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

55 minutes ago, gr.king said:

If you stick, as you properly should, to one set of wheel and track standards, then it is easier to follow pure principles.

 

The trouble with OO, despite its many advantages, is that it is a family of standards rather than a single standard, and if you want to try to run guest stock on your layout, or run your stock on a friend's layout when you don't use exactly the same standards, then it becomes rather difficult to apply pure principles successfully. Slightly impure, or downright rough and ready methods may be more practical.

 

I suppose that properly executed springing ought to allow a loco with fine wheel standards to cope more effectively when traversing unexpectedly large crossing gaps, while keeping all wheels on uneven rails as much of the time as is possible, but springs can't possibly keep exactly the same load on a wheel at all times, irrespective of their degree of compression, so presumably that method fails the test of purity too.

 

On another matter, we don't see many 'Ull and Barnsley locos on here do we? Might we see more in due course?

 

At 1:76 scale, I don't think we have the affordable miniature technology capability for even loosely matching the 1:1 prototype springing functionality. But beam equalisation does scale down, even if  time and the locomotive mass and inertia doesn't.  Mike Sharman was right, but he didn't have the modern inexpensive bearings and parts to make chassis building simpler and straightforward.

 

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

What a wonderful range of opinions, points of view and observations today.

 

Thank you all; to the pragmatists (I hope I'm one) to the more-zealous (I never knew Frankenstein was a railway modeller!), a great selection.

 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

presumably the Zealots would be the ones using GWR fireboxes. I shall be watching for your copper caps.

 

Oh, I forgot about the pragmatists, they just buy RTR and don't care.

Edited by Headstock
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

What a wonderful range of opinions, points of view and observations today.

 

Thank you all; to the pragmatists (I hope I'm one) to the more-zealous (I never knew Frankenstein was a railway modeller!), a great selection. 

 

I think as long as a model 'captures' the 'flavour' of the prototype, runs well and is the product of personal workmanship then that is 'enough'. Enough for me, though one should try and get it as 'right' as possible; as my building of the Crownline J17 of late has illustrated.................

 

376585037_J1711.jpg.a815cd79c20a1369737c660ca7dc3e53.jpg

 

I think the addition of boiler fittings makes a huge difference to the overall 'look'. To have raised the smokebox/boiler/firebox up by 2mm, would have blanked off the bottom of the spectacles. There's a cladding band just ahead of the spectacle plate, which might have given a false impression. 

 

825943427_J1710.jpg.ecc89ad868573f0247fdc2d597dcac11.jpg

 

Now packed with lead, it'll pull over 50 wagons with ease!

 

 

 

 

 

That does look so much better now.

 

Did the coupling rods come with the kit? If they did, the designer missed a trick. The J17s didn't have a knuckle joint next to the crankpin on the centre wheel. The rods were pivoted on the crankpin, just as most modellers do. I built a J17 mechanism for somebody a few years ago and looked to see if the joint was in front of, or behind, the crankpin and there just wasn't one at all. It took me by surprise, as I know little about the GER.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


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

 

971710547_D9604001.jpg.5becff5076d8c828e0c440ea4031592a.jpg

 

 

 

1485396331_Bridges14.jpg.21a9e603d71b1ef931dbc67c743413e4.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

I wonder if there is some way of replacing just the front wheels of leading bogies and pony trucks of 00 steam locos with scale width wheels. The visual impact of such otherwise wonderful models seen front on as above would be terrific.  I was thinking along the lines of somehow having the wheels held the necessary 0.015" above the rails and steered by the normal 00 wheels behind, so that they still coped with 00 Standard track.

 

The picture below of an HO 1950's level of detail RTR tank car, but the narrow wheels make it look appropriately massive.

 

  1292928697_wheelsend600.jpg.a4eff9eb6504c884be262d7390a7827c.jpg

 

Andy

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


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

 

Good evening Tony,

 

presumably the Zealots would be the ones using GWR fireboxes. I shall be watching for your copper caps.

