Wright writes.....

[Headstock]

3 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

Rod? You were lucky. I had to make do with a bit of bent and battered bar. And that was only I'd made it by heating copper and zinc ore and . . . 

 

 

 

Father called it Rod but it was really a cup of bile that he coughed up before running off with the Milk man.

[grahame]

7 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Father called it Rod but it was really a cup of bile that he coughed up before running off with the Milk man.

 

You had a milk man?!!!

 

 

 

[jrg1]

3 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

When I was at work one of the first things that we did with new engineering apprentices was to teach them to use a file. While most of them were highly computer literate few of then could use basic hand tools. We put them to shame as there was a woman who had no engineering qualifications who could prepare samples of steel for tensile testing and could file samples with parallel edges within 11/2 thou by hand and eye. Experience counts for a lot. I do agree  a kit sold to the general public should contain parts that are rather better than the example that you have.

Bernard

Turning the tube to length in a lathe would take a few seconds.  Supplying a sawn off bit of brass tube in a kit is not acceptable.  Like the margarine metal castings of MTK that bore no relation to the real thing. 

[Headstock]

14 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

You had a milk man?!!!

 

 

 

 

Father called him a Milk man, he was just very pale due to the rickets.

[jrg1]

3 hours ago, chris p bacon said:

Going off topic a little with this one but my Father had a similar apprenticeship.

 He was apprenticed as a Marine engineer at Allens of Bedford in 1936 and the first task they gave him involved a piece of 1" thick steel plate with a 3/4" hole bored in it, and a 1 1/2" or 2" rod, his task was to open out the 3/4" round hole to a 1" square hole, and to reduce the rod to a 63/64th's  square bar so it fitted through the hole with a fag paper as tolerance. All this had to be done with just 3 files, smooth, medium and B'stard. IIRC it took him 5 days to do and he passed. .......

The skill he had can't be genetic as I have trouble filing plasticard square!

This sounds like a variation on the classic "Cube and Square" test of the old days.  We had a similar test at Ruston and Hornsby with thick steel plate when I was an apprentice, and we had to achieve 8 fits to pass as a fitter.

[Northmoor]

10 minutes ago, Willie Whizz said:

 

I understand your point, Tony, but actually it's worse than that.  By the time the would-be modeller has accumulated not just the kit but the motor, gearbox, wheels, couplings of choice and other gubbins and actually  begins to start studying the instructions and the supplied components in detail with a view to commencing assembly ... it's too late; he (/she) is already a couple of hundred quid down the tubes and the proud owner of something they won't even begin to have the skill-set ,and the tools, to build until they have at least a dozen or more 'simpler' kits under their belt.  So at best yet another one goes on the "one of these days" pile, or else the purchaser gives up in despair and vows to stick to R-T-R in future.

 

Information like that needs to be on the outside of the box as an absolute minimum, and preferably in the manufacturer's catalogue and/or on their website and advertising.  I have argued before that the manufacturers and product reviewers really ought to subscribe to a 'difficulty rating' system against a widely accepted set of simple criteria.  It seems to work well enough in plastic aircraft modelling; why not in model railways?

I remember when DJH launched their beginner's kit for the Yorkshire Diesel Shunter at less than £50 and a I bought one to put "in the bank" for the future (it's still in the round-tuit pile, ahem).  The box contains everything needed to build a complete working model apart from the chosen adhesive and paint.  The instructions are detailed and comprehensive too.

 

There have been plenty of kits from less professional suppliers which (like Tony's example) contain poor instructions, have parts that need a lot of skilled fettling to fit together and have major components missing.  They then charge the customer (in real terms) sometimes more than the DJH example for a worse product.

 

A similar situation used to exist in the kit car world.  You could buy a kit for perhaps £10k with all GRP panels finished with smooth edges, holes pre-drilled and primed for the customer's final colour choice, a complete set of chassis parts with all holes and brackets completed and ready for assembly.  Some kits even came with a decent set of instructions.  Alternatively you could buy a kit that was advertised as Build-your-own-car-for-£2000, neglecting to mention that you were supplied with unfinished body panels (so lovely rough glass fibre edges to emded in your skin), chassis parts cut to length if you were lucky and instructions were two photocopied sheets of A4 paper.  If you made no allowance for your time, the expertise and tools you would need to acquire and assumed the doner vehicle was about £50, yes you could build a car for £2000.

 

There is a reason kit car manufacturers like Caterham and Westfield have been in business for decades while perhaps 90% of manufacturers have come and gone within five years; professionalism sells.  I suspect the same applies to model locomotive kits.  How long have DJH been in business?

