid form as well.

 

Regards

 

David

Hi David,

 

No I have no experience ... I thought the milky version was still current.

 

It was Pete's post above which prompted a quick google search.

[polybear]

2 hours ago, APOLLO said:

3. Electrolube in a pen. I bought a few of these years ago and am nearly out. just a tiny a drop on gears & bearings etc. Never had any problems with this over the years either. Anyone know where you can buy these now (the pen type as photo below) ?

 

 

Brit15

 

 

The Farnell, RS and Rapid websites all state that this is no longer manufactured :( so if you do find any left it may be worth buying several...

 

1 hour ago, cb900f said:

Jamie/Tim

On another thread it has been highlighted that it has a name of pledge "revive it". Available from Amazon at £14.89p for 27 fl oz.

 

Pete

 

Is this also the same stuff:

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Pledge-Klear-Multi-Surface-Wax/dp/B008HFVO32/ref=pd_sbs_201_t_0/261-2531671-6586217?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B008HFVO32&pd_rd_r=00490bf2-0a4e-4940-8864-b0a7cb7aec15&pd_rd_w=kD0ZP&pd_rd_wg=Gluab&pf_rd_p=e44592b5-e56d-44c2-a4f9-dbdc09b29395&pf_rd_r=46A7ATH7NJ0YXNDB3KQS&psc=1&refRID=46A7ATH7NJ0YXNDB3KQS

 

[Andy Reichert]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I don't think anyone has taken offence, Andy.

 

There's nothing to take offence at in my view. 

 

By the way is the way you've written 'offense' American?

 

Many thanks for your comments.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

I've now lived in the US for longer than in the UK.  So the memories of spelling differences are fading. I did spell it UK wise initially, but the spell checker "corrected" it for me and I couldn't remember if I should have to change it back.

 

Interestingly, we have a "fence" company here, that, to validate the topic, is located right on the side of our local "East Coast Main Line" (Amtrak and UP).

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

[Hollar]

9 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

I can't speak for Fox transfers, but my (Cambridge Custom Transfers) window labels are intended to be applied to the inside of the window.

 

Nonetheless, I always apply a coat of Klear to the inside of the window in order to seal the transfer; once dried, the Klear is invisible.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

I've not had a problem with CCT coach window transfers falling off, despite not sealing them in.  But I'll do it in future just to be sure.

 

Tone

[Krusty]

Quote

By the way is the way you've written 'offense' American?

 

I think it's an older English form that has survived in Americanish, whilst English spelling has evolved. I've noticed when looking at legal documents from last century that, for example, they start out using license, but are using licence by mid-century. (similarly, Americanisms such as harbor and realize appear more often in nineteenth and early twentieth century documents than one would expect from non-American speakers).

Edited January 20, 2020 by Krusty

[Dave Hunt]

In Midland Railway specifications to outside contractors for locomotives ordered in the 1880s the word color is used when referring to paint samples.

[Barry Ten]

Railroad is an older usage which has persisted in American English, I believe.

[great northern]

Today I had the good fortune to be invited to Little Bytham, and to be issued with a photographic permit on arrival. I can't hope to show anything of the standard that Tony achieves, but I wondered if my smaller camera would permit access to some angles and places which may not have been seen before. 56 images later, I returned home, and have started to do some processing. This will take a while.

 

A view along the approach road to start things off, with a partial view of a train on the M&GN.

 

 

[great northern]

And another looking up towards the station, which for some reason I couldn't put on the first post.

 

 

[APOLLO]

8 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

Railroad is an older usage which has persisted in American English, I believe.

 

And some American Railroads were officially known as Railways !!

 

 

The C&NW also had left hand running (UK style) on it's double track mainline. 

 

Another Railway was the Chicago Great Western Railway (wonderful name), it was neither great nor very west reaching either. In 1968 it merged with the Chicago and North Western Railway which abandoned most of the CGW's trackage.

 

 

Did the UK have any Railroads ?

 

Brit15

 

[Andy Reichert]

On a completely different subject, I've become confused reading various references to "modern 00" that requires a wheel set back to back setting of 14.2 mm or thereabouts, which contradicts the settings I'm used to seeing for HO. ( Which I always thought was supposed to be specifically both ways interchangeable with 00 ).

