Wright writes.....

[Headstock]

1 minute ago, grahame said:

 

I wouldn't know if the truck is fictitious but I don't disagree with your other comments. It does look like there are chunky Hornby tension lock couplers on the wagons.

 

However, for me at least, overall it is a pleasant, pleasing and cohesive scene, if a little bland.

 

G

 

Good evening Grahame,

 

it's a great scene, I don't even find it bland. However, I don't find it as cohesive as you do. The modelling being of a variable quality, from the exceptional to the average.

 

 

 

[Compound2632]

19 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

And perhaps singles for the steam fan.

 

 

What? Triang were there many years ago. (And Hornby are still making them.) To say nothing of the Locomotion Stirling single. Doing better than 4-4-0s of the same era!

[grahame]

5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

What? Triang were there many years ago. (And Hornby are still making them.) To say nothing of the Locomotion Stirling single. Doing better than 4-4-0s of the same era!

 

Not in N gauge.

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, grahame said:

 

Not in N gauge.

 

Sorry, yes - I wasn't reading closely enough. 

 

Wasn't there a Midland spinner on the MRC's Chiltern Green? If it was possible then, it should be feasible now, though I imagine haulage might be an issue.

[grahame]

3 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Wasn't there a Midland spinner on the MRC's Chiltern Green? If it was possible then, it should be feasible now, though I imagine haulage might be an issue.

 

Possibly, although it was probably 2mm and scratch-built rather than RTR. Those 2mm finescale boys, like Tim, can knock up a masterpiece from iron bar off-cuts.

 

I have also seen a bashed single, I think from a Del Prado un-motorised collectors novelty toy, although I guess the body was 1:160 scale.

 

 

 

 

[Headstock]

20 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

I wouldn't know if the truck is fictitious

G

 

It's and old RTR manufacturer trick. Take an interesting livery from a pre grouping era mineral wagon and superimpose it on a more modern grouping era design, then flog it to the punter.  The trick assumes that the punter won't know the difference.

[Buhar]

17 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

It's and old RTR manufacturer trick. Take an interesting livery from a pre grouping era mineral wagon and superimpose it on a more modern grouping era design, then flog it to the punter.  The trick assumes that the punter won't know the difference.

The annoying bit is indeed the RTR reliance on the 1923 RCH specification when most wagons running in the years of interesting liveries were actually to earlier designs.  After reading Compond2632's diatribes on the subject elsewhere I now find the appearance of a livery (and tare weights) from an older wagon on a higher-rated one quite annoying. 

 

That said, I actually don't mind fictitious liveries for supposedly small collieries or traders as even if you're modelling a real location and know the local merchants it's often impossible to find out if they had wagons or not.  We have many fine layouts that have fictitious stations and lines, so a few wagons with firms named after family, friends or Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert etc isn't to offensive in my view.

 

Additionally, keeping in mind colliery closures, mergers etc makes it well nigh impossible to get it right when constructing a mineral train using POW Sides.  Few of us have the sign-writing skills to letter ourselves.

 

Alan

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, Atso said:

 

I think that there is plenty that is 'safe' from RTR in N gauge. For example.

 

 

I doubt that we'll see a Howdlen Lavatory Composite anytime soon.

 

Nor a D 248D third.

 

 

...and I'd be surprised if anyone produces this 58'6" buffet conversion.

 

 

That's marvellous work, Steve,

 

It's wonderful to see someone of younger years carrying on (and developing) the craft of actually making things.

 

My earlier comments were with regard to OO in the main  (a blinkered view, I admit), and it's the kit-makers in that gauge who are hit the most by the RTR market. It might well be that N Gauge/2mm FS (especially the latter) might be the builders' gauge/scale of the future. The march of O Gauge RTR is inexorable. 

 

All the above said, from a personal point of view I'm not in the least bit worried with regard to the future of 'making of things'. Selfishly (perhaps?) I have near to 30 un-built kits of all sorts in 4mm stashed on shelves, in cupboards and in boxes under LB. I'd better be careful, though, because if confinement does occur, they'll soon get gobbled up. 

