Jump to content

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Tony Wright

Wright writes.....

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, zr2498 said:

Some more progress on bridge civil works. The Townstreet stone castings really lend themselves to creating a great deal of variation in appearance which makes weathering a relatively simple task.

 

The abutments and central pier have been aligned and levelled via a laser with the bridges temporarily put in place.

 

Next comes the painting and weathering of the truss bridges. Thanks Tony for letting me practice on your Little Bytham bridge!

I have ordered handrail stanchions for the bridges but have yet to decide the design for the deck.

2mm PCB will form the base of the deck and there will be longitudinal timbers for the rails (with ties) and check rails, but not sure if a plated or timbered deck, or ballasted deck would be the most appropriate. There are truss bridge photographs available looking from the outside but views looking along the deck of such a bridge are in short supply. If anyone has some info to help it would be appreciated.

Dave

 

Wow,

 

it's like Game of Thrones for model railway geeks.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

That's the one, I remember the Knutsford B7 very well, lovely model. I seem to remember it featured on the cover of one of the Railway mags many years ago, possibly BRM, Tony W may remember. It's nice to know that the Roy Jackson B7 has an appreciative home, despite the sad circumstances.

 

There is a third set of etches and white metal and other components for the full kit in existence. They were acquired by a friend of mine back in the day, who never did anything with them. I have them now, so watch this space, though I'm still intrigued by the RM web model that is in the offing. Two B7's, pure greed?

 

The B7 is really too modern for my period, so I think one will be enough for me.

 

I have replaced or altered so many bits on Valour that I might as well have scratchbuild it. There is a fault on it now that would be such a horror to correct that I have decided to live with it. The cylinders are tucked too far under the footplate and it is the footplate that is too wide but it would mean altering all the valance, which was hard work due to the various widths. It would have been better to move the cylinders out a fraction as clearances in EM are very tight.

 

Still, if it was easy, it wouldn't be as satisfying,  or so I keep telling myself!

  • Friendly/supportive 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

That's the one, I remember the Knutsford B7 very well, lovely model. I seem to remember it featured on the cover of one of the Railway mags many years ago, possibly BRM, Tony W may remember. It's nice to know that the Roy Jackson B7 has an appreciative home, despite the sad circumstances.

 

 

It features on the cover of the October 2007 Railway Modeller.

 

Simon (fellow B7 fan)

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

This system isn't complicated, it's very simple and just about foolproof. I does not and isn't intended to provide full compensation but it helps a great deal. I've been using this system, scratchbuilt and etched, for many more years than I care to remember and it's included in nearly all our kits. The way to move on to full compensation isn't to put a beam in the middle which in my experience is a good way to get wobbly running but to add a rocking arrangement to the third axle. It does break down once more than three axles are involved, with four axles I leave one of the intermediates lightly sprung - I haven't done anything with more than four axles yet.DSCF2571.JPG.114fdbf7148d1dbfc20598c91ac56386.JPG

This photo of one of our North British 440hp 0-6-0s shows full compensation on the same system (bearings not fitted, this is only a test etch/display model), the trailing axle runs in swinging arms pivoted as far back as practical. The arms pass round the jackshaft axle, the axle itself is allowed to rock under a knife edge. The whole thing is based on round holes, etched in these cases but it can be done by jig drilling, and no fitting is required as with hornblock systems.

 

 

It's not clear to me whether the beams on the original Dewry model picture are locked together or move independently.  Either way, with a fixed front axle, it cannot compensate for any form of twisted track.  And a bump/dip on one rail that is not exactly duplicated on the opposite rail is a form or track twist. And as Mr. Davies correctly points out, the (instantaneous or static) result in those circumstances is a rocking chassis. I think I'm correct in that the Dewry version also needs to be built on a flat surface to ensure no rocking later on flat track.

 

I agree that giving a rocking freedom to the 3rd axle very simply fixes the twisted track issue.  And I would definitely recommend including it any future build.

 

I'm not a proponent of model springing (and hornblocks) to improve track holding, it has far to many unhelpful variables compared to using equalizing side beams. But is nowadays quite possible to to build side beam chassis without hornblocks, but with transverse equalization as well, that will build and run perfectly  on almost any track quality without any individual build adjustment or alignment needed. 