 

Tony, I understand the track at little Bytham was professionally laid some time back. I.e it was presumably to the official "00" or perhaps "00/HO" standards of that time. And your running is obviously exceptionally good. So would you be so kind as to let me know what Back to Back dimension setting you use for your own wheel sets?

 

Andy

[johndon]

Following Tony's ethos of making things for yourself, I give you my first ever semaphore signal from an MSE kit.  There are a couple of things I screwed up along the way and it has proved to be, by far, the most complicated soldering job I've undertaken and the first time I've used solders with different melting points although I will admit to supergluing the lamp in place.  The platform is a little crooked but I made it myself and despite my lack of soldering skill, it actually works...

 

 

 

Edited January 20, 2020 by johndon

[robertcwp]

1 hour ago, Andy Reichert said:

On a completely different subject, I've become confused reading various references to "modern 00" that requires a wheel set back to back setting of 14.2 mm or thereabouts, which contradicts the settings I'm used to seeing for HO. ( Which I always thought was supposed to be specifically both ways interchangeable with 00 ).

 

Tony, I understand the track at little Bytham was professionally laid some time back. I.e it was presumably to the official "00" or perhaps "00/HO" standards of that time. And your running is obviously exceptionally good. So would you be so kind as to let me know what Back to Back dimension setting you use for your own wheel sets?

 

Andy

I think there are differing standards, with a fine 00 needing a wider back to back than the modern standard. The Double 0 Gauge Association has promulgated some standards. They specify 14.4 mm for intermediate and 14.8 mm for fine. I have a back-to-back gauge for my layout which is 14.5 mm and dates from the 1990s. That seems to work with the 20-year old Peco Code 75 points on my layout, but things might have moved on since then.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Andy Reichert said:

On a completely different subject, I've become confused reading various references to "modern 00" that requires a wheel set back to back setting of 14.2 mm or thereabouts, which contradicts the settings I'm used to seeing for HO. ( Which I always thought was supposed to be specifically both ways interchangeable with 00 ).

 

Tony, I understand the track at little Bytham was professionally laid some time back. I.e it was presumably to the official "00" or perhaps "00/HO" standards of that time. And your running is obviously exceptionally good. So would you be so kind as to let me know what Back to Back dimension setting you use for your own wheel sets?

 

Andy

Good evening Andy,

 

'And your running is obviously exceptionally good.'

 

It's a good job you didn't see LB running today! 

 

Nothing wrong with the layout/locos/stock - that all worked fine, except when a corridor connector overlapped on one carriage causing a derailment (instantly-fixed by minor adjustment) and a pair of Sprat & Winkle couplings separated. 

 

No, it was my operation which was abysmal. Four friends came today and unfortunately I cannot multi-task. I'm not a woman! Roads incorrectly set, sections incorrectly set, switches incorrectly set, forgetting a train was in a loop and driving a long train (at speed!) into a short dead-end road. Instead of concentrating, I windbagged on (and on - I'm good at it), just causing operational chaos. If I have a defence (and it's tenuous), it's because the running was random. Operating the sequence is much more disciplined. 

 

No matter, my mates all agreed it was a good fun day (though one left early), so thanks to Geoff, George, Chris and Gilbert for your great company and tolerance. Gilbert (GB of Peterborough North fame) took some pictures which he'll post on here in time (he might have done already). 

 

The scenic-side track on LB was made and laid by Norman Solomon 12 years ago. Apart from some minor adjustments, it has worked perfectly in all that time. I know it's a misnomer, but it's laid to OO FS standards (in the accepted sense). The b-t-bs are set at 14.5 mm, with Romford/Jackson/Markits wheelsets. Any Gibson wheels (I still have a few) need their b-t-bs increased by a tiny amount because their tyres are finer. 

 

I get all but perfect layout running with these standards (if I don't operate!) through hand-built pointwork and Peco.

 

I have very little RTR (any RTR stock wheelsets are replaced immediately) but the few RTR locos I have often have factory-set b-t-bs which are a bit under 14.5 mm. Fine on the fiddle yard Peco points, but a bit lumpy through the hand-built pointwork. I believe this is not uncommon. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, great northern said:

And another looking up towards the station, which for some reason I couldn't put on the first post.

 

 

Thanks Gilbert,

 

And thank you for your tolerance of my abysmal operating today. 

 

Remember, please, LB isn't just 'my standards'. The standards are set by the group who built it, of which it's my privilege to be a part.

