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.

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, landscapes said:

Hi Tony

 

They truly are magnificent models and as a modeller who does not have the skills to build an A2/2 I am truly grateful that sometime in the future they will be available from Hornby in RTR and I think I can thank you for that as well.

 

Whether they will be anywhere near the standard of your A2/2 models is another question altogether.

 

Regards

 

David

That's very kind of you David, though I think what 'makes' those locos is the wonderful painting. 

 

Whether the forthcoming (eventually) RTR examples 'will be anywhere near the standard of your A2/2 models' is, indeed, a question. From the amount of research undertaken and given the diligence of the design team, I imagine (I certainly hope) that they'll be outstanding models, enabling all modellers with the cash to acquire one (or more), without recourse to making their own or having them built on commission. 

 

That said, I'll continue to make my own, though I already have three on LB (which is probably enough!). . 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

Sorry - I don't have my own thread, been too lazy I think. I'm sure Tony won't mind if I give you some pointers here.

 

Basically the GWR footplate is the better one as it has a shorter wide section over the cylinders and the bolt heads on the front frames which most locos had - basically  Bachmann got the shape of the footplate wrong on the O4 version - I don't know why they don't use the ROD footplate on their subsequent O4 models? Maybe its all too difficult with dedicated tooling for each version?

 

You should use the O4 boiler. However, you need to decide whether you want an O4/1 (ie original GC loco as inherited by the LNER at Grouping) or an ex ROD version  which was bought by the LNER in the 1920s from surplus Govt stock. 

 

The O4/1s were fitted with vacuum brake and therefore had the ejector pipe inside the handrail on the righthand side of the boiler as the Bachmann O4 has and also had water pickup so you need to use the King tender water pickup box arrangement for the rear deck of the tender and you need to remove the rear coal plate on the tender, and fit a ships wheel to the front of the tender for operating the water pickup gear (Judith Edge can supply these for £2). Note however that water pickup was generally removed after 1946 - so it depends on period you are modelling. You will need to fit a vacuum pipe to the front as well as the oval buffers from the O4 footplate - they pull out with a little bit of persuasion. 

 

If you build an O4/3 you need to use the O4 boiler but use the GWR cab as the rear angle iron on the cab roof is further forward - a feature of the ex ROD locos. My two O4/3s built from Bachmann parts do use the GWR cab - but you will need to remove the two whistles and then determine whether the single whistle for the engine you are modelling was on the top of the firebox in front of the cab or still on the roof, but in the centre (earlier period). You will need to remove the vacuum ejector pipe inside the boiler handrail which will probably mean making a new handrail and fitting new handrail pillars. You will also need to use the oval buffers from the O4 footplate.

 

I trust this is of some help micklner and that it all makes sense.

 

Andrew

I don't mind at all, Andrew.

 

Your contributions are always welcome, and enlightening. 

 

Please, keep posting examples of your excellent work.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mark axlecounter said:

It’s Tony’s fault that I got into building Loco kits, I watched his dvds ha ha. 
I was great full to have spoken to him and Mo at shows and I will never forget the Bristol show, I got what Tony called criticism but in my eyes he has taught me how to better myself how to apply different methods and how to overcome my faults. 

Tony also gave me the courage to build a DJH Loco kit 

I speak to lots of kit builders and I have gained more help then I would ever imagined from these people so this is to say thank you to Tony and all the people who have helped me over the past 20 years. 
 

Mark T 

 

I've been told it's my fault on many occasions, Mark. 

 

I'm happy to take the responsibility.

 

However, one has to have a willing 'pupil', who's prepared to have a go for him/herself. That I've had so many makes me very grateful.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

Sorry - I don't have my own thread, been too lazy I think. I'm sure Tony won't mind if I give you some pointers here.