 

Andy

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

That's the one, I remember the Knutsford B7 very well, lovely model. I seem to remember it featured on the cover of one of the Railway mags many years ago, possibly BRM, Tony W may remember. 

Built by my Uncle Dick Petter!

 

2 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

... I'm still intrigued by the RM web model that is in the offing. Two B7's, pure greed?

 

First 20 production etches in the PPD etching queue as we speak ...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

It's not clear to me whether the beams on the original Dewry model picture are locked together or move independently.  Either way, with a fixed front axle, it cannot compensate for any form of twisted track.  And a bump/dip on one rail that is not exactly duplicated on the opposite rail is a form or track twist. And as Mr. Davies correctly points out, the (instantaneous or static) result in those circumstances is a rocking chassis. I think I'm correct in that the Dewry version also needs to be built on a flat surface to ensure no rocking later on flat track.

 

I agree that giving a rocking freedom to the 3rd axle very simply fixes the twisted track issue.  And I would definitely recommend including it any future build.

 

I'm not a proponent of model springing (and hornblocks) to improve track holding, it has far to many unhelpful variables compared to using equalizing side beams. But is nowadays quite possible to to build side beam chassis without hornblocks, but with transverse equalization as well, that will build and run perfectly  on almost any track quality without any individual build adjustment or alignment needed. 

 

Andy

 

I could see that one coming from your first post on the matter!

 

In the words of the late great John Prine, "A question ain't really a question, if you know the answer too".

 

I am sure that Mike Edge, one of the most experienced and skilled loco builders, possibly the most prolific individual builder of super quality locos, will be devastated to find out that he has been doing it wrong all these years!

 

It is one of those areas where what happens in theory and what happens in practise, are two different things. Nobody is saying that this arrangement gives full compensation. What it does do is to stop a loco going over a hump in the track, rocking on a centre axle.

 

There is a good argument for not carrying too much weight on the centre line of a loco as it makes it more unstable. There is also a good argument for having full compensation. The fact is, they both work! It comes down to personal preference as do so many of these things.

 

But please, don't try to tell somebody with Mike Edge's abilities that he is doing it wrong. He has a modelling resume as long as you like to prove otherwise.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 8
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Built by my Uncle Dick Petter!

 

 

First 20 production etches in the PPD etching queue as we speak ...

Thought you’d like to know that I received a delivery from PPD on Saturday so they are back in production albeit at reduced capacity currently.

Frank

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Built by my Uncle Dick Petter!

 

 

First 20 production etches in the PPD etching queue as we speak ...

 

Sometimes I love RM web. The Best news in weeks.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't expect to see 6911 Holker Hall rolling through LB it gave me quite a lift in these strange times.  Shedded at 84C when I started on BR back end  of '62 I cleaned it many times and fired it quite a few times.  I seem to remember the tender had no snaphead riviets  I think it was welded, so  DJH got it wrong, for the '60's at any rate.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

It's not clear to me whether the beams on the original Dewry model picture are locked together or move independently.  Either way, with a fixed front axle, it cannot compensate for any form of twisted track.  And a bump/dip on one rail that is not exactly duplicated on the opposite rail is a form or track twist. And as Mr. Davies correctly points out, the (instantaneous or static) result in those circumstances is a rocking chassis. I think I'm correct in that the Dewry version also needs to be built on a flat surface to ensure no rocking later on flat track.

 

Andy

 

What have I started? :)

 

The beams are not connected - although the axles of course connect them to a certain extent - there will be very little independent movement.

 

As I have said earlier, this is my first "compensated" build - it will be interesting to see how it works out.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Evening Tony,

 

In case you'd thought I'd lost interest in my self-imposed 'Covid challenge' - not so!

 

DSC09908.JPG.5718f20ec63270887169b15912522300.JPG

 

DSC09909.JPG.65e06a5d8ccb225e8c6076a1050aa9c1.JPG

 

This is 'Day 28' for me. The loco is all motored and 'goes', with not much more detailing required now. Tender also well on its way. Full story on the Grantham thread.

 

Of course, I know you'll have built about four more locos since my last report ... but I'm not that quick at building AND do have the occasional piece of 'real' work to occupy my time. Most of what you see here has been built between 10pm and 1am each (late) evening! Always been my best time of day for modelling ...

