Wright writes.....

[thegreenhowards]

11 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

...... usually pulling a train far shorter than the prototype - because out-of-the-box RTR hasn't got the traction to match the prototype.

 

9 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

I build my own locos because how they run is my responsibility and they'll pull very heavy, prototype-length trains; which, with regard to the latter point the RTR stuff won't do (steam-outline), with the exception of the Heljan O2 (in my experience).

 

 

I feel compelled to leap to the defence of modern RTR again with regard to haulage capability. In my experience the latest RTR steam locos pull very well and the large ones will easily handle 10-12 RTR coaches out of the box. With the addition of some lead they will generally pull more - easily up to 15+ plastic/ RTR coaches. Surely that is a prototypical load?! I admit that they struggle with a long train of kit built metal coaches but that is hardly a fair comparison. This is particularly true of the newer locos - for example latest Bachmann A1 (E.g. 60117) far out-pulls the earlier ones (e.g. 60158). It’s also true of the latest freight locos - my RTR O1, O2, Q6, WD 2-8-0 and 9F all pull my 50 wagon coal train. Admittedly there’s some wheel slip as they get going, but what’s unprototypical about that?

 

Tony often compares RTR out of the box with his locos which have every available orifice stuffed with lead. That is hardly a fair comparison. If the RTR loco is similarly stuffed, I’m sure it would get closer to kit built locos’ performance.

 

In summary, RTR pulls well enough but a (well built) kit will pull better.

 

Andy

 

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by thegreenhowards
Clarifying a point

[manna]

G'day Folks

 

I have a couple of LNER 8 coupled. A O1 Scratchbuilt body on a 8f chassis, a new bigger tender using some Heljan parts is under constuction. The O2 is pure Heljan, runs well and I've run out of wagons that it will pull, The O4 was a GWR version, slowly converting it back to a LNER version, but having trouble working out 'What' it should be numbered. The Q1, is a generally forgotten class of loco, but did good solid work for many years. This one is scratchbuilt on a GEM chassis.

 

Terry (aka manna)

 

 

[Woodcock29]

3 hours ago, manna said:

G'day Folks

 

I have a couple of LNER 8 coupled. A O1 Scratchbuilt body on a 8f chassis, a new bigger tender using some Heljan parts is under constuction. The O2 is pure Heljan, runs well and I've run out of wagons that it will pull, The O4 was a GWR version, slowly converting it back to a LNER version, but having trouble working out 'What' it should be numbered. The Q1, is a generally forgotten class of loco, but did good solid work for many years. This one is scratchbuilt on a GEM chassis.

 

Terry (aka manna)

 

 

 

 

 

Terry

I should be able to help with selecting a number for an O4/3 for you. Trust you're both well up there at Booborowie?

 

Andrew 

[manna]

G'Day Andrew

 

Yes we are all well in Boobs, no know case's within 60/70k's. But still being careful. thank you for asking, hope you are safe to.

 

So I ended up with a O4/3, now I'll have to find one that worked on the Southern section.

 

Terry (aka manna)

[Tony Wright]

7 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

 

 

I feel compelled to leap to the defence of modern RTR again with regard to haulage capability. In my experience the latest RTR steam locos pull very well and the large ones will easily handle 10-12 RTR coaches out of the box. With the addition of some lead they will generally pull more - easily up to 15+ plastic/ RTR coaches. Surely that is a prototypical load?! I admit that they struggle with a long train of kit built metal coaches but that is hardly a fair comparison. This is particularly true of the newer locos - for example latest Bachmann A1 (E.g. 60117) far out-pulls the earlier ones (e.g. 60158). It’s also true of the latest freight locos - my RTR O1, O2, Q6, WD 2-8-0 and 9F all pull my 50 wagon coal train. Admittedly there’s some wheel slip as they get going, but what’s unprototypical about that?

 

Tony often compares RTR out of the box with his locos which have every available orifice stuffed with lead. That is hardly a fair comparison. If the RTR loco is similarly stuffed, I’m sure it would get closer to kit built locos’ performance.

 

In summary, RTR pulls well enough but a (well built) kit will pull better.

 

Andy

 

 

Good morning Andy,

 

'Tony often compares RTR out of the box with his locos which have every available orifice stuffed with lead. That is hardly a fair comparison. If the RTR loco is similarly stuffed, I’m sure it would get closer to kit built locos’ performance.'