 

Basically the GWR footplate is the better one as it has a shorter wide section over the cylinders and the bolt heads on the front frames which most locos had - basically  Bachmann got the shape of the footplate wrong on the O4 version - I don't know why they don't use the ROD footplate on their subsequent O4 models? Maybe its all too difficult with dedicated tooling for each version?

 

You should use the O4 boiler. However, you need to decide whether you want an O4/1 (ie original GC loco as inherited by the LNER at Grouping) or an ex ROD version  which was bought by the LNER in the 1920s from surplus Govt stock. 

 

The O4/1s were fitted with vacuum brake and therefore had the ejector pipe inside the handrail on the righthand side of the boiler as the Bachmann O4 has and also had water pickup so you need to use the King tender water pickup box arrangement for the rear deck of the tender and you need to remove the rear coal plate on the tender, and fit a ships wheel to the front of the tender for operating the water pickup gear (Judith Edge can supply these for £2). Note however that water pickup was generally removed after 1946 - so it depends on period you are modelling. You will need to fit a vacuum pipe to the front as well as the oval buffers from the O4 footplate - they pull out with a little bit of persuasion. 

 

If you build an O4/3 you need to use the O4 boiler but use the GWR cab as the rear angle iron on the cab roof is further forward - a feature of the ex ROD locos. My two O4/3s built from Bachmann parts do use the GWR cab - but you will need to remove the two whistles and then determine whether the single whistle for the engine you are modelling was on the top of the firebox in front of the cab or still on the roof, but in the centre (earlier period). You will need to remove the vacuum ejector pipe inside the boiler handrail which will probably mean making a new handrail and fitting new handrail pillars. You will also need to use the oval buffers from the O4 footplate.

 

I trust this is of some help micklner and that it all makes sense.

 

Andrew

Excellent many thanks, now much clearer O4/3 in due course .

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 27/04/2020 at 17:31, landscapes said:

Hi Ray

 

Great photo and the layout looks very good indeed, is there a Sowerby Road MPD blog on RMweb?

 

Regards

 

David

Thanks for the kind comments , David . No , there isn't a blog for Sowerby Road m.p.d. The layout has been complete for some years & I don't think it would be of enough interest to justify a blog , plus I don't think I could find the time . However , if Tony doesn't mind , I'll see about putting the odd general shot of the layout on here & see what people think .

         Best Wishes & keep safe ,

                                           Ray .

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

If we are having galleries of O4s here are two of mine.63805.JPG.fa86b79696e81629e0ffbf702b043838.JPG

O4/8 63805 is the oldest one, scratchbuilt many years ago and expertly weathered by Paul Fletcher at the Leeds show in 1991. I used a lot of K's driving wheels in those days, these are still OK but the flanges are a little thick and don't really like the new 16.2mm gauge pointwork.

802526089_63713weathered.JPG.3e2327569e26061ec86f1f795122f772.JPG

O4/3 (ex ROD)  63713 is much more recent, mostly scratchbuilt but with some etched parts and a Judith Edge tender.

I have a K's one as well but it seems to have escaped the official photographer. Brunswick sees a lot of O4s (we have some more available as well) and Wentworth Junction will also need them.

  • Like 7
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ray Flintoft said:

Thanks for the kind comments , David . No , there isn't a blog for Sowerby Road m.p.d. The layout has been complete for some years & I don't think it would be of enough interest to justify a blog , plus I don't think I could find the time . However , if Tony doesn't mind , I'll see about putting the odd general shot of the layout on here & see what people think .

         Best Wishes & keep safe ,

                                           Ray .

Good evening Ray,

 

I don't mind at all. 

 

A variety of examples of (excellent) modelling by a large number of folk is what makes this thread what it is.

 

Please, keep the pictures coming.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
54 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

O4/8 63805 is the oldest one, scratchbuilt many years ago and expertly weathered by Paul Fletcher at the Leeds show in 1991. I used a lot of K's driving wheels in those days, these are still OK but the flanges are a little thick and don't really like the new 16.2mm gauge pointwork.

