Wright writes.....

[Jesse Sim]

13 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

P.S. Visiting locos are not required to display lamps! 

 

 

 

 

But we get extra marks if we do! 

[mullie]

Here is my latest project now almost finished. A Hornby Claud converted to EM using Gibson wheels taking a first run on my small layout.

 

 

 

E2524 was a Yarmouth loco so with a little stretch of the imagination could have got to my part of Norfolk, there is a superb shot of the loco in this condition in Yeadon.

 

Martyn

[Tony Wright]

44 minutes ago, 96701 said:

Or better still, crimson lake..........

Phil,

 

In the BR maroon condition it's in it could be 46204 PRINCESS LOUISE, 46207 PRINCESS ARTHUR OF CONNAUGHT or 46208 PRINCESS HELENA VICTORIA (or, as it is, 46203 in preservation). Both 46204 and 46207 initially carried the BR style of orange/black/orange lining on their maroon livery, but this soon was changed to the LMS style of peripheral-lining, rather than panel-lining. 

 

It couldn't be 46200 THE PRINCESS ROYAL because the slidebar assembly would be incorrect, 46200 (and 46201) having the GWR-style. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[96701]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Phil,

 

In the BR maroon condition it's in it could be 46204 PRINCESS LOUISE, 46207 PRINCESS ARTHUR OF CONNAUGHT or 46208 PRINCESS HELENA VICTORIA (or, as it is, 46203 in preservation). Both 46204 and 46207 initially carried the BR style of orange/black/orange lining on their maroon livery, but this soon was changed to the LMS style of peripheral-lining, rather than panel-lining. 

 

It couldn't be 46200 THE PRINCESS ROYAL because the slidebar assembly would be incorrect, 46200 (and 46201) having the GWR-style. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Ahhhh, you see I know nothing..........

Thanks for the info, was 46210 ever blue?

[Barry O]

There is a way of reducing the squeal from the gearboxes attached to Portesham motors in the UK.  With a "dc" controller ..as in one feeding pure dc with no added spikes and ripples to help get things going the escap/faulharber motors are very quiet. 

 

Baz

[Tony Wright]

8 hours ago, 96701 said:

Ahhhh, you see I know nothing..........

Thanks for the info, was 46210 ever blue?

She was, Phil,

 

However, take care. In blue, she had a domeless boiler, something lost when she became green (in fact, all the 'Prinnies' eventually received domed boilers - source, The Book of by Irwell).

 

I don't know whether Hornby does a domeless boiler on any of its 'Princess Royals'. I've just received Hornby's 6201 PRINCESS ELIZABETH for review. It's in full LMS lined lake livery, but it has a domed boiler. Which means it's only accurate for preservation times. 

 

I'll post pictures later.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Tony Wright]

5 hours ago, Barry O said:

There is a way of reducing the squeal from the gearboxes attached to Portesham motors in the UK.  With a "dc" controller ..as in one feeding pure dc with no added spikes and ripples to help get things going the escap/faulharber motors are very quiet. 

 

Baz

I think you're right - it's not the motor which 'squeals', Baz,

 

It's the Portescap gearbox itself. When I was building professionally, clients would often specify Portescaps, which I'd install on request. To start with, these were quite quiet, but, as time went on, subsequent ones got louder and louder, irrespective of the power supply. In fact, I had one latter-day Portescap gearbox which was so noisy that I replaced it, using a spare, old one (from whence it came, I have no idea). The result was almost silent. 

 

I have to say, I'm puzzled as to how Portescaps command such high prices second-hand these days, especially if they're the later, really noisy ones. I know the locos for Carlisle have them as standard (apparently Mashimas aren't up to the job), and I'm installing one in an A4 I'm building for Carlisle. I can test it on my club's EM Gauge test circuit, and initial results show it to be no better than the latest DJH motor/gearbox (which is £75.00, brand new) in terms of haulage ability (I've installed the latest DJH combo in an OO Gauge A1), and it's nowhere near as quiet. In fact, it's weight (and plenty of it) which is the deciding factor in haulage in my experience.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited March 7, 2020 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[PupCam]

5 hours ago, Barry O said:

There is a way of reducing the squeal from the gearboxes attached to Portescap motors in the UK.  With a "dc" controller ..as in one feeding pure dc with no added spikes and ripples to help get things going the escap/faulharber motors are very quiet.