 

It's looking good Graham,

 

Thanks for posting.

 

Were the cast metal chimney and dome supplied in the kit? The LRM locos I've built had turned or lost wax brass items for these things, which I think are better. It looks as if you've got a few file marks to clean up. 

 

I still do the occasional piece of 'real' work as well - well, if you count proof-reading and subbing, plus writing book reviews for BRM 'real' work. 

 

I've only finished three locos since you started yours. 

 

This afternoon, it was thorough testing for my latest...................................

 

1558932321_J1708.jpg.921be757455abbe9762bdbdac6fccfa8.jpg

 

49388080_J1709.jpg.d7cfb88a42de16bfeeeb19b6fedf21ef.jpg

 

She runs really sweetly.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited by Tony Wright
typo error
  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the circumstances, I certainly won't be putting a photo of MY J17 here. It's a BEC kit which ran originally on a Triang chassis, then got Romford wheels, then finished up on a more modern Hornby Jinty chassis. Laughable, but it was bought as a present by Mrs RowanJ in 1971 in what were called our courting days" back then. I wouldn't part with it,

  • Like 7
  • Friendly/supportive 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mike 84C said:

I didn't expect to see 6911 Holker Hall rolling through LB it gave me quite a lift in these strange times.  Shedded at 84C when I started on BR back end  of '62 I cleaned it many times and fired it quite a few times.  I seem to remember the tender had no snaphead riviets  I think it was welded, so  DJH got it wrong, for the '60's at any rate.

Glad you liked it Mike,

 

According to Irwell's 'the Book of', 6911 towed five different tenders in BR days, so one could have had prominent rivets.

 

The choice of name was not mine, so the tender could be wrong for 6911. 

 

DJH supplied the riveted tender. It's up to the builder to choose the correct loco for it, really. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rowanj said:

Under the circumstances, I certainly won't be putting a photo of MY J17 here. It's a BEC kit which ran originally on a Triang chassis, then got Romford wheels, then finished up on a more modern Hornby Jinty chassis. Laughable, but it was bought as a present by Mrs RowanJ in 1971 in what were called our courting days" back then. I wouldn't part with it,

Go on, John,

 

Let's see it, please.

 

One of my first loco kits was a J11 from exactly the same sources. Made about the same time as well. Unlike you, I didn't keep it - nor loads of others from my 'formative years'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi Michael,

I accept that the basic design that you use in your kits is much simpler than installing horn guides and I imagine also guarantees avoiding tight spots due to discrepancies between coupling rod and horn guide spacings.  I think your (full compensation) system in the NB shunter is ingenious in its simplicity of construction.   But the key point I was trying to make, and which you have confirmed, is that twin beams on their own do not provide full compensation.

 

I can imagine that the twin beam approach has some benefits for P4 modellers and will offer an improvement over a rigid chassis for keeping the model on the track.  But in OO and EM compensation is not required to improve track holding as Sir has often demonstrated (if not remonstrated).  In these gauges the primary, if not only, benefit of compensation is to keep the wheels firmly planted to improve current collection.  Anything less than full compensation will allow the weight to lift off one or more of the wheels on uneven track reducing (or preventing) their effectiveness for collecting current.  This is the point that I am banging on (and on) about. 

 

I am desperately trying not to be critical, I am just trying to present information as accurately as I can in the hope it may help others to understand the principles behind compensation.

 

Regards,

Frank

It isn't intended to be full compensation as I'm sure Nick knows but it is much better than all rigid.  With regard to central beams, a quick look at full size practice (always a good idea) reveals that compensating beams are always placed as close to the wheels as practicable, I don't see why we should do something different. In case anyone thinks there are rules about this, have a look at the GEC 6wh diesels built in some numbers for British Steel, NCB and ICI and still in use. These have the first and second axles connected with compensating beams on the LH side and the second and third axles connected on the RH side - I haven't built one of these yet but I'm fascinated to see how it will work. These locos do of course have springing as well but the compensation is intended to help with uneven track.

P6021312small.jpg.804d54cdd48c3b8f798cf07e1a87f438.jpg

This is quite a bit more complicated than the average model system but it's compensation nonetheless. 