 

Have you come over to "the dark side" Mike ? :jester:

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my pair of 2-8-0s.

 

A part-scratchbuilt Gresley O1 running on a Hornby 8F chassis. I used Heljan O2 spares for this and made the rest from plasticard. Looking back on it now, I can see a few things that I'd like to redo, like the cab numerals (I just used what I had in stock) and trying to make the chassis a bit less Stanier-looking. It was my second attempt at building an engine so that's my excuse for the wonky bits.

O1.jpg.3285b060e71bd35d77f7b0cc40b791cf.jpg

I hope Tony doesn't mind me using his photo from when I visited LB.

 

My other 2-8-0 is a Bachmann O4 converted to O4/3 status. The mods are pretty much as Woodcock29 above said but I found that I didn't have to replace the handrail to get the ejector pipe out. It wasn't glued on at all and it's plastic so I just cut through it each side of the handrail pillars and pulled all the bits out. I haven't got round to making a new reversing rod or moving the pony back yet.

IMG_4233.JPG.37a2607040dcfe1ef15be7a9f9ae453a.JPG

Apologies for the front of the engine not being in focus but this was the only photo of it I could find.

 

Jamie

  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Have we had one of these? My old O4/7 was built from a little engines kit, it has had a few modifications since the original build. The back end looked a little bare, so I fabricated a representation of the brake cylinder and pull rod. I was also aware that the little engine O4 kits were too short, though I didn't do anything about it at the time. Fortunately, this was at the front end ahead off the cylinders and concerned the front frames and running board. To rectify the problem of length, the front end was cut off and an extension  piece added. The original front frames, running board and buffer beam were then reattached and the paint work touched up and bobs your uncle. The old beastie will last a little while longer.

O4-7 63673.jpg

  • Like 13
  • Craftsmanship/clever 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, micklner said:

Excellent many thanks, now much clearer O4/3 in due course .

One of my O4/3s actually uses the GWR boiler as well, the one with the flowerpot chimney, but it's a lot more work correcting the boiler and smokebox front. Mostly removing bits, filling holes and making a new door hinge, replacing safety valve  It's even possible to reuse the GWR chimney if you've only got the GWR ROD to work with. One has to remove the capuchon and although the shape is not perfect its not too bad.

 

One aspect that is so useful is the way the body separates into major components so easily.

 

Andrew

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, JamieR4489 said:

Here's my pair of 2-8-0s.

 

A part-scratchbuilt Gresley O1 running on a Hornby 8F chassis. I used Heljan O2 spares for this and made the rest from plasticard. Looking back on it now, I can see a few things that I'd like to redo, like the cab numerals (I just used what I had in stock) and trying to make the chassis a bit less Stanier-looking. It was my second attempt at building an engine so that's my excuse for the wonky bits.

O1.jpg.3285b060e71bd35d77f7b0cc40b791cf.jpg

I hope Tony doesn't mind me using his photo from when I visited LB.

 

My other 2-8-0 is a Bachmann O4 converted to O4/3 status. The mods are pretty much as Woodcock29 above said but I found that I didn't have to replace the handrail to get the ejector pipe out. It wasn't glued on at all and it's plastic so I just cut through it each side of the handrail pillars and pulled all the bits out. I haven't got round to making a new reversing rod or moving the pony back yet.

IMG_4233.JPG.37a2607040dcfe1ef15be7a9f9ae453a.JPG

Apologies for the front of the engine not being in focus but this was the only photo of it I could find.

 

Jamie

I don't mind at all Jamie,

 

It was a pleasure to be able to photograph your work. A real modeller's work as well, something I'm pleased to say this thread is full of.