 

I'm puzzled why you think it's not a fair comparison. 

 

It's really a question of needs (or wants, dependent on a point of view). Though most of my Mk.1 cars are modified Bachmann (about a third of the carriage stock on LB), the rest is mainly all-metal, kit-built items or metal-clad RTR plastic donors, all on free-running, but heavy, white metal bogies. Ask a Hornby A3 or A4 or Bachmann A1 or A2 to pull 14 of the all-metal cars and the answer is 'no'. There is no more room inside the plastic bodies for more weight (I've added some, where possible), so adhesion (not power) is the limiting factor. 

 

So, comparing the two - an extra-weighted RTR Pacific and an all-metal, kit-built (with added weight) Pacific is a necessity as far as I'm concerned. One won't do the job, one will. 

 

If the rolling stock on a layout is principally plastic RTR, then plastic RTR locos are ideal, and there'd be no need to kit-build (other than for the types which aren't available RTR). 

 

I concede, the RTR freight locos tend to be better at pulling, particularly the Heljan O2 and Bachmann 9F. However, and obviously not apparent from my pictures of 2-8-0s, though my ancient scratch-built O1 (made of brass and packed with lead) managed to position its 50-wagon, full coal train with ease for the camera (some of which are white metal kits), the Horby O1 had to be assisted by hand. 

 

I also concede that nowhere in RTR manufacturers literature does it claim that the locos will pull 14/15 kit-built carriages or 50-60 kit-built wagons. They're not designed for that ( though the the O2 and 9F probably would).

 

But, and we're back to horses for courses here, my locos have to; hence the comparison. 

 

Other observations/comparisons? The few RTR locos I have 'waddle' far more than my kit-built ones as they go along the track, because of the much greater degree of slop between the drivers and the frames. This is because they're designed for train set curves, and, to be fair, the manufacturers cannot legislate for the roads their products will have to run on, other than to ensure they'll go round tight curves. Yes, spacing washers can be inserted between the backs of the drivers and the frames (by nicking a segment out of a Peco one eighth fibre washer and pushing it over the axle) to reduce the slop but they still waddle in comparison.  

 

Another (more pernicious?) comparison is how long many of these latest pieces of RTR wonderment will last, particularly if subjected to the rigours of pulling very heavy trains (at speed). I've lost count of the number of modern busted gear trains I've had to diagnose in my role as loco-doctor at shows. I see Peter's Spares is offering stronger replacement gear sets for some Hornby steam-outline locos because of the failure rate. As for crumbling gear towers because of metal fatigue, who knows how long some will last? 

 

Meanwhile, it's good that so many can enjoy the RTR delights on offer right now (or those to come, providing if - or when - they arrive in the current crisis). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Would acrylics work? Or a coat of varnish first? Or weather them with an artists watercolour pencil, used dry? I do think a variety of finishes would look better than having them all sparkling clean.  

 

 

Thanks Tony,

 

I'll give it a go and report.......

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Woodcock29]

1 hour ago, manna said:

G'Day Andrew

 

Yes we are all well in Boobs, no know case's within 60/70k's. But still being careful. thank you for asking, hope you are safe to.

 

So I ended up with a O4/3, now I'll have to find one that worked on the Southern section.

 

Terry (aka manna)

So perhaps I need to see if I can find an O4/3 shedded at Retford, Grantham, Lincoln or March? It doesn't appear as if any were ever shedded at New England. Roughly what years would you like?

 

Andrew

Edited May 2, 2020 by Woodcock29
Typo

[Headstock]

12 hours ago, richard i said:

In the spirit of showing lockdown productivity, some modeling for you. These are 2d laser cut from a file JCL shared, except I drew up the alterations to make the brakes. 247 or perseverance bogies. Roofs rolled by Jim and other bits scratch built. 

 

 

 

roofs only placed on in case it all comes unstuck in the next couple of days. It should not, but just in case. Interior might need talking too. 

Richard

 

 

 

Good morning Richard,

 

A nice set of carriages. Could you provide a bit of information about the origins of the grab handles on the end vestibules?

[Tony Wright]

As requested,

 

Little Bytham's running sequence.......