 

If I recall, the original instruction for Portescap motors were that you should use a pure DC controller to avoid damaging the motor because, being coreless (i.e. no heavy magnetic armature) there was very little mechanical inertia and thus the speed of rotation would attempt to follow the Full Speed / Off / Full Speed / Off ....  high frequency sequence that is the output of pulse width controller.   As motors generally have a specified number of start/stop cycles these get used up very quickly if you turn them on and off at 1kHz+ !    The armature in a cored motor is effectively a built-in flywheel and I suspect the brush gear is generally more substantial so the PW effect is not an issue.

 

Alan

[Barry O]

Just now, PupCam said:

 

If I recall, the original instruction for Portescap motors were that you should use a pure DC controller to avoid damaging the motor because, being coreless (i.e. no heavy magnetic armature) there was very little mechanical inertia and thus the speed of rotation would attempt to follow the Full Speed / Off / Full Speed / Off ....  high frequency sequence that is the output of pulse width controller.   As motors generally have a specified number of start/stop cycles these get used up very quickly if you turn them on and off at 1kHz+ !    The armature in a cored motor is effectively a built-in flywheel and I suspect the brush gear is generally more substantial so the PW effect is not an issue.

 

Alan

The motor sings if there is any non dc supply. Pentrollers were designed for use with portescaps. 

 

Faulhaber and Escap motors  have virtually no inertia but they also have very delicate connections between the motor and the supply.

 

I spent many a happy hour checking out these motors for military use. When fired in a mortar round the g force totalled the motors

 

Baz

[D-A-T]

Silly question but why would you fire a little electric motor in a mortar round?

[Bucoops]

3 minutes ago, D-A-T said:

Silly question but why would you fire a little electric motor in a mortar round?

 

If I had access to a mortar I'd fire anything I could get into it

[Barry O]

It was during my period as a rocket scientist... so if I told you I would have to report you...

Baz

[PupCam]

5 minutes ago, Barry O said:

It was during my period as a rocket scientist... so if I told you I would have to report you...

Baz

 

I suspect I know the application you refer to but, like you, if I let on I'd have to shoot you. 

Can't beat a bit of rocket science ...

 

Alan

 

 

[Michael Edge]

The whine from Portescap gearboxes comes from the moulded bevel gears not the motor - earlier ones were better. The elaborate instructions were probably mostly designed to make them sound new, exciting and exotically different - part of justffying the cost. I've run them on all sorts of controllers, the only snag is that with some feedback types they don't actually stop when the controller is turned back. The only failures I've ever had (and I've used hundreds of them) have been worn out brush gear. The worst thing about them was the useless pink grease they were filled with (remember they said if this was removed it would invalidate the guarantee!), this solidifies over a few years and has to be washed out to allow the gearbox to turn.

On the subject of Princesses, the three domeless boilers were swapped around quite a lot and it's not just the dome that's different, the fireboxes are very different as well.

[Tony Wright]

A bit more on 'Prinnies'......

 

I'm wading through my sources, and, it looks to me, that the Hornby manifestation below only suits 46201 in preservation - because it's got a domed boiler.

 

 

All the pictures I have of it pre-War (and into early hostilities) in full LMS lined lake, show it as having a domeless boiler. Am I right in this observation? It's the same post-War into early BR.

 

 

The old K's thing makes an interesting comparison (or contrast!). It is what it is, it still needs a bit of tidying up, but it doesn't half go! 

 

 

The builders of Shap seem quite happy to use Hornby 'Prinnies'.