 

Let's hope it won't be too long before you can visit again and I can take some more pictures.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
12 hours ago, polybear said:

 

Have you come over to "the dark side" Mike ? :jester:

I've been using EM minus2 for some time (about 6 years) now, all the new fiddle yard pointwork was built in it and so is the pointwork for Wentworth Junction. Gibson and Romford/Markits wheels are perfectly happy with it but the old K's wheels (I still have quite a few locos with them) have thicker flanges and are set at 14.5mm back to back so they tend to bind a bit in the tighter curves. Following this discovery some of the fiddle yard pointwork was eased to 16.5mm gauge except for just through the crossing area. This was only on curves down at around 30" radius, there's nothing that sharp on the visible bits of Wentworth Junction and the K's wheels are OK there.

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great to see the selection of O4s.

 

I think the O1 is a handsome looking engine. I've almost finished Annesley's  63854, made from a David Andrews kit. It doesn't look quite right without being weathered. 

 

I would never ever build anything with a live chassis, DC or DCC it just opens up too many problems. All my locos pick up from the loco and tender - you can't have too many pick ups. I remember the lads spending an hour completely dismembering a flying pig on Kirkfield Central as it was playing up, it turned out to be the leading van on the train with a brass underframe and a rubbing brake causing a short via the couplings....  As for the American system, I've only ever had trouble with it, the lazy option!

P1050600.JPG.404d3d1be8dcc46da609fea592841ce0.JPG

 

Engine picking:- some O1 had cinder guards, some not. Maybe the Annesley ones had them fitted for running the Windcutters.

 

Regards

Tony

 

Edited by dibateg
missed a bit out
  • Like 14
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 29/04/2020 at 09:47, Tony Wright said:

One thing which is a pleasure to do is to assist others in their loco building. 

 

A friend in Australia is building a DJH A2/2 and has emailed me some questions. Since I built the prototype for the model, wrote the instructions, built the first three production locos (one for DJH, one for a customer and one for myself), then to help is the least I can do. 

 

Out of interest, I've sent him the following pictures....................

 

244787516_A22.jpg.36dd2bea72c5ae475ab256f7b4464dc5.jpg

 

I think this image appeared on the first page of Wright Writes, all those hundreds of pages (getting on for 2,000) ago. 

 

It illustrates the prototype A2/2 I built to show how the class could be made from DJH parts (which they supplied). The smokebox/boiler/firebox, rear footplate, smokebox door, chimney, dome, safety valves, whistle, cab front, cab roof, backhead, Cartazzi frames, bogie and various sundry items came from an A1. The cylinders and motion (modified) came from the A2, and the cabsides and tender came from an A3. I scratch-built the frames, front end, central footplate section and the tiny deflectors. It then went to DJH for assessment, before it was returned for Ian Rathbone to paint it.  

 

A couple of years later, the production kits appeared...... 

 

449231265_60506lightenginejpg.jpg.0d169e34de0f3a080ef2f6f20731bd56.jpg

 

411404320_6050605.jpg.25cf5a18bc390e9035d74985478cb934.jpg

 

872762182_60506instation.jpg.1e674854945d4b28a6784fc19c261416.jpg

 

45518677_60506onDownFlyingScotsmancloserview.jpg.63790d06499baf3bf8bc764a2ed0378c.jpg

 

1638943371_60506onDownFlyingScotsman.jpg.09036005a78e8a0810ffed7fea327ad7.jpg

 

1269987883_DJHA22.jpg.05b1a304bcf8164e9d199f2b716d2563.jpg

 

This is one of those first production builds, painted by Ian Rathbone. 

 

849566201_A22DJHcomplete01.jpg.8431f2cca9fbca4a101d2de2e28c7ea7.jpg

 

444982094_A22DJHcomplete02.jpg.46d0cff3dbe92ebe39852b281f45759f.jpg

 

How many I've built since, I'm not sure, but this one became THANE OF FIFE (I built two THANES OF FIFE at the same time). Because the customer for this one had fairly tight radii, I opted for under-scale bogie wheels, which rather spoil the 'look'. 

