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

13 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

This thread is moving on twice as fast as normal - you can tell everyone’s stuck at home! I love the diesel photos Tony - I don’t think I’ve seen all of those locos before.

 

Could I ask you for a little ‘virtual loco doctoring’? I have a DJH A3 (second hand - not built by me although I have sorted it out a bit see https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/135510-coulsdon-works/&do=findComment&comment=3856937

if you’re interested but not relevant to this question).

 

It  is giving me problems with stalling over crossings. It’s fitted with ‘American’ style pick ups which I know aren’t your chosen solution, but I think you agree that they normally work OK. This loco seems to stall at exactly this point on my diamond crossing unless going at a fair lick in which case it still twitches noticeably. If Peco did a code 100 electro frog crossing I’d switch (pun intended!) straight away...but they don’t.

 

30E926A1-0C07-489F-A568-BCFDFE17AFCF.jpeg.e07acab10d256a44acf1eaff316398a6.jpeg

 

The front driver is on the plastic bit but I can’t see why the others two drivers don’t pick up - they are live. Some other locos struggle here as well so there must be some unevenness in the track but I can’t see where. Pick up is on the left for the loco and right on the tender (Right way up and facing forward). Here is the arrangement from below.

 

 

35ADC193-465E-4495-B4E7-E06D5E94DE2B.jpeg.60882b02853ff725cf5896049648365e.jpeg

 

My question is: “Could I improve things by making the bogie and/ or Cartezzi truck pick up as well. And, if so, what is the best way to do this - do I need new wheel sets or can I short out the existing ones?”

 

Thanks in advance for any help.

 

Andy

 

 

 

My guess would be a short on the inside face of the driving wheel rubbing against the opposite polarity rail at the frog, so you might not see a spark from your normal viewing angle.  Also you wouldn’t get a tell-tale buzz if the power supply trips out.  

 

Even if this is the ‘dead’ side of the loco re: electrical pick-up, the wheel can still short out the track circuit in making a passing contact.

 

From the position of the loco on the track, I would check out the back driving wheel on the right hand side.  If this is the source of the problem, adjusting the back-to-back of the offending wheel, and/or gently taking a diamond file to the side of the opposite polarity rail might fix it for you?

 

Phil

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Improving rtr. Here is my Hornby D16 converted to EM and now weathered.  The supplied number is correct for my layout and I like this rather austere livery and find this period fascinating.

 

440529568_Claud2.jpg.7fda0cc45df27094b5515975cb69aa0c.jpg

 

 

The advantage of EM is that apart from being achievable for me when viewed head on the gauge doesn't look narrow. I need to fill in the holes in the buffer beam, that was my first attempt to fit a coupling loop.

 

80419676_Claud3endon.jpg.6965bc224c544566bc409b60b8067463.jpg

 

 

Martyn

  • Like 9
  • Craftsmanship/clever 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Chamby said:

 

My guess would be a short on the inside face of the driving wheel rubbing against the opposite polarity rail at the frog, so you might not see a spark from your normal viewing angle.  Also you wouldn’t get a tell-tale buzz if the power supply trips out.  

 

Even if this is the ‘dead’ side of the loco re: electrical pick-up, the wheel can still short out the track circuit in making a passing contact.

 

From the position of the loco on the track, I would check out the back driving wheel on the right hand side.  If this is the source of the problem, adjusting the back-to-back of the offending wheel, and/or gently taking a diamond file to the side of the opposite polarity rail might fix it for you?

 

Phil

But Andy has stated that he can run another loco up to this, even when it's stalled.

 

This is the quickest way to see if a loco has stalled because of a short circuit. Leave the offender where it is, put another loco on the same road and see if it will run. If it does, then it's not a short. If it doesn't then it is one. 

 

From what's been described I'd say it's poor pick-up, somewhere. I'm not a user of dead-frog points/crossings, so I have no idea how (and if) they're wired. It might be an idea to check that all metal sections are actually getting a feed. 

Edited by Tony Wright
typo error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, grahame said:

 

Yes, but of course just because someone is paid to undertake a job doesn't mean it will be of high quality. There's plenty of shoddy 'professional' workmanship in all walks of like. And of course that professional job could still be undertaken by a beginner - their first or early paid professional work.