[St Enodoc]

10 hours ago, Steven B said:

He spent weeks trying to make a perfect 1" cube

...and ended up with a 1cm cube...

[DougN]

13 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

Tony (G)

Malcolm's book ranks along with Yeadon's Appendix on LNER tenders, which of course covers the GC tenders so well, as indispensable parts of my library. I'm lucky my main two interests are the ex GC and GN parts of the LNER!

 

Recently I had need to sort tender types on a Q6, that was difficult and could only be done with photos.

 

Andrew

Andrew, you can always ask for help. I have selected Yeadons on the NER loco's. they tend to be purchased to go with a kit build!

[Woodcock29]

1 hour ago, DougN said:

Andrew, you can always ask for help. I have selected Yeadons on the NER loco's. they tend to be purchased to go with a kit build!

Hi Doug

I was using the Yeadon on NE 0-8-0s ( I've acquired most of them now other than the Scottish locos). I've always loved the Q6s despite being basically outside my area.  My mistake was in ordering and then buying the first Hornby LNER version of the Q6 without realising it was not easy to make it into a pre-war version with the tender it came with. In the end I've had to change the boiler fittings and move the position of the dome to make it one with the earlier Dia 50 boiler. I've actually airbrushed it in the last two hours!

 

Ok so changing the boiler fittings is not difficult for us modellers but I hadn't planned on having to do that. I salvaged a dome and safety valves off an old NuCast botched Q6 I was given some years ago. I cut the top off an old w/m chimney to get a curved piece of w/m that I could add to the Hornby chimney for the capuchon.

 

At least I got to remove the strip that Hornby modelled along the top of the boiler that I believe is incorrect in the process.

 

I'll post a photo once it's finished - problem is its distracted me from other more important modelling tasks. But I decided to finish off or undertake a range of minor modelling projects just to reduce the list!

 

Andrew

 

[grahame]

7 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Father called him a Milk man, he was just very pale due to the rickets.

 

Was his name Ernie or Ted?

 

[Tony Wright]

This must be a sort of 'mini' record. A whole page of Wright Writes without a single post from me! 

 

Many thanks for all the recent contributions. 

 

Going back to bits of hacked-off brass tube, though I don't claim to have any 'engineering' training (I went to art school and teacher training college as my further education), I reckon I can file the ends of the bits fairly true and square. One end will be virtually invisible (against the cab front/tanks) and the other 'disguised' by further wrappers. I'm also adept enough with a piercing saw to cut through the tube with 'reasonable' accuracy. However, though I have three vices (tools, I mean, not the legion of others), none has a 'V' in its jaws. 

 

Which brings me back to the provision of bits in some kits, where the instructions (not that I read them) should make it clear that, with the parts supplied and the methodology of construction employed, a high degree of skill/experience is required and access to a wide range of tools, often machine ones. 

 

I'm reliably informed that over 90% of loco kits are never finished (though, with the present crisis, this percentage might well come down). Many are started, then abandoned; the builders disillusioned and depressed because of their 'abject failure'. An expensive failure as well! Despite some disliking them, I find DJH kits (the post A1 ones) excellent, and have lost count of the number I've built. SE Finecast are also very good. Neither of these manufacturers' kits need access to 'more-sophisticated' tools to complete them successfully. Compare that with a B&M outside-framed tank I built some little time ago, where the frames weren't even drilled for the bearings - just rudimentary dimples provided. OK, I have a decent pillar drill, but is anyone here skilled enough to drill frames by hand? Or the ex-LNWR 0-8-4T (from a 'high-end' manufacturer) where the chassis was a nightmare to get running. Even the designer thought it perhaps 'too complex'. Or two loco kits where the coupling rods didn't match the bearing holes in the frames. 'Thar's not doin' it reet' (that's the best I can do at speaking Yorkshire) was the reaction from the designer after I'd made new rods, but that story has been told before.

 

Is there any mystery why RTR is so popular then? A discussion frequently aired on here, I know, but there are still too many dud kits out there.

 

Anyway, it's back to the NLR tank and the A3 today. I know which I prefer making......

 

 

[Bernard Lamb]

11 hours ago, chris p bacon said:

Going off topic a little with this one but my Father had a similar apprenticeship.

 

To continue on the same theme.

At the Welding Institute they had a little test.

You had to "sign in" by writing your name on a piece of 25mm plate using a welding rod.

No problem for experienced welders, but it did teach designers very quickly the need for a design to be workable.

Bernard 

[Clive Mortimore]

15 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Steven,

 

A plumber's pipe cutter? I don't know; because of not really knowing any plumbers nor ever having seen a pipe cutter in action. 