 

1. Up. Glasgow-Colchester, mainly parcels.

2. Down. Peterborough-Doncaster stopper.

3. Up. Nottingham-Kings Cross semi-fast stopper.

4. Down. Kings Cross Perth, The Fair Maid/Morning Talisman.

5. Up. Leeds-Kings Cross, The West Riding.

6. Down. Kings Cross-Leeds, The White Rose.

7. Up. Doncaster-New England fitted freight.

8. Up. Colwick-New England unfitted coal.

9. Down. Ferme Park-Colwick unfitted mineral empties.

10. Up. Grantham-Peterborough stopper (waits for passage of following express).

11. Down. Kings Cross-Grantham semi-fast stopper.

12. Up. Sheffield-Kings Cross, The Master Cutler.

13. Up. Grantham-Peterborough stopper departs, taking Up fast to follow the Pullman.

14. Up. York/Hull-Kings Cross express.

15. Down. Kings Cross-Edinburgh, The Flying Scotsman.

16. Up. Newcastle-Kings Cross express.

17. Down. Essendine-Grantham local freight.

18. Down. Kings Cross-Leeds express.

19. Up. Leeds/West/East Riding-Kings Cross, The Yorkshire Pullman.

20. Down. New England-Doncaster unfitted freight (sets back into Down north lay-by).

21. Down. Kings Cross-Glasgow, The Queen of Scots.

22. Down. Kings Cross-Newcastle, The Northumbrian.

23. Down. Hornsey-Doncaster light engine (a diesel loco).

24. Down. New-England-Doncaster unfitted freight (leaves lay-by).

25. Up. Grantham-Peterborough pick-up goods (reverses into Up lay-by and shunts as required). 

26. Up. Doncaster-New England fitted freight.

27. Up. Doncaster-Peterborough semi-fast stopper.

28. Up. Grimsby-Kings Cross Goods and Mineral express fish.

29. Up. West Riding-Kings Cross express.

30. Up. Grantham-Peterborough pick-up leaves lay-by.

31. Down. Peterborough-Grantham pick-up goods (reverses into Down north lay-by and shunts as required).

32. Down. Kings Cross-York empty stock.

33. Down. Peterborough-Grantham stopper.

34. Down. Peterborough-Grantham, light engine (conveys water churns for remote signal boxes). 

35. Down. Peterborough-Grantham pick-up goods (leaves lay-by).

36. Up. Edinburgh-Kings Cross, The Elizabethan.

37. Down. Kings Cross-Niddrie, the Scotch Goods.

38. Up. Newcastle-Kings Cross express.

39. Up. Doncaster-Kings Cross, light engine (steam loco).

40. Down. Kings Cross-Newcastle, The Tees-Tyne Pullman.

41. Down. Peterborough-Lincoln DMU stopper (waits for passage of following express). 

42. Down. Kings Cross-Edinburgh/Glasgow express.

43. Down. Peterborough-Lincoln DMU departs, taking Up fast behind express.

44. Down. Cliffe-Uddingston cement train.

45. Up. Dringhouses (York)- New England fitted freight (stops on Up slow and waits).

46. Up. Doncaster-Peterborough stopper.

47. Up. Dringhouses-New England fitted freight departs, taking Up fast.

48. Up. Edinburgh-Kings Cross, the Afternoon Talisman. 

49. Down/Up. Kings Cross-Little Bytham returning excursion (loco runs round train and departs southbound as empty stock).

50. Up. Engineers' train (light engine picks up engineers' set from Up headshunt).

51. Down. Empty wagons (light engine picks up wagons from Down south lay-by). 

 

The above sequence is based on the WTT and PTT for the summer of 1958, but it is no way prescriptive. It is an interpretation and should never be regarded as an 'accurate' representation of a summer day's activity at Little Bytham. Naturally, it's only a fraction of what would have been seen (I don't have the space, nor the resources to do the lot!). It's also flexible; I dislike the notion of stock being used to represent more than one service (unless, say, it's an out-and-back for just one rake), but, to extend the sequence and use more locos, the freights can be used more than once. Many of the freights will be going further than New England, but they'd often be re-marshalled in that vast yard.

 

I hope this is of some little interest.  

 

Edited May 2, 2020 by Tony Wright
typo error

[manna]

1 hour ago, Woodcock29 said:

So perhaps I need to see if I can find an O4/3 shedded at Retford, Grantham, Lincoln or March? It doesn't appear as if any were ever shedded at New England. Roughly what years would you like?

 

Andrew

 

Hi Andrew.

 

Sometime in the early 30's, if you wouldn't mind.

 

Terry (aka manna)

[Headstock]

9 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

As requested,

 

Little Bytham's running sequence.......