 

The health scare, beginning in the Far East, shows us how 'precarious' a dependency on acquiring manufactured things from abroad is; and model railways are very low on the list on the grand scale of things. Who knows, it might even lead to a resurgence of things being made nearer to home? Perhaps even a resurgence in kit-building......

 

Speaking of which, I noted several loco kits for sale at the Nottingham Show on Saturday on a second-hand stall. Several were DJH ones, and were offered at fantastic prices - a DJH 9F, complete (ex-motor) for under £70.00. The wheels alone were worth that! Unfortunately, having five 9Fs, I don't need any more (nor a 77xxx, nor a 75xxx, nor a Caley 0-4-4T, or other GWR or SR types). Had they been ER Pacifics, I'd have bought the lot (though do I really need any more?). Made-up ones were also available, though I avoid those now at all costs.

 

Keep up the good work my friend.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 

Edited March 16, 2020 by Tony Wright

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Made-up ones were also available, though I avoid those now at all costs.

 

 

The canny second-hand dealer might pay you to keep away from his stall, to stop you putting the punters off!

[Tony Wright]

4 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The canny second-hand dealer might pay you to keep away from his stall, to stop you putting the punters off!

I'll try that tactic, Stephen,

 

I did mention to others how good the prices were, but I doubt if many were sold. 

 

One chap picked up a 9F box with great enthusiasm, telling his mate how good the price was. Only to discard it once he found it was a kit! 

 

There was also a Model Loco 9F for just under £60.00, but it didn't have all its drivers - just the flangeless, centre ones. It would seem that the other eight had been 'pinched' for another project.

 

Having said I don't touch made-up ones, I did buy a part-made Model Loco Black Five last year - for the princely sum of £50.00, including all wheels and a Portescap! What had been assembled was fixed with superglue (including the frames!!!!!!). It's now a kit again - I literally picked it apart. A future project for Shap?

 

I also bought complete, untouched DJH kits for an 8F and a Britannia (ex-motors) for under £150.00 the pair. It pays to sift through most of the second-hand stuff on stands. One never knows what 'treasures' will be found. Loco kits are not really the vendors' market. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[CF MRC]

10 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Sorry, yes - I wasn't reading closely enough. 

 

Wasn't there a Midland spinner on the MRC's Chiltern Green? If it was possible then, it should be feasible now, though I imagine haulage might be an issue.

Interestingly, the Midland Spinner on Chiltern Green started off as N gauge, but it wouldn’t pull a chicken off a nest: it spent as much time going sideways slipping, as forwards.  For that reason it was converted to fine scale where performance was much improved because the wheels fit the rail better.  Since then I have made two other singles which have very respectable haulage powers.  A commercial N gauge single would have to be tender driven, but that is the work of the devil...
 

Tim

[Clem]

10 hours ago, Headstock said:

I was pondering whether it would be possible to cut the platform away, filing it back was not an option that I considered. How much of the framing is visible from above the platform? The Parkside 9' RCH underframe looks a good replacement for the oversize Bachmann one, how much did you reduce the size of the hopper in length?

Hi Andrew, 

Yes, I've played around with replacing the platform and did it on one conversion. It's more time consuming that way, but it probably produces a better model. Also, that's the way Geoff Kent did his, I think. But I've compromised and used the existing platforms on most of the conversions I've done and in a rake it's hard to spot and just a bout passible. 

 

On the body I scribe a 2.8mm line away from  the inside of one of the side stanchions and then make the cut right up against the stanchion. I then carefully use a pair of end cutters to nibble off the 2.8mm, nibbling off on the scribed line. When finished, I give it a quick file over both pieces and check the rejoin. Sometimes a little extra filing is required to make a neat fit and if really necessary a little filling. On the platform, you have to make 2 cuts after scribing a line 1.4mm from each of the stanchion bases. Again I use end cutters to nibble off the1.4mm each side and file them up to knit together. To be honest, it's a bit of a bodge but looks ok in the rake. Anyway, here are one or two photos of the real thing as preserved at Rutland Rly museum. 