 

But it's good to have standards and try to adhere to them. Although, of course, your list is pretty stringent and presumably there are few RTR models that would meet them) so I'd guess you see more kit/scratch-builds that fall foul of them. However, it is very pleasing to see models built to such standards. Do keep it up and press and encourage others to aspire to and reach them.

 

 

Thanks Grahame,

 

I tend to see more RTR locos which need attention when I do my loco-doctoring at shows (sadly, curtailed for the moment, meaning no donations to CRUK). The problems I usually find (often with newer RTR) have been described before. I do see the occasional kit-built item, and, within reason, I'm usually able to fix them - tweak a pick-up, adjust a motor, that sort of thing.

 

It's at home where I usually see most kit-built items, either because they've been bought via ebay, or they're to be sold-on on behalf of a bereaved family. With regard to the latter, I always make sure anything of that type I sell-on works (within reason; I don't have the time to completely rebuild some things). On occasions, I have to ask 'Why did you buy this?'.

 

The notion of resurrecting kit-models, acquired for a low price, has many merits (though are we profiteering from the disasters of others?). 

 

2039613708_A360103Wills.jpg.b69979f785f567d3462ca48383c2fa59.jpg

 

I originally acquired this old Wils A3 from a swapmeet in Gloucester (it used to be the biggest) in the early-'80s. It was part-built (with a white metal chassis), hiding in a mouldering orange box (the box was orange in colour, and never contained oranges). I 'bought' it for the princely sum of a Hornby-Dublo cement wagon box, in perfect condition. Yes, just the box. A night in Nitromores (it was glued together), scratch-build a chassis for it, rebuild it, acquire and build a K's streamlined non-corridor tender for it, paint it, line/letter/number it and weather it, and Bob's your uncle. 

 

It's not dead right, and because it's really out of period for LB (post-'61) it doesn't get used much, but, for a 1960s' cardboard box?! 

 

Here's another resurrection.......

 

575762682_O4163585LittleEngineskit.jpg.9e85db0145b250fcea9a937c9716c5eb.jpg

 

This Little Engines O4/1 was a complete muddle when I acquired it from a deceased modeller's estate. It was numbered/lettered late-LNER, but had complete GC features - tall chimney and dome, smokebox fastened by wheel and handle - that sort of thing. It was configured as an O4/1, complete with water pick-up gear on the tender, vacuum standpipe on the front platform, but no vacuum ejector pipe on this side (behind the boiler handrail). Not only that, its running was rather poor. 

 

It didn't seem to sell (because of the items listed?), not even for less than the cost of the bits. In the end, it was donated to me because of all the monies I'd raised on behalf of the bereaved family. So, I took pity on it, put it right detail-wise (though the dome is probably still a bit high), stripped then reassembled the mechanism and repainted, numbered, lettered and weathered it. It should probably have a screw-link front shackle, but, as a layout loco now? It also runs beautifully now. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Tony Wright
to clarify a point
  • Like 17
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, mullie said:

Improving rtr. Here is my Hornby D16 converted to EM and now weathered.  The supplied number is correct for my layout and I like this rather austere livery and find this period fascinating.

 

The advantage of EM is that apart from being achievable for me when viewed head on the gauge doesn't look narrow. I need to fill in the holes in the buffer beam, that was my first attempt to fit a coupling loop.

 

Martyn

 

Martyn,

 

So true.

 

It's the by far the most fascinating period in the entire history of railways, ever. One appreciated by the most sophisticated, discerning, intelligent and best looking modellers, as well as me.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 3

Share this post


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

Improving rtr. Here is my Hornby D16 converted to EM and now weathered.  The supplied number is correct for my layout and I like this rather austere livery and find this period fascinating.

 

440529568_Claud2.jpg.7fda0cc45df27094b5515975cb69aa0c.jpg

 

 

The advantage of EM is that apart from being achievable for me when viewed head on the gauge doesn't look narrow. I need to fill in the holes in the buffer beam, that was my first attempt to fit a coupling loop.

 

80419676_Claud3endon.jpg.6965bc224c544566bc409b60b8067463.jpg

 

 

Martyn

I would'nt recomend pulling anything heavy with a coupling wire attached to the Buffers as in the above photo. Hornby sprung ones  (which I presume these are) are only held on by a very thin internal plastic collar. Much better attaching the wire behind the bufferbeam or even better to the frames/chassis area.