IMG_7647.JPG.bc7c850c0ee1c57fa9f54fbdea2aa70a.JPG.264e9ffb392123f0b05350631cd102eb.JPG

  • Like 6
  • Informative/Useful 3

Share this post


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

It's looking good Graham,

 

Thanks for posting.

 

Were the cast metal chimney and dome supplied in the kit? The LRM locos I've built had turned or lost wax brass items for these things, which I think are better. It looks as if you've got a few file marks to clean up. 

 

 

No, they weren't in the kit. By the 1930s the locos sported a variety of chimneys and domes and I want to depict this loco with a more squat LNER chimney and lower dome, as apparent in many of the pictures from my reference sources (RCTS Vol 3B and Locos Illustrated 126, the latter courtesy of Gilbert) - this will make a nice contrast with my existing D2 which sports the older, GNR style chimney (as provided in the kit).

 

DSC09903.JPG.1cb0ede048454c4865652760dd671b69.JPG

For the chimney, I turned my own, based on a suitable looking specimen in my chimneys box so it is quite smooth in reality. The dome would indeed benefit from a clean up before the primer goes on.

 

 

  • Like 7
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3

Share this post


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

It isn't intended to be full compensation as I'm sure Nick knows but it is much better than all rigid.  With regard to central beams, a quick look at full size practice (always a good idea) reveals that compensating beams are always placed as close to the wheels as practicable, I don't see why we should do something different. In case anyone thinks there are rules about this, have a look at the GEC 6wh diesels built in some numbers for British Steel, NCB and ICI and still in use. These have the first and second axles connected with compensating beams on the LH side and the second and third axles connected on the RH side - I haven't built one of these yet but I'm fascinated to see how it will work. These locos do of course have springing as well but the compensation is intended to help with uneven track.

P6021312small.jpg.804d54cdd48c3b8f798cf07e1a87f438.jpg

This is quite a bit more complicated than the average model system but it's compensation nonetheless. 

IMG_7647.JPG.bc7c850c0ee1c57fa9f54fbdea2aa70a.JPG.264e9ffb392123f0b05350631cd102eb.JPG

 

Some ambitious engineer wanting to make a name for him or herself by inventing yet another way of keeping the wheels on the track!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I throw my hat into the J17 ring? Bearing in mind that all the posted photos are from different angles, I think that looking at the preserved one and using that as a basis to compare. I think the whole smokebox boiler unit on Tonys model sits too low.  My reasoning stems from looking at the r/h sandbox and to me the curve of the smokebox  goes several inches   above the sandbox before it starts  the major curve of its diameter, the boiler also seems to have more space underneath it. So raising the whole unit 2mm? brings the firebox top closer to the cab window frames.  As a confessed fan of GW locos I shall take cover!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Some ambitious engineer wanting to make a name for him or herself by inventing yet another way of keeping the wheels on the track!

Looking at the photos and drawing its a very clean, neat and probably low maintenance solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Mike 84C said:

Looking at the photos and drawing its a very clean, neat and probably low maintenance solution.

 

Very likely but I don't think it was adopted widely on other loco types. I have never seen another one quite like it.

Edited by t-b-g

Share this post


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

 

What have I started? :)

 

The beams are not connected - although the axles of course connect them to a certain extent - there will be very little independent movement.

 

As I have said earlier, this is my first "compensated" build - it will be interesting to see how it works out.

 

3 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

It isn't intended to be full compensation as I'm sure Nick knows but it is much better than all rigid.  With regard to central beams, a quick look at full size practice (always a good idea) reveals that compensating beams are always placed as close to the wheels as practicable, I don't see why we should do something different. In case anyone thinks there are rules about this, have a look at the GEC 6wh diesels built in some numbers for British Steel, NCB and ICI and still in use. These have the first and second axles connected with compensating beams on the LH side and the second and third axles connected on the RH side - I haven't built one of these yet but I'm fascinated to see how it will work. These locos do of course have springing as well but the compensation is intended to help with uneven track.

P6021312small.jpg.804d54cdd48c3b8f798cf07e1a87f438.jpg

This is quite a bit more complicated than the average model system but it's compensation nonetheless. 

IMG_7647.JPG.bc7c850c0ee1c57fa9f54fbdea2aa70a.JPG.264e9ffb392123f0b05350631cd102eb.JPG

 

Pretty much all UK locomotives use springing as the primary suspension with side equalization only added for extra wheel movement if needed.  In the US it's typically a mixture of equalization with springing as much track is far more uneven than in Europe. In the example above, the prototype's small degree of track twist is handled by the springs.