 

 

 

[queensquare]

21 minutes ago, CF MRC said:

Interestingly, the Midland Spinner on Chiltern Green started off as N gauge, but it wouldn’t pull a chicken off a nest: it spent as much time going sideways slipping, as forwards.  For that reason it was converted to fine scale where performance was much improved because the wheels fit the rail better.  Since then I have made two other singles which have very respectable haulage powers.  A commercial N gauge single would have to be tender driven, but that is the work of the devil...
 

Tim

 

My 2FS Spinner is one of the target locos for me to get finished this year. Mine will be tender driven as it will need to pull a Bristol, Bath local up the 1:70 bank from the Midland storage sidings - three or four metal coaches.

 

Jerry

 

[CF MRC]

Peco Jubilee mechanism?

 

Tim

[gr.king]

Well, you don't really see the bits below the running plate (some say), so why not......

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, Clem said:

Hi Andrew, 

Yes, I've played around with replacing the platform and did it on one conversion. It's more time consuming that way, but it probably produces a better model. Also, that's the way Geoff Kent did his, I think. But I've compromised and used the existing platforms on most of the conversions I've done and in a rake it's hard to spot and just a bout passible. 

 

On the body I scribe a 2.8mm line away from  the inside of one of the side stanchions and then make the cut right up against the stanchion. I then carefully use a pair of end cutters to nibble off the 2.8mm, nibbling off on the scribed line. When finished, I give it a quick file over both pieces and check the rejoin. Sometimes a little extra filing is required to make a neat fit and if really necessary a little filling. On the platform, you have to make 2 cuts after scribing a line 1.4mm from each of the stanchion bases. Again I use end cutters to nibble off the1.4mm each side and file them up to knit together. To be honest, it's a bit of a bodge but looks ok in the rake. Anyway, here are one or two photos of the real thing as preserved at Rutland Rly museum. 

 

 

 

I see that the original builder had a bit of trouble calibrating his rivet press...

[queensquare]

1 hour ago, CF MRC said:

Peco Jubilee mechanism?

 

Tim

 

The picture I have of the single at Bath shows it with a very impressive coal load but I think I would still struggle to get a Jubilee mech into a Johnson tender. Power will be from a Dapol Terrier mech with the wheels turned down as Gareth Collier has done successfully on a number of locos. The mech is geared and the wheel size and spacing is correct.

 

re. Peco Jubilee mechanisms. I think it would be fun to have a thread on the number of different locos that were made with the Jub as a basis.

 

Jerry 

[jamie92208]

2 hours ago, CF MRC said:

Interestingly, the Midland Spinner on Chiltern Green started off as N gauge, but it wouldn’t pull a chicken off a nest: it spent as much time going sideways slipping, as forwards.  For that reason it was converted to fine scale where performance was much improved because the wheels fit the rail better.  Since then I have made two other singles which have very respectable haulage powers.  A commercial N gauge single would have to be tender driven, but that is the work of the devil...
 

Tim

I've got an O gauge spinner built from a Janick kit by my late friend Tony Bond. We jointly decided on tender drive to provide traction for heavy brass (PC) bogie clerestories.  It's got twin Sagami motors driving the front and rear tender axles. The tender is full of as much lead as Tiny could cram in and weighs over 2lbs. It will happily haul 4 or 5 clerestories. The loco is fitted with pick ups and has working inside valve gear. It usually pulls the inspection saloon with two bowler hatted gents on the rear platform.  The main reason that we went for tender drive was because we would hqve needed two axles for traction purposes and couldn't find a way of getting synchronizing the driving and carrying whels.

Jamie

[jamie92208]

Just now, queensquare said:

 

The picture I have of the single at Bath shows it with a very impressive coal load but I think I would still struggle to get a Jubilee mech into a Johnson tender. Power will be from a Dapol Terrier mech with the wheels turned down as Gareth Collier has done successfully on a number of locos. The mech is geared and the wheel size and spacing is correct.

 

re. Peco Jubilee mechanisms. I think it would be fun to have a thread on the number of different locos that were made with the Jub as a basis.