 

Oh, I forgot about the pragmatists, they just buy RTR and don't care.

Not if the 40-odd pages on the Rails Terrier and the ones on the Hornby Terrier topics are anything to go by ;)

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

I wonder if there is some way of replacing just the front wheels of leading bogies and pony trucks of 00 steam locos with scale width wheels. The visual impact of such otherwise wonderful models seen front on as above would be terrific.  I was thinking along the lines of somehow having the wheels held the necessary 0.015" above the rails and steered by the normal 00 wheels behind, so that they still coped with 00 Standard track.

 

The picture below of an HO 1950's level of detail RTR tank car, but the narrow wheels make it look appropriately massive.

 

  1292928697_wheelsend600.jpg.a4eff9eb6504c884be262d7390a7827c.jpg

 

Andy

 

 

 

Are you advocating running normal OO wheels and P4 standard wheels not only on the same layout but on the same loco? So in a side view, one bogie wheel would appear bigger than the other? 

 

Where would you put the checkrails?

 

I am sure you mean to be helpful but that is really not a practical suggestion.

 

Those views are not representative of how the layout is viewed by anybody there. They can only be got by blocking the tracks with a camera!

 

The visual aspect of the bogie wheels is really not a problem when viewing the layout, as I have had the pleasure of doing several times.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Are you advocating running normal OO wheels and P4 standard wheels not only on the same layout but on the same loco? So in a side view, one bogie wheel would appear bigger than the other? 

 

Where would you put the checkrails?

 

I am sure you mean to be helpful but that is really not a practical suggestion.

 

Those views are not representative of how the layout is viewed by anybody there. They can only be got by blocking the tracks with a camera!

 

The visual aspect of the bogie wheels is really not a problem when viewing the layout, as I have had the pleasure of doing several times.

 

 

 

20 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

  I was thinking along the lines of somehow having the wheels held the necessary 0.015" above the rails and steered by the normal 00 wheels behind, so that they still coped with 00 Standard track.

 

The 0.015" was to raise the flanges above the rail heads.  I.e they clear all check rails. Steering mechanism to be invented ;) Sideways on it's only the flange depth that should be different.  And although I'm no UK expert, doesn't the 9F Have flange less centre drivers and reduced flanges on driving axles 2 and 4?

 

This is the "musings" section. Practicality is a different department :crazy_mini:

 

Andy

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Orion said:

Not if the 40-odd pages on the Rails Terrier and the ones on the Hornby Terrier topics are anything to go by ;)

 

About Tony's firebox?

  • Funny 2

Share this post


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

 

 

The 0.015" was to raise the flanges above the rail heads.  I.e they clear all check rails. Steering mechanism to be invented ;) Sideways on it's only the flange depth that should be different.  And although I'm no UK expert, doesn't the 9F Have flange less centre drivers and reduced flanges on driving axles 2 and 4?

 

This is the "musings" section. Practicality is a different department :crazy_mini:

 

Andy

 

I did see a model of a six wheeled vehicle that had a fixed centre wheel with the bottom edge of the flange filed off, so perhaps you are onto something!

  • Agree 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


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

 

Good evening Tony,

 

presumably the Zealots would be the ones using GWR fireboxes. I shall be watching for your copper caps.

 

Oh, I forgot about the pragmatists, they just buy RTR and don't care.

Good evening Andrew,

 

I think you're being very unfair on pragmatists, seeing that they treat things in a matter of fact manner. I've been described as one by the RM, and I certainly don't buy RTR.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

That does look so much better now.

 

Did the coupling rods come with the kit? If they did, the designer missed a trick. The J17s didn't have a knuckle joint next to the crankpin on the centre wheel. The rods were pivoted on the crankpin, just as most modellers do. I built a J17 mechanism for somebody a few years ago and looked to see if the joint was in front of, or behind, the crankpin and there just wasn't one at all. It took me by surprise, as I know little about the GER.