 

1460473932_6050611.jpg.d068e65079472b911c2ea315e5ae3a9e.jpg

 

WOLF OF BADENOCH seems to be the most popular choice (actually more popular, because the DJH kit only really makes up to 60505 or 60506, without modification). 

 

This one was painted by Geoff Haynes.

 

I wonder when Hornby's will arrive. Not any time soon, I'd imagine...................

 

 

 

Good morning Tony, 

 

Many thanks for posting those A2/2 photos. Strange how such an ugly loco can be so imposing and almost be appealing. Can you tell though, other than the tenders  and minor kinks in steam pipes and minor running plate differences, what are the differences between 60501/2 and 60505/6.  I was under the impression that the DJH kit would build any of the four I mentioned ?

 

Looking at prototype photos don't yield much. Many thanks.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dibateg said:

Great to see the selection of O4s.

 

I think the O1 is a handsome looking engine. I've almost finished Annesley's  63854, made from a David Andrews kit. It doesn't look quite right without being weathered. 

 

I would never ever build anything with a live chassis, DC or DCC it just opens up too many problems. All my locos pick up from the loco and tender - you can't have too many pick ups. I remember the lads spending an hour completely dismembering a flying pig on Kirkfield Central as it was playing up, it turned out to be the leading van with a brass underframe and a rubbing brake....  As for the American system, I've only ever had trouble with it, the lazy option!

P1050600.JPG.404d3d1be8dcc46da609fea592841ce0.JPG

 

Engine picking:- some O1 had cinder guards, some not. Maybe the Annesley ones had them fitted for running the Windcutters.

 

Regards

Tony

 

A lovely looking model indeed, congratulations.


I personally take exception to your describing the American system as ‘the lazy option’, perhaps that’s why you have had such problems with its utilisation because as with any method it requires an understanding of the workings of the method to get it to work reliably.  As a proponent of the American system, who uses it all the time combined with compensation,  I take exception to being labelled as a lazy modeller and instead would  describe the American system coupled with compensation as ‘simple elegance’  eliminating  the need for what I always felt were fiddly and unsightly  pickups on my models.  
 

Once again congratulations on a fabulous model.

Frank

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, dibateg said:

Great to see the selection of O4s.

 

I think the O1 is a handsome looking engine. I've almost finished Annesley's  63854, made from a David Andrews kit. It doesn't look quite right without being weathered. 

 

I would never ever build anything with a live chassis, DC or DCC it just opens up too many problems. All my locos pick up from the loco and tender - you can't have too many pick ups. I remember the lads spending an hour completely dismembering a flying pig on Kirkfield Central as it was playing up, it turned out to be the leading van with a brass underframe and a rubbing brake....  As for the American system, I've only ever had trouble with it, the lazy option!

P1050600.JPG.404d3d1be8dcc46da609fea592841ce0.JPG

 

Engine picking:- some O1 had cinder guards, some not. Maybe the Annesley ones had them fitted for running the Windcutters.

 

Regards

Tony

 

Continuing the 2-8-0 theme, my newly finished 2-8-0 which is newish Hornby with Brassmasters detailing and some of my own too.  To quote a programmer collegue it wasn't hard it just took a long time.  48739 has joined my two commissioned 8Fs in the allegedly dustproof case, and my biggest disappointment is that I just can't top and tail them with my two Hurst etched snowploughs - which were the hardest kits I have ever completed.  Three 8Fs and two independent snowploughs, just the job for the 62-63 winter.  And no prizes for spotting the one I haven't painted

 

Tone

48739 05.JPG

48739 30.JPG

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

Frank - please don't take exception, my statement was somewhat tongue in cheek.

 

We all have our own ways of doing things and they work for us. None are necessarily the best or right way. That's the joy of the hobby  - variety in models and techniques.

 

Best Regards

Tony

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 29/04/2020 at 12:07, Tony Wright said:

Granted, John,

 

And I'm not suggesting that folk who 'just' adopt DCC only do it because it's more tolerant of poor electrical design. I hope those who've seen and run Little Bytham will testify that there is nothing wrong with its electrics, whether that be the design or the installation. 