 

Jerry 

I once planned to use two of them to make the first River Mite which was articulated in 7mm NG for a layout that never got built. I've still got the mechanism's somewhere.

 

Jamie

[Headstock]

12 hours ago, Buhar said:

The annoying bit is indeed the RTR reliance on the 1923 RCH specification when most wagons running in the years of interesting liveries were actually to earlier designs.  After reading Compond2632's diatribes on the subject elsewhere I now find the appearance of a livery (and tare weights) from an older wagon on a higher-rated one quite annoying. 

 

That said, I actually don't mind fictitious liveries for supposedly small collieries or traders as even if you're modelling a real location and know the local merchants it's often impossible to find out if they had wagons or not.  We have many fine layouts that have fictitious stations and lines, so a few wagons with firms named after family, friends or Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert etc isn't to offensive in my view.

 

Additionally, keeping in mind colliery closures, mergers etc makes it well nigh impossible to get it right when constructing a mineral train using POW Sides.  Few of us have the sign-writing skills to letter ourselves.

 

Alan

 

Good morning Alan,

 

fictitious liveries of the type that you mention are something that I don't really have a problem with. They come from a position of knowledge, they are usually a bit of fun amongst a larger more accurate fleet, and they don't ask for money from the punter. The RTR equivalent is a much more cynical money grab in my opinion.

 

Modelling proper mineral wagons is not any easy task. However, It may be that a cohesive approach to railway modelling has always relied on the lack of knowledge in the observer. As the gap between the quality of scenics and stock continues to grow, I appreciate any effort made by the modeller to redress the balance and inform and educate the observer.

[Tony Wright]

20 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Alan,

 

fictitious liveries of the type that you mention are something that I don't really have a problem with. They come from a position of knowledge, they are usually a bit of fun amongst a larger more accurate fleet, and they don't ask for money from the punter. The RTR equivalent is a much more cynical money grab in my opinion.

 

Modelling proper mineral wagons is not any easy task. However, It may be that a cohesive approach to railway modelling has always relied on the lack of knowledge in the observer. As the gap between the quality of scenics and stock continues to grow, I appreciate any effort made by the modeller to redress the balance and inform and educate the observer.

Good evening Andrew,

 

Since my knowledge of PO wagons is very limited, I don't feel very qualified to comment on what's right or wrong.

 

I know when I photographed David Jenkinson's Kendal layout not long after his death, there were several PO wagons present which carried fictitious liveries. Though the wagons themselves were accurate models, the names carried were those of David's friends - Matthewman, Holt, Goddard, Lane, etc., branded as local merchants. It was all good fun and certainly not for profit.

 

Now, an admission! I run several PO wagons on the M&GNR bit of LB, and I have no idea if they're correct. I might have posted some pictures of these in the past (beyond 1,700 pages is too many to look back through), but here's a selection...........

 

I'll do my best to describe them.

 

 

I'll bet this one is correct. Scratch-built (and hand-lettered) by Norman Turner, it represents one of the fleet of West Midlands coal/coke wagons which Norman was building up. 

 

 

A complete mystery. Scratch-built (by whom isn't known), complete with busted spring. Anyone know where or what was 'MCC'? 

 

To the left is an old Peco Wonderful Wagon. Were any of these accurate? 

 

 

Speaking of Peco WW, I built this when I were but a lad (it was a family birthday present). Is ir right?

 

 

A white metal kit, but builder unknown. Painted and hand-lettered by the builder, and weathered by Rob Davey. I assume there was a 'MOY' at Colchester?

 

 

Another Norman Turner-built wagon, this from a kit I think.

 

 

Yet another piece of scratch-building antiquity. 

 

I don't want to appear slipshod or inaccurate, but since the MR/M&GNR bit of LB represents the period from post-War to the line's closure, I thought PO wagons would be suitable. 

 

Critical comment, please.

 

I really don't mind.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited March 17, 2020 by Tony Wright

[cctransuk]

3 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

 

 

Blue Circle - correct 'style' of livery, but it should be on a version of a GWR Iron Mink van - Ratio do something much closer to the truth.