The rods did, Tony,

 

And I wish I'd noticed the incorrect knuckle earlier. It's staying now, though!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

I wonder if there is some way of replacing just the front wheels of leading bogies and pony trucks of 00 steam locos with scale width wheels. The visual impact of such otherwise wonderful models seen front on as above would be terrific.  I was thinking along the lines of somehow having the wheels held the necessary 0.015" above the rails and steered by the normal 00 wheels behind, so that they still coped with 00 Standard track.

 

The picture below of an HO 1950's level of detail RTR tank car, but the narrow wheels make it look appropriately massive.

 

  1292928697_wheelsend600.jpg.a4eff9eb6504c884be262d7390a7827c.jpg

 

Andy

 

 

It's an idea, Andy,

 

Though I don't think I'll pursue it.

 

It's a visual 'price' I'm prepared to pay. Both the D9 and the K2 illustrated have 'scale' OO bogie/pony wheels (RTR wheels are much worse!), though the treads are huge compared with reality. 

 

Might chemically-blackening the treads work I wonder?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The rods did, Tony,

 

And I wish I'd noticed the incorrect knuckle earlier. It's staying now, though!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Don't blame you! I have caused you enough hassle with this one already. I only learned about it by pure chance.

 

A bit of chemical blackening on the bogie wheels does help. I have done it on several and it really stops the over scale flange showing. When polished, it makes nickel silver tyres look more like steel too.

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, t-b-g said:

 

Don't blame you! I have caused you enough hassle with this one already. I only learned about it by pure chance.

 

A bit of chemical blackening on the bogie wheels does help. I have done it on several and it really stops the over scale flange showing. When polished, it makes nickel silver tyres look more like steel too.

'I have caused you enough hassle with this one already'

 

I don't think you have, Tony,

 

It's only by 'critical' observation (often by others) that models are made more-accurate.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Share this post


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

'I have caused you enough hassle with this one already'

 

I don't think you have, Tony,

 

It's only by 'critical' observation (often by others) that models are made more-accurate.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Maybe not hassle but perhaps a few extra hours of work, which was well worth it because the end result is lovely!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Orion said:

 

The obsession with getting things absolutely right is very unhealthy IMHO. Much safer to model a line for which you can become the only real expert. The Hull & Barnsley is probably getting close - Lancashire Derbyshire & East Coast or some other obscure line that almost no one has even heard of might be even safer. Or some obscure Siberian line in the 1950s when anyone taking photos or information might not live to tell the tale, even if they could ever get that close? ;) 

 

I seem to recall that was Peter Denny's explanation for why in the 1940s he chose to model the Great Central.  Firstly the signal posts, being 'solid', would be a great deal easier to model than the lattice types commonly used by many other railways.  Secondly, he had joined a club that was full of 'experts' on the Great Western Railway who delighted in rubbishing each others' creations and he didn't fancy the grief if he took that path, so decided to go for something (relatively) more obscure.  So there's a good precedent!

 

On the issue of the accuracy of drawings, and the way 'real' locomotives were built by skilled workmen using them as little more than a sketch of what was wanted, this is undoubtedly true, but there are fairly modern parallels.  One major reason for the abandonment - at vast waste of Taxpayers' money - some years ago of the project to rebuild the RAF's elderly Nimrod aircraft for a couple of decades more service was that it was discovered no two sets of wings on the machines, and the positions for fixing them onto the fusilages, were identical, so it could only have been rectified at further huge expense.  That couldn't be justified, so the whole concept had to be abandoned; no money was left to buy anything else, and Britain has been without an effective maritime reconnaissance and anti-submarine capability  for years which is only now being rectified.

