Wright writes.....

[The Johnster]

I'd like to thank Andy and Trevor for making me aware of these; I will be investigating them for use on my 2 rakes of minerals (one loaded one empty), which consist of a mixture of steel 16 and 21 tonners and XPOs, which means a mixture of instanters and 3-link.  The coach couplings are interesting as well; my coaches tend to be in 2 coach rakes and two are already coupled 'inside' with the Hornby type.

[ROY@34F]

Tony , 

   Regarding the B1 tender fire iron tunnel , as I noticed you asked for people who will know to comment ; well I should know . I worked on them enough , so I thought I'd better comment . But I can't for the life of me remember where the fire irons were kept . If there was a tunnel and it was the same side as the driver I did think that a bit odd , as if you needed to pull a pricker out for instance you 'd have to be careful not to clout him on the back of the head ! But I assume Hornby got it right .

 

Keep safe .

 

Regards , Roy .

[thegreenhowards]

5 hours ago, TrevorP1 said:

 

I've also found the coaching stock 'bar couplings'  from the same source very useful. 

I noticed those when I was looking to put in my new order. I’d be interested in which size you went for and how you got on with them. I’d normally just go for the shortest length (i.e. smallest gap between coaches) on the basis that I have 3 foot min radius curves and that’s about as generous as it gets in ‘OO’. But the min gives 16mm between NEM pockets and I measured the gap between mine at the moment and it’s 19-20mm. I think 16mm would be too tight with the corridor connectors I use. So I was going to try 19 or 20mm.

 

Andy

[zr2498]

Just finished this central support for a double track twin span Pony Truss bridge.

It is semi-scratch built using Townstreet castings, then painted and weathered. Waiting for parts to do the pair of bridge abutments.

Dave

[micklner]

3 hours ago, ROY@34F said:

Tony , 

   Regarding the B1 tender fire iron tunnel , as I noticed you asked for people who will know to comment ; well I should know . I worked on them enough , so I thought I'd better comment . But I can't for the life of me remember where the fire irons were kept . If there was a tunnel and it was the same side as the driver I did think that a bit odd , as if you needed to pull a pricker out for instance you 'd have to be careful not to clout him on the back of the head ! But I assume Hornby got it right .

 

Keep safe .

 

Regards , Roy .

Hornby's excellent B1 with the Fire Iron Tunnel on the (right) edit Left !! .

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 21, 2020 by micklner

[TrevorP1]

23 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

I noticed those when I was looking to put in my new order. I’d be interested in which size you went for and how you got on with them. I’d normally just go for the shortest length (i.e. smallest gap between coaches) on the basis that I have 3 foot min radius curves and that’s about as generous as it gets in ‘OO’. But the min gives 16mm between NEM pockets and I measured the gap between mine at the moment and it’s 19-20mm. I think 16mm would be too tight with the corridor connectors I use. So I was going to try 19 or 20mm.

 

Andy

 

The size required depends on the coaches themselves as well as the curves. (We all know manufacturers NEM pockets are mounted in the same position don't we...  )

 

I started off with a sample pack and later bought more 2s and 3s but if Bachmann Mk1s are involved some 4s or 5s may be needed. For added confusion different sizes can be mixed and matched! Another useful feature is that this type of coupling will cope with small differences in the height of the NEM pocket.

 

 

[Michael Edge]

44 minutes ago, micklner said:

Hornby's excellent B1 with the Fire Iron Tunnel on the right .

 

 

 

 

 

That's the left - but almost all fireiron tunnels I've seen are on the fireman's side, right in this case.

[MikeTrice]

I think Isinglass shows tunnel on right but only on the front view.

[Theakerr]

Went to the fixed couplling site and came across this DCC system for Kadee couplings 

https://www.precimodels.com/en/

Looks rather neat and might even be usable on DC using a RC switch.

[Tony Wright]

I'm afraid I have no idea which side the fire iron tunnel (if there were one) is on a B1.

 

I always coal my tenders pretty full.

 

And, speaking of tenders,

 

I've finished the one for the D16/3 today.

 

 

And done some more on the loco (still some fettling to do there). 

 

Not as much construction as I would have hoped for today, but I've been putting together plenty of notes on B1s (thanks once again for all the information). 

Edited April 21, 2020 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, zr2498 said:

Just finished this central support for a double track twin span Pony Truss bridge.

It is semi-scratch built using Townstreet castings, then painted and weathered. Waiting for parts to do the pair of bridge abutments.

Dave

Wonderful work, Dave,

 

Mind you, I shouldn't be surprised, given that I have such a splendid example of your 'bridgemanship' on Little Bytham.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Clive Mortimore]

Many moons ago when I was making my first snow plough from a Group Standard tender I spoke with John of Isinglass he sold me his K1 drawing as it had a better drawing of the tender than his tender drawing sheet. I cannot find the drawing now, but I have just looked at my chopped up Bachmann tender and I modelled the fire iron tunnel on the same side as Hornby. 