 

MOY - again, correctish - though I can't vouch for the precise details of the wagon. (MOY also had NARROW GAUGE PO wagons, on the 3' Southwold Railway).

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Andrew,

 

Since my knowledge of PO wagons is very limited, I don't feel very qualified to comment on what's right or wrong.

 

I know when I photographed David Jenkinson's Kendal layout not long after his death, there were several PO wagons present which carried fictitious liveries. Though the wagons themselves were accurate models, the names carried were those of David's friends Matthewman, Holt, Goddard, Lane, etc., branded as local merchants. It was all good fun and certainly not for profit.

 

Now, an admission! I run several PO wagons on the M&GNR bit of LB, and I have no idea if they're correct. I might have posted some pictures of these in the past (beyond 1,700 pages is too many to look back through), but here's a selection...........

 

I'll do my best to describe them.

 

 

I'll bet this one is correct. Scratch-built (and hand-lettered) by Norman Turner, it represents one of the fleet of West Midlands coal/coke wagons which Norman was building up. 

 

 

A complete mystery. Scratch-built (by whom isn't known), complete with busted spring. Anyone know where or what was 'MCC'? 

 

To the left is an old Peco Wonderful Wagon. Were any of these accurate? 

 

 

Speaking of Peco WW, I built this when I were but a lad (it was a family birthday present). Is ir right?

 

 

A white metal kit, but builder unknown. Painted and hand-lettered by the builder, and weathered by Rob Davey. I assume there was a 'MOY' at Colchester?

 

 

Another Norman Turner-built wagon, this from a kit I think.

 

 

Yet another piece of scratch-building antiquity. 

 

I don't want to appear slipshod or inaccurate, but since the MR/M&GNR bit of LB represents the period from post-War to the line's closure, I thought PO wagons would be suitable. 

 

Critical comment, please.

 

I really don't mind.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

it's difficult to know where to start, probably the biggest incongruity is the BR 16 ton mineral wagon. I believe that the time period is flexible on the M&GN but there must be almost half a century between the 16 tonner and the coke wagon, The latter looks to be not long out of the builders with its rather flash white wall tyres. The sheeting on the LNER highfit, to the right of the 16 tonner, carries a next refurbishment date of 5/1925. The sheeting style is definitely the earlier part of the twenties. From memory and without checking, sheeting was completely re proofed and lettered every three, possibly five years. Not quite thirty years between the 16 tonner and the Highfit as a rough estimate.

 

You have to admire the quality of the hand lettering on the Coke wagon.

Edited March 16, 2020 by Headstock
add admiration for hand lettering.

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening Tony,

 

it's difficult to know where to start, probably the biggest incongruity is the BR 16 ton mineral wagon. I believe that the time period is flexible on the M&GN but there must be almost half a century between the 16 tonner and the coke wagon, The latter looks to be not long out of the builders with its rather flash white wall tyres. The sheeting on the LNER highfit, to the right of the 16 tonner, carries a next refurbishment date of 5/1925. The sheeting style is definitely the earlier part of the twenties. From memory and without checking, sheeting was completely re proofed and lettered every three, possibly five years. Not quite thirty years between the 16 tonner and the Highfit as a rough estimate.

 

Would you put an ECJS clerestory twelve-wheeler in one of your Thompson/Peppercorn pacific-hauled ECML expresses?

[Headstock]

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Would you put an ECJS clerestory twelve-wheeler in one of your Thompson/Peppercorn pacific-hauled ECML expresses?

 

An interesting question. I don't model the ECML myself........

 

As a slight tangent, I do have a number of photographs of cascaded ex ECML Clerestory's, operating as strengtheners on GC mainline expresses in the late forties. As an example, one photograph in my collection shows A3 60052, in BR blue, departing Leicester with a Sundays only express to Marylebone. Immediately behind the tender is an ex ECML Clerestory followed by the leading brake third.

 

I wouldn't rule out Thompson/ Peppercorn  Pacifics and ECML Clerestory's, though twelve wheelers might be a bit of a stretch.