 

 

 

 

[Craigw]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

A bit more on 'Prinnies'......

 

I'm wading through my sources, and, it looks to me, that the Hornby manifestation below only suits 46201 in preservation - because it's got a domed boiler.

 

 

All the pictures I have of it pre-War (and into early hostilities) in full LMS lined lake, show it as having a domeless boiler. Am I right in this observation? It's the same post-War into early BR.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tony,

 

The Wild Swan LMS Loco profile has a photo of 6201 with a domed boiler in December 1935 and coupled to a 9 ton tender (the Hornby one is a 10 ton?)  It was fitted with a domeless boiler in October 1937 so in theory between November 1936 (when 10 ton tender fitted )and when it went into works in 1937 it should have run in this condition - assuming I have read the info correctly.

 

Regards,

 

Craig W

Edited March 7, 2020 by Craigw

[Erichill16]

Afternoon all,

The Portescap motors I are relatively old, 20-25 years but not very well used, but still make a racket. They’ve never been used on a feedback controller.  I have a couple still to use but I’m only going to use them as replacements for ones currently in models as it will be easier to swap like for like. They are newer as if Tony is correct (and certainly I don’t doubt him) they will be unbearably loud.

happy modelling, I’m off to the match.

regards Robert

[Buhar]

6200 & 6201 shared three boilers between them, 6202-12 had frame differences that meant they couldn't share these boilers, a matter that was not resolved until the early 1950s.  One of these three was a domed boiler and that was fitted to 6201 when it did it's record breaking run in November 1936.  I have only one photo of 6200 fitted with this boiler.  All the production batch were domeless pretty much to BR days.  The model of 6201 has the correct slightly shorter firebox evidenced by the washout plug on the boiler cladding ahead of the firebox.  So, except for the absence of the crosshead pump, the, loco appears correct for 1936.

 

6201 has been preserved with a boiler with the longer firebox (all washout plugs on the firebox) so the Hornby model is not as preserved.

 

6201 received a 10 ton tender in November 1936, I can't readily tell them apart (the side sheets curve over more but to discern that requires a shot taken from a higher vantage point than normal) whether that was before or after 16/11/36 the records I have don't say.  The run consumed 8.5 tons of coal so would have been possible with a standard 9T tender.

 

The production batch had 9T tenders for a 6 to 18 months before receiving their 10T ones (except 6202 which was always a 9T). By January 1937 all were 10T.

 

Alan

[Tony Wright]

Thanks for the info' on the 'Princess Royals' (everyday's a schoolday).

 

It looks like the Hornby model represents a short time period, pre-War. 

 

I think what astonishes me as much as anything else with regard to today's RTR locos is the level of (different) detail which is incorporated. Long and short fireboxes - how many kits cater for such accuracy?), and a minutiae of differences, unheard of previously. 

 

Hornby has done a similar thing with its A3s; some models being supplied with A4 boilers! Amazing. I have to say, no A3 kit I've ever built has catered for this. 

 

So, we're actually in the situation that most RTR locos are probably more accurate than their kit counterparts, at least with regard to detail differences. Who would have thought it? 

[Headstock]

6 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks for the info' on the 'Princess Royals' (everyday's a schoolday).

 

It looks like the Hornby model represents a short time period, pre-War. 

 

I think what astonishes me as much as anything else with regard to today's RTR locos is the level of (different) detail which is incorporated. Long and short fireboxes - how many kits cater for such accuracy?), and a minutiae of differences, unheard of previously. 

 

Hornby has done a similar thing with its A3s; some models being supplied with A4 boilers! Amazing. I have to say, no A3 kit I've ever built has catered for this. 

 

So, we're actually in the situation that most RTR locos are probably more accurate than their kit counterparts, at least with regard to detail differences. Who would have thought it? 