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


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

But Andy has stated that he can run another loco up to this when, even when it's stalled.

 

This is the quickest way to see if a loco has stalled because of a short circuit. Leave the offender where it is, put another loco on the same road and see if it will run. If it does, then it's not a short. If it doesn't then it is one. 

 

From what's been described I'd say its poor pick-up, somewhere. I'm not a user of dead-frog points/crossings, so I have no idea how (and if) they're wired. It might be an idea to check that all metal sections are actually getting a feed. 

 

I missed that bit about running another loco up to it... mind you we are talking about DCC here.  It can defy logical assumptions, and surprisingly often!  

 

Phil 

  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

A few pages back I mentioned Comet Metal Miniatures of sci-fi cult film/programme vehicles and offered to dig the ones out I had, all assembled and hand painted many years ago, and post up a pic. Well, I've found them, given them a quick dust and here they are. Apologies for the thread drift and not being trains, but I guess it is a bit of modelling:

 

DSC_9240red.jpg.5f8d6e89749475b7e0e95b9b073131f1.jpg

 

 

It should be easy enough (and perhaps fun) to identify them, as they are famous and very recognisable.

 

 

Edited by grahame
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'll bite: Blake's 7, Fireball XL5, Lady Penelope's RR, Star Wars (?), Stingray, ??? , Thunderbirds, ??? , ??? , Thunderbirds, OP's original subject, Orion (Space Odyssey 2001), ???

 

Unsurprisingly, I still don't know the difference between an A1/2/3 ;).

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Philou said:

Unsurprisingly, I still don't know the difference between an A1/2/3 ;).

Cheers,

Philip

 

 

Sir does.... ;)

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back row left to right: 'Liberator' Blake's 7; 'Fireball' Fireball XL5; FAB1 from Thunderbirds; Colonial Viper from Battlestar Galactica; 'Stingray' from Stingray; 'Pegasus'  base ship from Battlestar Galactica.

 

Middle row: Thunderbird 1 from Thunderbirds; 'Anastasia' from Dan Dare; Cylon raider from Battlestar Galactica; Thunderbird 2; 'Dark Star' spaceship.

 

Front row: Pan Am shuttle 'Orion' from 2001; and 'El Dorado' from Buck Rogers. I did have a moon bus from 2001 but couldn't find it. There were others in the range of Comet Mini-Metals.

 

I can't recognise most steam locos, but diesels and electrics is another matter

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


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

 

I missed that bit about running another loco up to it... mind you we are talking about DCC here.  It can defy logical assumptions, and surprisingly often! 

 

The same will still apply won't it?  

 

If there is a short across the track, the DCC output will be shorted and thus nothing will run.  If there isn't a short then the other loco should operate as normal.   An oscilloscope would prove it if you happened to have one hanging around, unfortunately not many have.

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Philou said:

Ok, I'll bite: Blake's 7, Fireball XL5, Lady Penelope's RR, Star Wars (?), Stingray, ??? , Thunderbirds, ??? , ??? , Thunderbirds, OP's original subject, Orion (Space Odyssey 2001), ???

 

Unsurprisingly, I still don't know the difference between an A1/2/3 ;).

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

 

Flying Scotsman was an A1, then an A3, then later a different A1 was built so the rest of the old A1 class that were not A3s became A10, apart from Great Northern that became an A1/1 but looked completely different to all the other A1s.

 

The A2s started out as NER types then it got complicated. Lots of different engines ended up being altered or built as A2s and later some other new ones were built but they didn't look like the other ones.

 

I hope that clarifies things.

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Funny 10

Share this post


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

Improving rtr. Here is my Hornby D16 converted to EM and now weathered.  The supplied number is correct for my layout and I like this rather austere livery and find this period fascinating.

 

440529568_Claud2.jpg.7fda0cc45df27094b5515975cb69aa0c.jpg

 

 

The advantage of EM is that apart from being achievable for me when viewed head on the gauge doesn't look narrow. I need to fill in the holes in the buffer beam, that was my first attempt to fit a coupling loop.

 

80419676_Claud3endon.jpg.6965bc224c544566bc409b60b8067463.jpg

 

 

Martyn

Nice work Martyn,

 

Thanks for posting.