 

The above sequence is based on the WTT and PTT for the summer of 1958, but it is no way prescriptive. It is an interpretation and should never be regarded as an 'accurate' representation of a summer day's activity at Little Bytham. Naturally, it's only a fraction of what would have been seen (I don't have the space, nor the resources to do the lot!). It's also flexible; I dislike the notion of stock being used to represent more than one service (unless, say, it's an out-and-back for just one rake), but, to extend the sequence and use more locos, the freights can be used more than once. Many of the freights will be going further than New England, but they'd often be re-marshalled in that vast yard.

 

I hope this is of some little interest.  

 

 

Good morning Tony,

 

many thanks for the time spent on this, it is very much of interest. I know that typing out lists can be a pain.

Edited May 2, 2020 by Headstock
not to take up space repeating the list.

[richard i]

4 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Richard,

 

A nice set of carriages. Could you provide a bit of information about the origins of the grab handles on the end vestibules?

Sure. 0.5mm wire bent up to match the drawing with 2 handrail knobs fed on for the middle supports. The reverse curves were a bit of a pain but production got quicker with time, up to 6 a night. It did not half eat up handrail knobs. 64 needed for the 4 coaches. 
simple really but time consuming. 
richard

[thegreenhowards]

10 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Andy,

 

'Tony often compares RTR out of the box with his locos which have every available orifice stuffed with lead. That is hardly a fair comparison. If the RTR loco is similarly stuffed, I’m sure it would get closer to kit built locos’ performance.'

 

I'm puzzled why you think it's not a fair comparison. 

 

It's really a question of needs (or wants, dependent on a point of view). Though most of my Mk.1 cars are modified Bachmann (about a third of the carriage stock on LB), the rest is mainly all-metal, kit-built items or metal-clad RTR plastic donors, all on free-running, but heavy, white metal bogies. Ask a Hornby A3 or A4 or Bachmann A1 or A2 to pull 14 of the all-metal cars and the answer is 'no'. There is no more room inside the plastic bodies for more weight (I've added some, where possible), so adhesion (not power) is the limiting factor. 

 

So, comparing the two - an extra-weighted RTR Pacific and an all-metal, kit-built (with added weight) Pacific is a necessity as far as I'm concerned. One won't do the job, one will. 

 

If the rolling stock on a layout is principally plastic RTR, then plastic RTR locos are ideal, and there'd be no need to kit-build (other than for the types which aren't available RTR). 

 

I concede, the RTR freight locos tend to be better at pulling, particularly the Heljan O2 and Bachmann 9F. However, and obviously not apparent from my pictures of 2-8-0s, though my ancient scratch-built O1 (made of brass and packed with lead) managed to position its 50-wagon, full coal train with ease for the camera (some of which are white metal kits), the Horby O1 had to be assisted by hand. 

 

I also concede that nowhere in RTR manufacturers literature does it claim that the locos will pull 14/15 kit-built carriages or 50-60 kit-built wagons. They're not designed for that ( though the the O2 and 9F probably would).

 

But, and we're back to horses for courses here, my locos have to; hence the comparison. 

 

Other observations/comparisons? The few RTR locos I have 'waddle' far more than my kit-built ones as they go along the track, because of the much greater degree of slop between the drivers and the frames. This is because they're designed for train set curves, and, to be fair, the manufacturers cannot legislate for the roads their products will have to run on, other than to ensure they'll go round tight curves. Yes, spacing washers can be inserted between the backs of the drivers and the frames (by nicking a segment out of a Peco one eighth fibre washer and pushing it over the axle) to reduce the slop but they still waddle in comparison.  

 

Another (more pernicious?) comparison is how long many of these latest pieces of RTR wonderment will last, particularly if subjected to the rigours of pulling very heavy trains (at speed). I've lost count of the number of modern busted gear trains I've had to diagnose in my role as loco-doctor at shows. I see Peter's Spares is offering stronger replacement gear sets for some Hornby steam-outline locos because of the failure rate. As for crumbling gear towers because of metal fatigue, who knows how long some will last? 

 

Meanwhile, it's good that so many can enjoy the RTR delights on offer right now (or those to come, providing if - or when - they arrive in the current crisis). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Good Afternoon Tony,

 

I've no doubt that you need a heavy kit built loco to haul your heaviest rakes, although I would be surprised if a suitably weighted RTR pacific couldn't manage many of your mainly Mark 1 rakes. I thought that you were comparing unweighted RTR with your locos which I think is unfair, but if you weight the RTR first then I agree that's a fair comparison.