 

It would make an interesting adjunct to the instructions - 'For making sure that the boiler/smokebox ends are true, make friends with a plumber and borrow his pipe cutter'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Hello Tony

 

Pipe cutters are readily available from DIY shops. I use one for cutting pipes which form the cylinder barrel for tank wagons. A nice square cut with no burr.

 

Downside Mrs M knows I can no longer say I cannot do the plumbing as I don't have a pipe cutter.

[Bucoops]

17 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

To continue on the same theme.

At the Welding Institute they had a little test.

You had to "sign in" by writing your name on a piece of 25mm plate using a welding rod.

No problem for experienced welders, but it did teach designers very quickly the need for a design to be workable.

Bernard 

 

When I was (trying to) do my degree, there was a practical side of it at Hull College - the idea being - correctly - that if you want to be a mechanical engineer you need to know how to actually make something, not just draw something and hand it over to a perplexed craftsman to attempt to turn it into reality. For the arc welding part, I managed to weld the work to the bench, and the rod to the work. Made a lovely persistent hum, that welding kit did  As for signing my name, unless rat droppings counted then no chance!

 

I fared a bit better with the MIG and better still with TIG - but not enough that any local welders felt threatened. 

[Clive Mortimore]

8 hours ago, jrg1 said:

This sounds like a variation on the classic "Cube and Square" test of the old days.  We had a similar test at Ruston and Hornsby with thick steel plate when I was an apprentice, and we had to achieve 8 fits to pass as a fitter.

Hi jrg

 

As an apprentice with the GEGB we had a similar "Cube and Square" excise. We also learnt the most important tool for a bench fitter was his file card. Clogged up files will not allow you to work properly.

[Joseph_Pestell]

34 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hello Tony

 

Pipe cutters are readily available from DIY shops. I use one for cutting pipes which form the cylinder barrel for tank wagons. A nice square cut with no burr.

 

Downside Mrs M knows I can no longer say I cannot do the plumbing as I don't have a pipe cutter.

 

Pipe cutters are not going to work to clean up a length of pipe that has already been cut close to length. You would need to start from a new piece of pipe.

 

And perhaps worth pointing out the "bleeding obvious". It needs to be an adjustable pipe cutter (looks a bit like a small G-clamp) rather than the more common cylindrical type which are specific to the diameter of pipe, unless your loco boiler just happens to match a standard size of plumbing pipe. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

31 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

 

When I was (trying to) do my degree, there was a practical side of it at Hull College - the idea being - correctly - that if you want to be a mechanical engineer you need to know how to actually make something, not just draw something and hand it over to a perplexed craftsman to attempt to turn it into reality. For the arc welding part, I managed to weld the work to the bench, and the rod to the work. Made a lovely persistent hum, that welding kit did  As for signing my name, unless rat droppings counted then no chance!

 

I fared a bit better with the MIG and better still with TIG - but not enough that any local welders felt threatened. 

 

I wish that they would do the same for architects.

[Killybegs]

When I was training to be a Quantity Surveyor, during the first year of the course, we spent one morning a week leaning the building trades. Hands on plastering,  lead bashing, plumbing, machine woodworking, bricklaying, etc. Once the course was transferred to the Polytechnic that, sadly, stopped.

[t-b-g]

Many years ago, when I was wanting a NLR 0-6-0T for a possible Cromford Wharf layout, which never happened, I purchased an old Gem kit. It fell together and was the quickest loco I have ever built. Probably 10 hours in total. One evening for the mechanism. It was supposed to be a quicky until I got a better one so I used the whitemetal chassis block. It was nicely cast, square and level. One evening for the body and one to paint it plain black and add a few details. My dad took a photo of 27505 in LMS livery at Cromford in 1947, which is what inspired me to forsake my beloved GCR for a while but sanity returned! 

 

I saw the etched kit and thought that I would get one and perhaps replace the Gem one with a more "upmarket" version but in mine, I found that many of the etched parts were clearly over etched and had jagged edges that if I cleaned up, the parts would be too small. So it stayed in the box and is still there.

 

The whitemetal lump has now worked on several layouts and is presently employed on a P.Way train on Narrow Road.

 

I found that getting correct wheels was difficult. The choice at the time was Romford or Gibson and neither had the right pattern. So I got six Romfords and decided that if I cut out all the spokes but 4, I could add in 2 new spokes to replace the 3 I had cut out in each quarter. Then I found some correct Sharman wheels on a second hand stall and bought them but have never got them fitted. So the loco has been running for around 25 years, with 5 wheels with 16 spokes and 1 with only 4 (always on the non viewing side!). Nobody has ever mentioned it at dozens of shows we have done. It could do with an upgrade (brakes etc. below the footplate, Sharman wheels, a better and more accurate paint job) but until then, she is a pretty little thing and runs superbly. Here she is on Sutton Dock.