[Daniel W]

I just thought i'd let 'sir' know about the soldering practice i've gotten since I brought the midland three plank to the Preston show. I managed to build a Genesis kits Pewter Herring ballast hopper which, whilst quick to build, ended up being rather wonky. However, more recently i have been building this Pocket Money Kits BR brake van. I'm no expert, but i think this would be considered a great kit in 7mm. It's still a nice kit when scaled down to 4mm. However, some elements turned out to be a bit tricky in smaller scale. Particularly laminating some of the small bits to the solebar. If designed for 4mm from the ground up, I suspect a lot of these details would have been done via a half-etched overlay.

 

I persevered, my laminating skills slowly improving all the time. New curses and swear words were learned everytime a little sweated part fell off. But by the time i was giving it the final, big clean, the only thing that fell off was one of the lamp irons. Yes, its a little wonky in places, but it runs. And the lamp irons should be nice and strong enough to accomodate lamp changes if needed. A little more cleaning is required, but for a second etched kit I'm feeling pleased that i managed to get this far with it. Hence why I am feeling brave enough to share my work on here.

 

Please excuse the poorly-lighted photography!

Edited April 21, 2020 by Daniel W
Spelling

[copleyhill007]

B1 tenders - the tenders without angle iron are from class C9 (B1 no. 61038 and 61039). 61039's tender was transferred to 61013 in 1964 and ran with it until scrapping in 1966. The tender then went to 61024 which was sent for scrap soon after. Info from Yeadon's Register.

[Mike 84C]

In honesty I have little experience of ER locos but have fired on 2/3 B1's  and I would say the fireiron tunnel would be behind the firemans  seat on the RH side. That seemed to be the rule on every loco I worked on except those with B stupid Midland tenders with coal rails. Little wonder most of the fireirons finished up at the back jammed around the tank vents!

   

[St Enodoc]

15 hours ago, TrevorP1 said:

 

I'm trialling these myself. Just like you I can't make my mind up which ones to go for. They certainly show promise for fixed rakes of stock.

 

I've also found the coaching stock 'bar couplings'  from the same source very useful. 

They don't look right to me at all, Trevor and Andy. They are very "chunky" and the Instanter loop is way too big in comparison to the other links and the drawhooks. Sorry.

[Tony Wright]

7 hours ago, Daniel W said:

I just thought i'd let 'sir' know about the soldering practice i've gotten since I brought the midland three plank to the Preston show. I managed to build a Genesis kits Pewter Herring ballast hopper which, whilst quick to build, ended up being rather wonky. However, more recently i have been building this Pocket Money Kits BR brake van. I'm no expert, but i think this would be considered a great kit in 7mm. It's still a nice kit when scaled down to 4mm. However, some elements turned out to be a bit tricky in smaller scale. Particularly laminating some of the small bits to the solebar. If designed for 4mm from the ground up, I suspect a lot of these details would have been done via a half-etched overlay.

 

I persevered, my laminating skills slowly improving all the time. New curses and swear words were learned everytime a little sweated part fell off. But by the time i was giving it the final, big clean, the only thing that fell off was one of the lamp irons. Yes, its a little wonky in places, but it runs. And the lamp irons should be nice and strong enough to accomodate lamp changes if needed. A little more cleaning is required, but for a second etched kit I'm feeling pleased that i managed to get this far with it. Hence why I am feeling brave enough to share my work on here.

 

Please excuse the poorly-lighted photography!

Great work, Daniel,

 

You're a very fast learner!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Though (as is axiomatic), I spend most of my time on RMweb on this thread, I do dip into others from time to time.

 

Recently, I've posted on the Peterborough North thread, where (I hope) I've been constructively-critical over certain details - wonky or missing bits, which, to me, spoil some of the excellent pictures. 

 

Now, I'm the firmest of believers in constructive criticism. If one puts work 'on show', whether it be in the press, at shows, at seminars or on the internet (or anywhere else) for the public to see, then doesn't that invite 'criticism'? We've been here before, I know, but if I can say anything about Wright Writes it is that it is a 'critical' thread.

 

Everything which I make which I show at/in any of the places mentioned invites criticism. I wouldn't want it any other way. That way I learn (about wagons in particular, of which my knowledge is very weak - I haven't built enough). I'm delighted when folk point out errors/anomalies (resulting in stuff being given away or sold-on for CRUK). 

 

In my opinion, there is a big difference between errors in models with regard to accuracy, and those errors in models where bits have been knocked off, bent or lost. If I take a picture where these things have occurred, I won't show it, and then take another one when I've put things right (the advantages of a big camera, with a big screen to scrutinise things on). 

 

As long as any criticism is constructive, then that's surely a good thing, isn't it? The number of models built by others posted on here must substantiate that claim in my view. 