 

Unfortunately for we small scale modellers, our track is not at all as flat and springing does not scale down at all well to emulate the prototype's sufficient track holding effect. So like you I use twin beams (or just moving side frames) close to the wheels. But for the typical model degree of track twist I have to add soft springing or proper transverse equalization to cope. The good thing about using transverse equalization is that it can obviate the need to build a the rigid parts of the chassis precisely square and true on an extremely flat surface.

 

There is no need for rules other than fundamentally complying with basic geometry and the Laws of Physics at a small scale. Those are quite sufficient to predict and evaluate the effectiveness of a model design.  So I am curious as to what you understand the advantages of the Dewry mode's suspension  over a rigid chassis to be

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, Mike 84C said:

Can I throw my hat into the J17 ring? Bearing in mind that all the posted photos are from different angles, I think that looking at the preserved one and using that as a basis to compare. I think the whole smokebox boiler unit on Tonys model sits too low.  My reasoning stems from looking at the r/h sandbox and to me the curve of the smokebox  goes several inches   above the sandbox before it starts  the major curve of its diameter, the boiler also seems to have more space underneath it. So raising the whole unit 2mm? brings the firebox top closer to the cab window frames.  As a confessed fan of GW locos I shall take cover!

 

I can see why you have that impression as I had it too but then I had another look and changed my mind.

 

I think the splashers are a bit oversize to allow for over scale wheel flanges, which does alter the relationship with the curve on the smoke box. It also covers some of the gap under the boiler slightly more than it should. The dummy frame above the footplate is also slightly taller than it should be, reducing the gap under the boiler. I do think the relationship of the top of the firebox to the cab front and the boiler/firebox position is about right now and raising it up by 2mm would cover the windows. I don't think Tony W has any intention of altering it again, whatever anybody says!

Edited by t-b-g
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm prepared to show my old Bec J17. It was built originally in the early 60s by my father before we left England. I gave it once over in the mid to late 80s. Fully stripped it down, this was the very original kit version which had an inaccurate cab roof and spectacles so I reshaped the spectacles with filler and redid the roof. Fitted Romfords, Crownline chimney and smokebox door, Wills safety valves from N7 kit and more recently (2000s I think) it got a Buhler motor and Ultrascale gearbox. Despite the inaccurate wheelbase and the 'extra large' splasher protruding out of the cab front its not too bad. It runs regularly on one of the pick-up goods in my operating sequence.

 

The interesting thing is I managed to pick up a Crownline J17 kit at our last BRMA Convention in Canberra in 2019 for around £40 so another one on the roundtuit list. 

 

1608702803_IMG_6127ps.jpg.964bd06b2ee0d7feef7702f65112e70a.jpg

 

Clearly this J17 could do with brakes but I'm not sure I can be bothered - it is what it is!

 

Time to go out to the shed - don't tell 'St Enodoc' that I'm starting to work on some scenery. Mind you I might soon get bored with that and get back to real work - locos and other rollingstock!

 

Andrew

  • Like 14
  • Funny 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

 

Pretty much all UK locomotives use springing as the primary suspension with side equalization only added for extra wheel movement if needed.  In the US it's typically a mixture of equalization with springing as much track is far more uneven than in Europe. In the example above, the prototype's small degree of track twist is handled by the springs.

 

Unfortunately for we small scale modellers, our track is not at all as flat and springing does not scale down at all well to emulate the prototype's sufficient track holding effect. So like you I use twin beams (or just moving side frames) close to the wheels. But for the typical model degree of track twist I have to add soft springing or proper transverse equalization to cope. The good thing about using transverse equalization is that it can obviate the need to build a the rigid parts of the chassis precisely square and true on an extremely flat surface.

 

There is no need for rules other than fundamentally complying with basic geometry and the Laws of Physics at a small scale. Those are quite sufficient to predict and evaluate the effectiveness of a model design.  So I am curious as to what you understand the advantages of the Dewry mode's suspension  over a rigid chassis to be

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

 

But model track generally is very rigid so doesn't flex in response to the weight of locos passing over it.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.