 

It's just that I can get exactly the same loco (Gilbert's 60504) to run 'perfectly' on DC, whereas I can't when it's DCC-fitted.

 

It was the same with a small GWR pannier I built - a beautiful runner on DC, but, after I installed a decoder (a recommended one) it ran like a lame dog. Ask Tom Foster - I built it for him. 

 

What am I missing?

 

I can only relate my own experiences, and DCC is certainly not for me (nor ever will be, but we've been here before). Those who have much greater knowledge of the systems (which isn't difficult compared with me!) can get it to run perfectly I'm sure (I've seen it in action, but mainly with plastic, RTR stuff). What I do find a puzzle is where folk adopt it, but haven't a clue about it - to the extent that they can't even install decoders, giving strength to the elbows of those who can; and good luck to them for providing such a service. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony,

 

I hesitate to post this here as I don’t want to stoke the ‘DCC wars’ again! However, I have experienced exactly the problems that you mention so I thought I’d share my experience in case it’s useful for others.

 

I believe that DCC is much less tolerant of poor pick ups than DC and this is what causes a lot of the problems like the one you mention above. I have several locos, both RTR and kit built, which work perfectly on DC and turn into stuttering wrecks on DCC. It’s more common with kit built locos but also applies to RTR. Four example, the Hornby  J50 is one example of a RTR loco which works well on DC but horribly on DCC - I have three and all were the same. I cured this by fitting Stayalives, but I don’t understand why it should be necessary. With the stayalives, they run better on DCC than on DC. With kit built locos, I often have to fit tender pick ups or to get acceptable performance on DCC when loco only was OK on DC. I opt for tender pick ups first if practical and a stay alive if not (I’ve never needed both!).

 

I have no idea why this should be. I suspect some decoders are better than others, but I’ve had problems even with non budget decoders. It is certainly a frustration of DCC - but not sufficient to make me change back! I like my sound too much, and when it works it is silky smooth.

 

ATB

 

Andy

 

 

 

Edited by thegreenhowards
Typos
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

I've been using EM minus2 for some time (about 6 years) now, all the new fiddle yard pointwork was built in it and so is the pointwork for Wentworth Junction. Gibson and Romford/Markits wheels are perfectly happy with it but the old K's wheels (I still have quite a few locos with them) have thicker flanges and are set at 14.5mm back to back so they tend to bind a bit in the tighter curves. Following this discovery some of the fiddle yard pointwork was eased to 16.5mm gauge except for just through the crossing area. This was only on curves down at around 30" radius, there's nothing that sharp on the visible bits of Wentworth Junction and the K's wheels are OK there.

 

While it's obvious to most folk that narrowing the gauge increases the required minimum operating radius for any particular 6 coupled or greater loco, the actual effect is significant. As as example, somethin9 like a  Hornby 2-6-4 tank has a published 00 gauge min radius of 438 mm. For a narrowed track gauge of 16.2 mm, that min radius increases to 499 mm.

 

Andy

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

Tony,

 

I hesitate to post this here as I don’t want to stoke the ‘DCC wars’ again! However, I have experienced exactly the problems that you mention so I thought I’d share my experience in case it’s useful for others.

 

I believe that DCC is much less tolerant of poor pick ups than DC and this is what causes a lot of the problems like the one you mention above. I have several locos, both RTR and kit built, which work perfectly on DC and turn into stuttering wrecks on DCC. It’s more common with kit built locos but also applies to RTR. Four example, the Hornby  J50 is one example of a RTR loco which works well on DC but horribly on DCC - I have three and all were the same. I cured this by fitting Stayalives, but I don’t understand why it should be necessary. With the stayalives, they run better on DCC than on DC. With kit built locos, I often have to fit tender pick ups or to get acceptable performance on DCC when loco only was OK on DC. I opt for tender pick ups first if practical and a stay alive if not (I’ve never needed both!).