 

My main point was really that modern RTR is remarkably good and will pull most prototypical length rakes which are thrown at them. I'm sure that you would admit that your rakes are at the extreme end of the weight spectrum!

 

I would rather we celebrate the magnificent kit built locos which are shown on here for their beauty and the research, creativity, skill and enjoyment which has gone into making them rather than by trying to justify them by putting down the haulage capability of RTR.

 

Just my honest opinion.

 

Andy

[TrevorP1]

22 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hello Tony

 

Having worked in an operating theater most operations like hernia repairs are done by a junior doctor under supervision of a not so junior doctor, with the consultant lapping up the praise from the patient despite not being in the same room. A surgeons training is see one, do one , then teach one. 

 

When I was a student nurse I was sat in the rest room with one of the orthopedic consultants, he started asking me what I thought about working it theaters. As the conversion progressed I plucked up courage to say as an engineer I treated metal with more respect than the junior doctors did when using tools like hand drills on living bone. Would it be to their advantage if they were shown how to use them in the hospital workshop before they did on a live patient. Realising how far I had pushed the boundaries I was expecting him to be cross with me. No he thought it was a very good idea.

 

The skill isn't the man with the scalpel but the gas man at the head end. I remember a surgeon and an anesthetist having a row and the  anesthetist reminding the surgeon "As fast as you are trying to kill the patient, I am trying to keep him alive." 

 

Last summer I had a root filling. Ultimately it was failure owing to the weird shape of my root canal and a previous repair with the technology of 25 years ago. However, even though I've used hand and machine tools since I God was boy, I felt that there was no way I would like to have tackled the job myself. To me the lady dentist showed great skill and was genuinely frustrated and dissapointed when it became clear that the far end of the root canal was too close to the outside of my tooth for a reliable repair. When it became clear I was not at all squeamish she proudly explained what she was doing and even showed me the mangled remains of my tooth after she was forced to remove it. She also told me about the next piece of dental technology on her 'wish list' at the dental Hattons.

 

Having seen operations on the TV I can understand what you mean though Clive. As you say some of the techniques would be considered 'butchery' in an engineering workshop... (Pun intended.).

 

Seriously and notwithstanding the above, my wife is alive and well today thanks to the skill of the surgeon who 'installed' another kidney for her. Also thanks to the team at the local hospital who keep it working.

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Good Afternoon Tony,

 

I've no doubt that you need a heavy kit built loco to haul your heaviest rakes, although I would be surprised if a suitably weighted RTR pacific couldn't manage many of your mainly Mark 1 rakes. I thought that you were comparing unweighted RTR with your locos which I think is unfair, but if you weight the RTR first then I agree that's a fair comparison.

 

My main point was really that modern RTR is remarkably good and will pull most prototypical length rakes which are thrown at them. I'm sure that you would admit that your rakes are at the extreme end of the weight spectrum!

 

I would rather we celebrate the magnificent kit built locos which are shown on here for their beauty and the research, creativity, skill and enjoyment which has gone into making them rather than by trying to justify them by putting down the haulage capability of RTR.

 

Just my honest opinion.

 

Andy

Good evening Andy,

 

I value your opinion, and it's axiomatic that it's honest. Please, never be reticent about expressing it.

 

Do I put down RTR haulage capability? I'm not stating an opinion when I observe that it's not as good as more-heavy, metal, kit-built locos; it's a fact. Of course (abstracting what I do), those kit-built locos have to be well-made, especially mechanically; I've seen too many that won't even pull their tenders, let alone a train. 

 

Whether I 'admit' that (some of) my 'rakes are at the extreme end of the weight spectrum' doesn't matter. What's to admit? If one wants to have a 'comprehensive' representation of pre-Nationalisation ECML rolling stock, particularly catering cars, articulated sets, ex-streamliners, all-door Gresley types and so forth, then kit-building is essential. Metal kit-building, usually - then it's 'weight and see!'. Thus, I 'admit' to building kits (for carriages), and building kits (for locos) to pull them. 

 

Comparisons are odious, anyway, and I'm often motivated to make my observations when I'm frequently asked at shows (though not of late!) 'Why are you making that loco? Hornbachhejlpol makes one of those'.  The fact that the question is asked means that the questioner will never understand. 