 

And, don't forget - that's your scenic work to the right in this shot. You're part of that group.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Argos]

2 hours ago, APOLLO said:

Did the UK have any Railroads ?

 

I believe in the original prospectus for the Liverpool and Manchester railway was published by the Liverpool and Manchester Railroad Company.

[micknich2003]

The expression "Railroad" was still in use c1883 and is referred  to as such in papers relating to the building of the Hull & Barnsley Rly.

[Headstock]

13 hours ago, great northern said:

And another looking up towards the station, which for some reason I couldn't put on the first post.

 

 

 

Good morning Gilbert,

 

I like your mottled grey sky, very effective, natural, yet subtle and not as distracting as a flat shade.

[Chamby]

11 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

I have very little RTR (any RTR stock wheelsets are replaced immediately) but the few RTR locos I have often have factory-set b-t-bs which are a bit under 14.5 mm. Fine on the fiddle yard Peco points, but a bit lumpy through the hand-built pointwork. I believe this is not uncommon. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

The same is true when using the relatively recently introduced OO bullhead track from PECO.   RTR back-to-back’s are sometimes a little tight, causing stock to jiggle a bit when passing through the check rails on the bullhead turnouts. Resetting the B-T-B’s to 14.5mm results in smooth running on both the ‘scenic side’ bullhead track, and the code 100 stuff I have used off scene.

 

[Clive Mortimore]

As a Peco track user, code 75 in the station and code 100 on the non-scenic bits, I have very few problems with using stock of varying wheel standards. Should anything derail the back to backs are checked and altered if need be. As I run a lot of DMUs where the power car could be pushing 3 or 4 coaches at speed, coupling heights are also important, couplings not at the same height under compression can ride over each other and cause a derailment. Last night i had an operating session, there were three derailments, two caused by operator error and one out of the blue on plain track. I ran the same train several times over the length of track increasing the speed at each pass and it didn't happen again. I cannot operate a layout that does not work well without becoming bored and frustrated.

 

Some of my most reliable units are the old Lima class 101s with their 'orrid looking steam roller pizza cutter wheels.

Here is a four car 101 coupled to a two car 111 leaving Sheffield Exchange all on their original Lima wheels last night.

[great northern]

Those who also frequent my thread know my propensity for plonking the camera down in order to try to get infrastructure views which aren't normally seen. The small Canon G12 can get to places on LB that Tony's much better but also bigger camera can't, which is why I asked permission to have a go. This is the kind of thing I like to try.

 

 

 

It also shows the quality of the scenic side of the layout, which can be overlooked when concentrating on the procession of lovely trains.

[Tony Wright]

8 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

As a Peco track user, code 75 in the station and code 100 on the non-scenic bits, I have very few problems with using stock of varying wheel standards. Should anything derail the back to backs are checked and altered if need be. As I run a lot of DMUs where the power car could be pushing 3 or 4 coaches at speed, coupling heights are also important, couplings not at the same height under compression can ride over each other and cause a derailment. Last night i had an operating session, there were three derailments, two caused by operator error and one out of the blue on plain track. I ran the same train several times over the length of track increasing the speed at each pass and it didn't happen again. I cannot operate a layout that does not work well without becoming bored and frustrated.

 

Some of my most reliable units are the old Lima class 101s with their 'orrid looking steam roller pizza cutter wheels.

Here is a four car 101 coupled to a two car 111 leaving Sheffield Exchange all on their original Lima wheels last night.

Thanks Clive,

 

I think it's fair to say that the Peco trackwork (in both codes) is more 'forgiving' than hand-built track when it comes to different wheelsets. 

 

Though (thankfully) the Peco Code 100 is no longer 'universal' (remember those old, plastic-frog Peco Code 100 points which could even accommodate Trix Twin wheels, let alone early Tri-ang?), it does have greater clearances than hand-built track.

 

For instance, last week a friend brought a Hornby tender-drive 'Schools' along. I didn't know its provenance when he put in on in the fiddle yard, but I soon found out. It just about got through the Peco points, but its 'bouncing' soon resulted in my asking for it to be taken off (please). Such clumsy, clunky wheelsets can potentially damage the more-delicate hand-built pointwork.

 

You mention Lima wheels. Actually, the back-to-backs on these are very close to 14.5mm, but the huge flanges mean they can't be used through LB's scenic-side pointwork. They just climb all over the chairs! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.