 

I think the period depicted is fascinating as well, as well as it being easy to paint unlined black locos. 

 

I have a couple in early-BR condition........

 

1075878364_B123.jpg.194197a0f5aab5e2ec2d90d977d6cb2f.jpg

 

A McGowan B12/3 recently featured. I built/painted/weathered this. 

 

1058045857_D301.jpg.755b94e0365a0d9f666c525e8953bce3.jpg

 

393664651_D302.jpg.5b671275784414e727a2b1058704b40a.jpg

 

And a London Road Models D3. I built this, and, luckily, Geoff Haynes needed some guinea pigs for the book he was writing. Thus, he painted this. It's beautifully-subtle. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One for Grahame and Philou, at least.

 

fireflash1.jpg

 

Air Terrainean Fireflash atomic airliner, as featured in two Thunderbirds episodes.

 

(With further apologies for thread drift).

 

Al

  • Like 7
  • Craftsmanship/clever 5

Share this post


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

Without being personally critical, why do folk buy stuff made by others (unseen in the flesh - the model, not the builder!), particularly off ebay? There must be some 'success' stories, but most such stuff which has passed through my hands is rubbish! 

 

Tony - You are right that Caveat Emptor applies but I have had a couple of real bargains from eBay.  One, which you identified as a K's O4 you resurrected for me at Woking a couple of years ago (and very kindly sent me the correct buffers, chimney and dome for the BR era).  I think it cost about £40 and with a contribution to CRUK for your time curing the tight spot in the motion, it actually runs properly and one day I will actually have space and time to build a layout to run it on.  At some point it will get the paint job, numbers etc. and will be "mine", for less than the cost of a Bachmann O4, which would be very nice but opening boxes is boring.

 

When buying items like this I rely completely on the description and photographs.  If the photographs are poor so that I cannot see what would be obvious faults, I won't bid or bid very low.  If the description is just a couple of lines and says it runs well I also assume it goes OK two feet back and forth.  Likewise when I am selling any locomotives I describe exactly how they have been tested (wires to wheels or on a length of track). 

 

If the seller cannot even describe what the loco is in the title or the listing, I tend to assume the item isn't actually theirs to sell and steer well clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Flying Scotsman was an A1, then an A3, then later a different A1 was built so the rest of the old A1 class that were not A3s became A10, apart from Great Northern that became an A1/1 but looked completely different to all the other A1s.

 

The A2s started out as NER types then it got complicated. Lots of different engines ended up being altered or built as A2s and later some other new ones were built but they didn't look like the other ones.

 

I hope that clarifies things.

 

 

 

 

Just to expand, if I may please, Tony?

 

For a short period, FLYING SCOTSMAN was also an A10.

 

A1. Original Gresley GNR 6' 8" Pacific, later developed with long-travel valves by the LNER.

 

A2. Original Raven NER Pacifics, though three were built by the LNER.

 

A3. Gresley 'Super Pacific' development of A1, with higher pressure boiler and larger superheater. 

 

A4. Gresley streamlined locos.

 

A. Original Thompson classification for his first rebuild of Gresley's 6' 2" P2. A2 was vacant anyway, because the Raven Pacifics had been withdrawn before the War. 

 

A2/2. Thompson's rebuilds of Gresley's P2. 

 

A2/1. Thompson's four 'orphans of the storm'. Originally ordered as the last four V2s. Confusing, isn't it, that the A2/1s were built after the A2/2s? 

 

A2/3. Thompson's new-build 6' 2" Pacifics.

 

A1. (More confusion!). Classification for Thompson's rebuild of Gresley's original A1 GREAT NORTHERN.

 

A1/1. Later classification for Thompson's GREAT NORTHERN.

 

A10. What all the surviving Gresley A1s became after GREAT NORTHERN was rebuilt.

 

A2. Peppercorn's new-build post-War 6' 2" Pacific (most built by BR).

 

A1. (Built after his A2s) Peppercorn's 6' 8" Pacifics, all built by BR. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited by Tony Wright
to clarify a point
  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

One for Grahame and Philou, at least.

 

fireflash1.jpg

 

Air Terrainean Fireflash atomic airliner, as featured in two Thunderbirds episodes.

 

(With further apologies for thread drift).

 

Al

No apology needed, Al,

 

It's all most-interesting.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Just to expand, if I may please, Tony?