 

That being the case, please keep them coming. The more the merrier! 

Edited April 22, 2020 by Tony Wright
typo error

[Michael Edge]

Some B1s definitely had a fireiron tunnel on the left (can't have been popular with the drivers) but the earlier open rack seems to be on the right.

[65179]

Quite a few variations visible in those two cropped shots. As may have been discussed on here before, and has certainly been discussed on Mike Meggison's thread, 61010 is one of the few B1s which acquired a tender from an A2/1.

 

Simon

Edited April 22, 2020 by 65179

[micklner]

Latest builds

 

Blacksmith Thompson BG etches from 1984, the underframe and Bogies are MJT , the original castings were binned or not provided in the kit.

 

 

A dire , I can think other descriptions Langley NER Autocar, coupled with a Geo Norton push pull fitted LNER G5. I have just acquired a correct LNER G6 for it to be pulled by in due course.

 

Edited April 22, 2020 by micklner

[31A]

B1 etc. tenders.

 

As the person who supplied the picture of the Hornby tenders in the Eastwood Town thread, I have an interest.  I don't believe Hornby would have got it wrong on a modern model.  The Bachmann B1 tender has a representation  of the entrance to the 'tunnel' on the front, again on the driver's side.  I have an Isinglass drawing of various LNER GS tenders, but can't find it at the moment.

 

Anyway, in the RCTS Green Book (Vol 2B) the tenders attached to B1s are described.  The first few (originally numbered 8301-10 and 1010/1) had 'a slot in the arch of the front plate at the fireman's side to take the fire irons', i.e. the fireirons went on top, similar to earlier LNER tenders.

 

Nos. 1012-37: "A large toolbox was provided above the coal gate, with a smaller one alongside it on the fireman's side.  On the opposite side was a tunnel for the fire irons .... ".

 

It then mentions that 1038/9 had second hand tenders.

 

Nos. 1040 onwards, i.e. the majority.  "The tenders were similar above the running plate to those attached to nos. 1012-1037 .... ".  It then goes on to describe various detail differences, none of which affect the fire irons.

 

It then describes that 61105/49/65 also had second hand tenders.

 

I'm sure I have read (but typically can't remember where) that the fire iron tunnel was deliberately put on the driver's side to make it easier for the fireman to get the tools in and out.  Never having been a fireman I can't really comment but would imagine if the tunnel / rack was on the fireman's side perhaps he would have to cross to the driver's side in order to swing them round onto a rack on his own side?  Also I think there might have been more risk of getting the fire irons outside the cab, 'out of gauge' and possibly with overhead electrification in mind, a tunnel would have meant less risk of catching the overhead wires?

 

 

 

Edited April 22, 2020 by 31A
Edited to correct the name of the forum thread I referred to!

[Leander]

 

Tony was asking for more photos of B1s, presumably in model form. 61392 has arrived into Leeds City North platform six with a local from Sheffield to Bradford. Photo by John Elliott (TheLaird).

 

She is a Hornby model with added detail, including a replacement Bradwell chimney and dome, Comet AWS gear, plus various DCC sound gubbins hidden well away. Those plastic lamp brackets definitely require some straightening. Obviously the fireman hasn't got round to putting on the tail lamp before heading off to Holbeck for turning and servicing.

 

 

[Tony Wright]

3 minutes ago, Leander said:

 

Tony was asking for more photos of B1s, presumably in model form. 61392 has arrived into Leeds City North platform six with a local from Sheffield to Bradford. Photo by John Elliott (TheLaird).

 

She is a Hornby model with added detail, including a replacement Bradwell chimney and dome, Comet AWS gear, plus various DCC sound gubbins hidden well away. Those plastic lamp brackets definitely require some straightening. Obviously the fireman hasn't got round to putting on the tail lamp before heading off to Holbeck for turning and servicing.

 

 

At first glance, this shot could almost be taken for reality.

 

Straighten those lamp brackets (admitted) and add a screw shackle and you'll convince many that it is.

 

A brilliant shot. Many thanks for showing us.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[TrevorP1]

4 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

They don't look right to me at all, Trevor and Andy. They are very "chunky" and the Instanter loop is way too big in comparison to the other links and the drawhooks. Sorry.

 

I can't disagree with you John but I like the idea and if you don't look too hard. Maybe with a bit more development?  

 

I think you and I both use the Bachmann 'pipes' where appropriate. They too are a compromise but they do a half reasonable job. However, if you are familiar with the real thing they are wrong on several counts so the compromise has to be accepted.  I do like the James bars for coaches though. A flexible system, easy to swop and not too visible on most coaching stock.

 

I expect Tony is reading this and thinking we should use the wire and loop method and I'd find it impossible to argue against that except that it would take me many days to change everything and even on 'lockdown' that is time that needs to be spent elsewhere.