 

[PJT]

40 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

We also learnt the most important tool for a bench fitter was his file card

 

Oh, never a truer word spoken!

 

Looking back over the last couple of pages, funny how so many of us went through the same (or remarkably similar) experiences in our further and higher education.   It's lovely to read it and brings plenty of knowing smiles to my face as I do so. 

 

Shame it seems so much less acceptable nowadays to get your hands dirty as part of your learning.  Even if you don't intend to carry on at a workbench once you've embarked on your career, having first-hand experience of what you may be asking others to do is so vital - but so often lacking.

 

Pete T.

[FarrMan]

27 minutes ago, PJT said:

 

Oh, never a truer word spoken!

 

Looking back over the last couple of pages, funny how so many of us went through the same (or remarkably similar) experiences in our further and higher education.   It's lovely to read it and brings plenty of knowing smiles to my face as I do so. 

 

Shame it seems so much less acceptable nowadays to get your hands dirty as part of your learning.  Even if you don't intend to carry on at a workbench once you've embarked on your career, having first-hand experience of what you may be asking others to do is so vital - but so often lacking.

 

Pete T.

 

I fully agree. I have always admired a good craftsman, and felt that that was the main part of my education as a chartered civil engineer that was missing. When I was lecturing (in Inverness), I used to try to get the students into the brick workshop to see what could be done with brick, and to get the brickie lecturers to explain the basics to them. That was an advantage of being in a place where you could do a technical degree and/or a craft skill.

 

Lloyd

[cctransuk]

35 minutes ago, FarrMan said:

 

I fully agree. I have always admired a good craftsman, and felt that that was the main part of my education as a chartered civil engineer that was missing.

 

I couldn't agree more !! How a civil engineer is supposed to learn the essentials of their chosen career within three years of lectures, and the odd session in the lab, defeats me. When I left college and joined a local government engineering team I had less practical knowledge than the chainman.

 

My professional expertise was learned from site foremen and craftsmen, who (usually) prevented me from committing 'howlers'. Occasionally, in non-critical situations, I would have my errors pointed out after they were set in stone (or concrete) - they were the lessons most quickly learned!

 

John Isherwood.

[jrg1]

2 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi jrg

 

As an apprentice with the GEGB we had a similar "Cube and Square" excise. We also learnt the most important tool for a bench fitter was his file card. Clogged up files will not allow you to work properly.

Hi Clive

Working in a factory that built diesel engines, locomotives, turbo-blowers, gas turbines and hydraulic motors, we were taught that the most important tool was a hammer.

[DougN]

1 hour ago, Killybegs said:

When I was training to be a Quantity Surveyor, during the first year of the course, we spent one morning a week leaning the building trades. Hands on plastering,  lead bashing, plumbing, machine woodworking, bricklaying, etc. Once the course was transferred to the Polytechnic that, sadly, stopped.

 

Your right most of the construction courses gave up on hands on in the mid 90's. In fact I have concerns that the current teaching of apprentices has gone the same way, something about we dont want them to hurt themselves! Some of the latest carpenters, I have been unfortunate to deal with, keep proving this point! I should mention that I was on the University of Melbourne Course review board up until 2010, for the Property and Construction courses (Property, Construction management, and QS) . (Bachelor and Masters levels in Property and Construction). I am a qualified QS, and Construction manager, or in UK speak, CIOB, RICS!

 

The interesting thing about people interested in construction generally end up doing their own renovations and learn the hardway! I would also state, I would take a person, doing professional level roles, who has learnt the skills or understanding over some one who hasn't. The reason for this  they can deal with a trade more easily as they realize the person saying what to do, actually understands the process. I am mentoring a guy doing just this at the moment, he is a great guy and learning from the work he did on site last year, while coming into the office this year while doing his University course and learning the techniques to negotiate deals with trades and the clients!. 

 

It is the experience of doing vs telling some one to do it. Along with understanding that any thing to do with building is heavy, Any one who has met me knows I only come in one size BIG. 

 

I count model railways for starting on the career direction I took as it covers all the "trades" and engineering requirements. Making things has always been part of who I am! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Clive Mortimore]

19 minutes ago, jrg1 said:

Hi Clive

Working in a factory that built diesel engines, locomotives, turbo-blowers, gas turbines and hydraulic motors, we were taught that the most important tool was a hammer.

Hi jrg

 

When I was a gun fitter in the army a selection of differing size hammers for different jobs was the first line of fixing anything. I also was taught, it isn't how hard you hit something that works it is the method of hitting accompanied with the correct non RMweb word works best.