 

Anyway, if I try to be honest, I'm not particularly interested in owning what just about everyone else can own (if they have the cash) with regards to model railways. 

 

Just my opinion (I hope honest). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited May 2, 2020 by Tony Wright
typo error

[96701]

I remember chatting to Geoff Brewin and he was telling me that Comet Models was formed because three people wanted locos that could deal with the correct number of coaches for trains in the Birmingham area, and a couple of them had gradients which the RTR locos at the time couldn't cope with. (Pardon my grammar, sir.)  So, they knew some people who could cast whitemetal and set about devising bodies for LMS / BR locos that could give them some extra weight to get the locos up the gradients. Eventually, they discovered that the heavy bodies wouldn't fit on the existing chassis, so they went into chassis building. Being in Brum was kind of handy because all the engineering knowledge was there, so the birth of Comet Models was relatively swift, but the major benefit was that these heavy locos could  out haul anything that any RTR could get near.

 

Roll forward 20 years or so, and Geoff became full owner of Comet Models and built a folded dogbone layout in his loft which meant that there was a 1:100 gradient into the upper loop, so if there were no spare places in the upper loop, the train came to a stand on the gradient, and every loco that had set off slipped. Some of the original Comet loco kits would just about get  8 metal coaches going.

 

Me being a heathen turned up at Geoff's with a Heljan Western. It ended up starting a 16 coach train on the gradient which got Geoff thinking.....

 

He ended up developing the MGB gearbox and Maxon motor combo. It took him about 9 months to develop it, he would occasionally drop in little comments as to how things were going until one day, he showed me his resin bodied Duke of Gloucester set off an eight Comet model coach train from a standing start on his 1:100 gradient without any slipping at all.

 

I am not at all surprised that he looked smug, a resin bodied loco doing that was only possible because he had produced such a small motor / gearbox assembly that there was plenty of room for lead.

 

I wish he could have lasted a bit longer to have developed things further, he really understood the market and wanted to develop the business to the benefit of modellers.

Edited May 2, 2020 by 96701

[Tony Wright]

Just in case folk think I'm entirely anti-RTR, a few more pictures of Bytham's modified RTR express locos.....................

 

Most of these might well have been seen before, but in a different context.

 

 

On the eight-car 'Talisman' (some kit-built stock) this modified Hornby A4 has no problem. Ian Rathbone's painting lifts it into a different class, of course. 

 

 

For my Crowood book, I took a Bachmann A2 and detailed/renumbered/renamed it to eventually become VELOCITY.

 

 

 

Tom Foster weathered it to perfection. Visually, this is as 'good' as any A2 I've ever built, and it's a most-worthy 'layout loco' in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

When Bachmann's A1 first came out (as ABERDONIAN), I fitted etched brass smoke deflectors to it, changed the bogie wheels, added all the extra pipes, matched the loco's footplate to the tender's soleplate, renumbered/renamed it and then asked Ian Rathbone to just 'dust' it with his airbrush. I also packed it with as much lead as I could get in, which means its haulage capacity is 'adequate'. 

 

 

Though not often-used, this Bachmann Peppercorn pair are still on Bytham's roster. 

 

Unlike this one.......

 

 

I didn't sell this example because I was dissatisfied with it (though the wrong lean to the eccentric crank on this side is irritating), but because I never used it. It has the second motor (astonishingly, 60125 still has its original!), and I did all the same mods on this as with SCOTTISH UNION. It's new owner was delighted!

 

 

It was used from time to time on Stoke Summit, where nine Bachmann Mk.1s presented no difficulty for it. 

 

 

Apart from the odd look of the valve gear, Hornby's A3 is a fine model. Again, the usual mods were undertaken, and Tom Foster weathered this one. I should have taken the incorrect pipework off this side of the smokebox. 

 

 

I did take off the pipework on this one, and added what was correct. 

 

Though, as mentioned, all the above Pacifics aren't used much, they're quite happy on the lighter trains.

 

Still, I much prefer to build my own locos.....

 

 

 

Not much further to go now with the latest J6. One has to built, anyway; as yet there's not an RTR equivalent.......

 

 

Edited May 3, 2020 by Tony Wright
typo error

[landscapes]

49 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Just in case folk think I'm entirely anti-RTR, a few more pictures of Bytham's modified RTR express locos.....................

 

Most of these might well have been seen before, but in a different context.