 

For a short period, FLYING SCOTSMAN was also an A10.

 

A1. Original Gresley GNR 6' 8" Pacific, later developed with long-travel valves by the LNER.

 

A2. Original Raven NER Pacifics, though three were built by the LNER.

 

A3. Gresley 'Super Pacific' development of A1, with higher pressure boiler and larger superheater. 

 

A4. Gresley streamlined locos.

 

A. Original Thompson classification for his first rebuild of Gresley's 6' 2" P2. A2 was vacant anyway, because the Raven Pacifics had been withdrawn before the War. 

 

A2/2. Thompson's rebuilds of Gresley's P2. 

 

A2/1. Thompson's four 'orphans of the storm'. Originally ordered as the last four V2s. Confusing, isn't it, that the A2/1s were built after the A2/2s? 

 

A2/3. Thompson's new-build 6' 2" Pacifics.

 

A1. (More confusion!). Classification for Thompson's rebuild of Gresley's original A1 GREAT NORTHERN.

 

A1/1. Later classification for Thompson's GREAT NORTHERN.

 

A10. What all the surviving Gresley A1s became after GREAT NORTHERN was rebuilt.

 

A2. Peppercorn's new-build post-War 6' 2" Pacific (most built by BR).

 

A1. (Built after his A2s) Peppercorn's 6' 8" Pacifics, all built by BR. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

What about "Tornado". Fitted with GPS and a different boiler and cylinders plus the cut down cab and fittings etc. and other variations. It must deserve a sub class. 

Edited by t-b-g
  • Like 3
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well .... that'll teach me to be bit flippant about LNER locos - but thank you for trying to educate. At least over here in the far far west all our locos just look the same - or so I've heard :D.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

PS: I hadn't appreciated there was such a diversity in just a few similar looking locos.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Ok, I'll bite: Blake's 7, Fireball XL5, Lady Penelope's RR, Star Wars (?), Stingray, ??? , Thunderbirds, ??? , ??? , Thunderbirds, OP's original subject, Orion (Space Odyssey 2001), ???

 

Unsurprisingly, I still don't know the difference between an A1/2/3 ;).

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

I’d agree with Blake’s 7, the one Sci Fi series which completely hooked me.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

I’d agree with Blake’s 7, the one Sci Fi series which completely hooked me.

 

Are you sure that wasn't because of the character Servalan?

;-)

  • Agree 6
  • Funny 1

Share this post


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

One for Grahame and Philou, at least.

 

fireflash1.jpg

 

Air Terrainean Fireflash atomic airliner, as featured in two Thunderbirds episodes.

 

 

Excellent.

 

The other non Thunderbird Thunderbirds classic craft that I wouldn't mind a model of is Zero 1. The original was over 7ft long and apparently cost over £3000 even back in the 60s. This is one offered on ebay:

 

s-l400.jpg.589d6cec2c92b4723d042981b2cfe9e9.jpg

 

And the other iconic Anderson spaceships were the Eagles from Space 1999 (IMO).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

What about "Tornado". Fitted with GPS and a different boiler and cylinders plus the cut down cab and fittings etc. and other variations. It must deserve a sub class. 

The next A1/1? Or, A1/2? 

 

The LNER classification, though logical at source (has anyone ever tried to make sense of the Southern's classification of locos?), based on wheel arrangement, was not always consistent. 

 

For instance, the sub-division between O4/1 and O4/3 was due to water pick-up apparatus or brakes. Important, but the split classification also denoted different classes - A2/1, A2/2 and A2/3 for instance. Yet the A4s, which had (originally) single or double chimneys and corridor or non-corridor tenders were never sub-divided. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


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

The next A1/1? Or, A1/2? 

 

The LNER classification, though logical at source (has anyone ever tried to make sense of the Southern's classification of locos?), based on wheel arrangement, was not always consistent. 

 

For instance, the sub-division between O4/1 and O4/3 was due to water pick-up apparatus or brakes. Important, but the split classification also denoted different classes - A2/1, A2/2 and A2/3 for instance. Yet the A4s, which had (originally) single or double chimneys and corridor or non-corridor tenders were never sub-divided. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

It is a system full of quirks.  My favourite one is the J61. Two locos in the class, built to different designs by two different builders.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 3

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.