 

Afternoon Tony,

 

the new Hornby Princess looks to be a very good model, better than the streamlined featured some pages back. I think that there is still plenty of opportunities for the more imaginative modeller to improve on what comes out of the box, beyond just adding  crew, coal and lamps.

 

With regard to variants in kits and also still relevant to RTR. The production of variants and the customization of models, is a perfect opportunity for the modeller to embrace railway modelling as a creative hobby. If everything is handed out on a plate, people just get fat.

[Headstock]

20 hours ago, mullie said:

Here is my latest project now almost finished. A Hornby Claud converted to EM using Gibson wheels taking a first run on my small layout.

 

 

 

E2524 was a Yarmouth loco so with a little stretch of the imagination could have got to my part of Norfolk, there is a superb shot of the loco in this condition in Yeadon.

 

Martyn

 

Afternoon Martyn,

 

I really enjoy your small layout. Sometimes big means the butter gets spread too far.

[Tony Wright]

Well,

 

After a tidy-up, a new (super-smooth) drive, repaint and glazing, I think the dear old K's Black Five looks presentable (if not quite as 'smart' as a Hornby RTR equivalent). 

 

 

It's hoped its new owner will collect it this coming week. He'll probably line it, because there's a limit to what I can do on behalf of CRUK, given that my 'donation' is my time.

 

What does a Hornby RTR Black Five cost these days? Probably more than this, given that the loco was donated and the only 'cost' is the new motor/gearbox (I supplied the new bogie wheels and paint 'out of stock'). TMC lists a Hornby Black Five at £157,49 (previously £175.00), but that could be weathered, and Hattons list one at a penny more - it's a limited edition. 

 

Appearances apart, this one will pull much more than any RTR equivalent. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

Afternoon Tony,

 

the new Hornby Princess looks to be a very good model, better than the streamlined featured some pages back. I think that there is still plenty of opportunities for the more imaginative modeller to improve on what comes out of the box, beyond just adding  crew, coal and lamps.

 

With regard to variants in kits and also still relevant to RTR. The production of variants and the customization of models, is a perfect opportunity for the modeller to embrace railway modelling as a creative hobby. If everything is handed out on a plate, people just get fat.

Good evening Andrew,

 

I don't think I could agree more with anything you've just said........

 

'The production of variants and the customization of models, is a perfect opportunity for the modeller to embrace railway modelling as a creative hobby.'

 

But will the 'modeller' actually do it? Some do (wonderfully well), and the results appear on here.

 

However, can't you just hear?..........'I can't do it' (probably meaning won't), 'I don't have the skills', 'I'll mess it up', 'I'll devalue it', 'I prefer others to do it for me', 'It cost an awful lot of money' and on and on........

 

Are there any more 'excuses'?

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Edited March 7, 2020 by Tony Wright
typo error

[grahame]

11 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

However, can't you just hear?..........'I can't do it' (probably meaning won't), 'I don't have the skills', 'I'll mess it up', 'I'll devalue it', 'I prefer others to do it for me', 'It cost an awful lot of money' and on and on........

 

Are there any more 'excuses'?

 

 

Probably, like I don't know how, I can't be bothered (they're details you can't see when it running or from NVD [whatever that is]), I can't afford the parts, and oddly I don't have the time despite having time to play with it.

 

But, yep, I guess they're mostly 'excuses'.

 

 

 

[cctransuk]

2 hours ago, grahame said:

 

Probably, like I don't know how, I can't be bothered (they're details you can't see when it running or from NVD [whatever that is]), I can't afford the parts, and oddly I don't have the time despite having time to play with it.

 

But, yep, I guess they're mostly 'excuses'.

 

 

 

 

It is an unpalatable fact to many, but ........ there is a clear difference between playing with trains and modelling.

 

It is much akin to the difference between those who try, try again, persevere and ultimately achieve a level of skill that satisfies them; and those who can't, won't and don't have the time.

 

There will undoubtedly be the usual outcry - but it's a truism, nonetheless.

 

John Isherwood.