 

 

On the eight-car 'Talisman' (some kit-built stock) this modified Hornby A4 has no problem. Ian Rathbone's painting lifts it into a different class, of course. 

 

 

For my Crowood book, I took a Bachmann A2 and detailed/renumbered/renamed it to eventually become VELOCITY.

 

 

 

Tom Foster weathered it to perfection. Visually, this is as 'good' as any A2 I've ever built, and it's a most-worthy 'layout loco' in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

When Bachmann's A1 first came out (as ABERDONIAN), I fitted etched brass smoke deflectors to it, changed the bogie wheels, added all the extra pipes, matched the loco's footplate to the tender's soleplate, renumbered/renamed it and then asked Ian Rathbone to just 'dust' it with his airbrush. I also packed it with as much lead as I could get in, which means its haulage capacity is 'adequate'. 

 

 

Though not often-used, this Bachmann Peppercorn pair are still on Bytham's roster. 

 

Unlike this one.......

 

 

I didn't sell this example because I was dissatisfied with it (though the wrong lean to the eccentric crank on this side is irritating), but because I never used it. It has the second motor (astonishingly, 60125 still has its original!), and I did all the same mods on this as with SCOTTISH UNION. It's new owner was delighted!

 

 

It was used from time to time on Stoke Summit, where nine Bachmann Mk.1s presented no difficulty for it. 

 

 

Apart from the odd look of the valve gear, Hornby's A3 is a fine model. Again, the usual mods were undertaken, and Tom Foster weathered this one. I should have taken the incorrect pipework off this side of the smokebox. 

 

 

I did take off the pipework on this one, and added what was correct. 

 

Though, as mentioned, all the above Pacifics aren't used much, they're quite happy on the lighter trains.

 

Still, I much prefer to build my own locos.....

 

 

 

Not much further to go now with the latest J6. One has to built, anyway; as yet there's not an RTR equivalent.......

 

 

Good Morning Tony

 

All absolutely superb looking models as well even if they are RTR, as I have said before I just do not have those skills to make up the masterpieces you produce.

 

I feel very comfortable with other aspects of railway modelling such as scratch building buildings and structures and many other parts of the hobby its just anything to do with metalwork or soldering just does not get on with me.

 

I hope you don't mind me down loading in a photo I set up just a few days ago trying to recreate that typical Haymarket view of the late 1950's , all the models in the photo are either Hornby or Bachmann RTR  all with minor modifications of some type with the exception of the A2/1, I know you prefer a kit-build models over a RTR models but I do feel the looks and detailing these companies now produce on their RTR locomotives is exceptional.

 

But one thing I totally agree with you is, you cannot match the feel and weight when you hold a good solid kit built model in your hands

 

Great photos.

 

Regards

 

David

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, landscapes said:

Good Morning Tony

 

All absolutely superb looking models as well even if they are RTR, as I have said before I just do not have those skills to make up the masterpieces you produce.

 

I feel very comfortable with other aspects of railway modelling such as scratch building buildings and structures and many other parts of the hobby its just anything to do with metalwork or soldering just does not get on with me.

 

I hope you don't mind me down loading in a photo I set up just a few days ago trying to recreate that typical Haymarket view of the late 1950's , all the models in the photo are either Hornby or Bachmann RTR  all with minor modifications of some type with the exception of the A2/1, I know you prefer a kit-build models over a RTR models but I do feel the looks and detailing these companies now produce on their RTR locomotives is exceptional.

 

But one thing I totally agree with you is, you cannot match the feel and weight when you hold a good solid kit built model in your hands

 

Great photos.

 

Regards

 

David

Why should I mind, David?

 

Quite the opposite. I'm delighted when others show their work.

 

Your locos are beautifully-natural, and you're exploiting what the RTR market provides to the full. How sensible. 

 

Just those wiggly pipes?

 

Many thanks.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[landscapes]

4 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Why should I mind, David?

 

Quite the opposite. I'm delighted when others show their work.

 

Your locos are beautifully-natural, and you're exploiting what the RTR market provides to the full. How sensible. 

 

Just those wiggly pipes?

 

Many thanks.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Thank you Tony

 

As Eric Kidd I believe once said it’s difficult to weather a Haymarket based Pacific as they were kept in such beautiful condition in the 1950’s

 

I have actually made a start in constructing the wiggly pipework when they are completed I just need the courage to fit them to the locomotive.