 

I have no idea why this should be. I suspect some decoders are better than others, but I’ve had problems even with non budget decoders. It is certainly a frustration of DCC - but not sufficient to make me change back! I like my sound too much, and when it works it is silky smooth.

 

ATB

 

Andy

 

 

 


As always Andy, different people have different experiences, which is what makes life so interesting and varied. I’m a DCC convert and myHornby J50 is one of the finest running loco’s I have. I’m probably inclined to say all my loco’s run very well on DCC and that the fine control is very good. I won’t say they run better than on DC as it’s so subjective. I’m sure the running quality on LB is outstanding, but for every fine running DC layout, I’m sure there are equal numbers where running leaves much to be desired. It will be no different with DCC and generally it’s not the control system that is at fault.... ;)

 

There are so many parameters that come into play, we should each choose something that gives the best result for us and stick to it.

 

I’m story to hear you’ve had so many problems with your J50. Apart from a minor crack in the footplate, mine is outstanding.

 

I’ll dig out a link to a video later.....

 

 

 

Edited by gordon s
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, davidw said:

 

Good morning Tony, 

 

Many thanks for posting those A2/2 photos. Strange how such an ugly loco can be so imposing and almost be appealing. Can you tell though, other than the tenders  and minor kinks in steam pipes and minor running plate differences, what are the differences between 60501/2 and 60505/6.  I was under the impression that the DJH kit would build any of the four I mentioned ?

 

Looking at prototype photos don't yield much. Many thanks.

Good afternoon David,

 

60501 and 60502 can be made from the DJH kit, with modifications. 

 

The main difference is the cab and tender. 60501/2 had turn-ins to the rear cab edges (like an A3), and they also towed A3-style, high-sided tenders, with turn-ins at the front and beading. 

 

60505/6 had A4-style cabs and streamlined non-corridor tenders (as supplied by DJH).

 

I hope this helps.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lazy modellers?

 

I think I'm in that category from time to time - lazy enough not to bother with the hassle of duplicate pick-ups (live-chassis work perfectly for me) nor to be confounded by the 'American' system of pick-ups which I've never had success with (loco and tender touch and there's a short, and you can't run a loco on test without its tender).

 

As has been observed; each to their own. 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Found the video I took a month or so ago. Watching it again, it appears there is some minor hesitation from the loco just as it pulls away. This wasn’t present when I was filming it, so must be a function of the file upload to You Tube.

 

 

See those new vans made me chuckle as I’m sick of the sight of them......Just spent the last few days weathering 24 of them. Of course it had to be done, but doing them all at once, was not such a great idea as like most continual jobs, progress just got slower and slower....;)

 

I’ve done the first pass weathering and they look OK, but now I have the detailing to do so that I don’t have 24 identical dirty vans versus 24 identical clean ones...

 

Graham also built me a lovely O1 from a Little Engines kit, but for some reason fitted the wrong pony wheels. Tony very kindly pointed it out to me, as I wasn’t aware of it at all. The correct ones are here and now awaiting the paint shop this week, so it may make an appearance in a few days.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Lazy modellers?

 

I think I'm in that category from time to time - lazy enough not to bother with the hassle of duplicate pick-ups (live-chassis work perfectly for me) nor to be confounded by the 'American' system of pick-ups which I've never had success with (loco and tender touch and there's a short, and you can't run a loco on test without its tender).

 

As has been observed; each to their own. 

 

My few commercial steam loco models are mostly for static scenic support. So I haven't bothered to disassemble them.  But for diesel and electric locos here in the US, the normality is electrically isolated separate side frames with metal wheels on split axles with insulating axle/gear muffs. The vehicle ends are not electrically connected to anything.  So virtually flawless all wheel pick-up operation with zero added springy contacts.

 

Andy

 

 

  • Informative/Useful 2
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...