 

Regards

 

David

 

[gordon s]

Bit late to the party for 2-8-0's, but I have been playing catch up for a few days. An O1 built by Graham from a Little Engines kit, but I've added some cosmetic changes. There is as much lead as I could get into the body and it now weighs in at 560gms. Amazingly the tender alone weighs 180gms and I have added any weight there at all. I'm surprised the small Mashima motor moves it at all, but low gearing and great grip from the overall weight means it will pull anything I can throw at it.

 

Thanks for pointing out the incorrect pony wheels on the front, Tony. I took on board what you said and have now fitted the correct wheels from Alan Gibson. Had a minor problem with a few sparks flying once I fitted them. Graham had wired the whole loco with a live chassis, so it picked on one set of driving wheels, with the opposite side on the tender and front pony truck completing the circuit. I hadn't appreciated at the time of ordering the existing pony wheels had a live side and the new wheels are fully insulated. In the end I removed the wire connection to the post truck and all is OK. To make up for that, I've hard wired the tender, rather than the live stud/wiper that was there before. It runs a lot better with that permanent connection and hasn't suffered at all for losing the front pick up point. At some time in the future I will have it rebuilt to a fully insulated chassis, but that will require new wheels and a rebuild of the valve gear, so way beyond my basic skills.

 

After much deliberation, I had to make a start on weathering stock, so started with the vans. They've come out OK, but still need some additional work to provide a little variation. Still miles behind most on this thread, but I am enjoying the slow but steady progress.

 

[Tony Wright]

The J6 is finished,

 

It's taken much longer to complete than normal (over a fortnight!). Not that the actual hours of construction were longer, it's that there were interruptions. 

 

 

 

In the end I changed the drive for one of DJH's latest motor/gearbox combos. Though the 'box frames protrude further than the original, there's no visible gear wheel. Painted matt black, it's much less-obtrusive, and it's so much quieter. 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, gordon s said:

Bit late to the party for 2-8-0's, but I have been playing catch up for a few days. An O1 built by Graham from a Little Engines kit, but I've added some cosmetic changes. There is as much lead as I could get into the body and it now weighs in at 560gms. Amazingly the tender alone weighs 180gms and I have added any weight there at all. I'm surprised the small Mashima motor moves it at all, but low gearing and great grip from the overall weight means it will pull anything I can throw at it.

 

Thanks for pointing out the incorrect pony wheels on the front, Tony. I took on board what you said and have now fitted the correct wheels from Alan Gibson. Had a minor problem with a few sparks flying once I fitted them. Graham had wired the whole loco with a live chassis, so it picked on one set of driving wheels, with the opposite side on the tender and front pony truck completing the circuit. I hadn't appreciated at the time of ordering the existing pony wheels had a live side and the new wheels are fully insulated. In the end I removed the wire connection to the post truck and all is OK. To make up for that, I've hard wired the tender, rather than the live stud/wiper that was there before. It runs a lot better with that permanent connection and hasn't suffered at all for losing the front pick up point. At some time in the future I will have it rebuilt to a fully insulated chassis, but that will require new wheels and a rebuild of the valve gear, so way beyond my basic skills.

 

After much deliberation, I had to make a start on weathering stock, so started with the vans. They've come out OK, but still need some additional work to provide a little variation. Still miles behind most on this thread, but I am enjoying the slow but steady progress.

 

It all looks excellent, Gordon,

 

Thanks for showing us. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

7 hours ago, landscapes said:

Thank you Tony

 

As Eric Kidd I believe once said it’s difficult to weather a Haymarket based Pacific as they were kept in such beautiful condition in the 1950’s

 

I have actually made a start in constructing the wiggly pipework when they are completed I just need the courage to fit them to the locomotive.

 

Regards

 

David

 

The only time I ever saw any Haymarket-based locos, they were always clean. 

 

They were either on 'The Elizabethan' or running-in from Donny Plant. 

 

Of course, visitors from Tyneside were usually very dirty. I assume you have a few?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

I've just had a query from Jonathan Wealleans regarding the LRM J6, one of which he's building. 

 

He's found the article I wrote about it in the BRM 2011 Annual, but I told him a fib. I thought I'd not had to make new rods but I was wrong. They didn't match the frames. 

 

Thus, out of more general interest, and since J6s have been popular of late, I include the build-sequence here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think I dropped a few constructional bloopers along the way.............................