  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Willie Whizz said:

 

I seem to recall that was Peter Denny's explanation for why in the 1940s he chose to model the Great Central.  Firstly the signal posts, being 'solid', would be a great deal easier to model than the lattice types commonly used by many other railways.  Secondly, he had joined a club that was full of 'experts' on the Great Western Railway who delighted in rubbishing each others' creations and he didn't fancy the grief if he took that path, so decided to go for something (relatively) more obscure.  So there's a good precedent!

 

On the issue of the accuracy of drawings, and the way 'real' locomotives were built by skilled workmen using them as little more than a sketch of what was wanted, this is undoubtedly true, but there are fairly modern parallels.  One major reason for the abandonment - at vast waste of Taxpayers' money - some years ago of the project to rebuild the RAF's elderly Nimrod aircraft for a couple of decades more service was that it was discovered no two sets of wings on the machines, and the positions for fixing them onto the fusilages, were identical, so it could only have been rectified at further huge expense.  That couldn't be justified, so the whole concept had to be abandoned; no money was left to buy anything else, and Britain has been without an effective maritime reconnaissance and anti-submarine capability  for years which is only now being rectified.

 

I still have the GWR Siphon that Peter Denny took along to the model railway club where he was told that the roof profile and the strapping were not quite right! There were two further reasons for him choosing the GCR. No outside valve gear and he also wrote that he liked the brown and cream carriage livery but I have a doubt about that one. The very first Buckingham was set a few years later than the present one and had teak brown carriages. A short while later they were backdated by about 5 years and changed to brown and cream. The Denny family have letters on LNER headed paper sent by George Dow, then employed as a publicity officer by the LNER, answering Peter's enquiring about GCR carriage liveries, dated 1947.

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

What a wonderful range of opinions, points of view and observations today.

 

Thank you all; to the pragmatists (I hope I'm one) to the more-zealous (I never knew Frankenstein was a railway modeller!), a great selection. 

 

I think as long as a model 'captures' the 'flavour' of the prototype, runs well and is the product of personal workmanship then that is 'enough'. Enough for me, though one should try and get it as 'right' as possible; as my building of the Crownline J17 of late has illustrated.................

 

376585037_J1711.jpg.a815cd79c20a1369737c660ca7dc3e53.jpg

 

I think the addition of boiler fittings makes a huge difference to the overall 'look'. To have raised the smokebox/boiler/firebox up by 2mm, would have blanked off the bottom of the spectacles. There's a cladding band just ahead of the spectacle plate, which might have given a false impression. 

 

825943427_J1710.jpg.ecc89ad868573f0247fdc2d597dcac11.jpg

 

Now packed with lead, it'll pull over 50 wagons with ease!

 

 

 

 

 

Congratulations Tony. I concur with your general feelings about creating things, and look forward to seeing this slightly fraught construction being painted and gracing LB. Having been recently creating pictures of A4s I certainly know a little about complex curves, and the dramas you encountered with the firebox of that 0-6-0!

 

That said, I would never get all the details right on an A4, especially tenders!  A curve here, beading there, invisible welding...   and as for tumblehome, I won't go there. (About to create' a teak Gresley post-war train with A4 in experimental blue,   where most men fear to tread!)

 

Best,

Edited by robmcg
typo
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even in the real word drawings are not always as one would expect.

 

I worked at Marconi's in Chelmsford and as an inspector if something wasn't right a trip to the drawing office for a copy of the drawing had to be made. One of the very skilled wiremen came up to me one day and asked me to check some covers for the box of gizmos he was making. They didn't fit despite being the right part number. I came back with the drawing, a simple flat rectangular cover with four holes in the corners. There was a table with the various part numbers giving the length, width and where the holes should be located, and I think the hole size. I am sure we have all seen this type of drawing. I measured the covers and the reason they didn't fit, was they had been made wrong. The thing that has made this drawing so memorable was the notes towards the bottom . "All dimensions in mm"and the next one below, "To be made with 1/8 inch steel plate".    

  • Like 6
  • Funny 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I did see a model of a six wheeled vehicle that had a fixed centre wheel with the bottom edge of the flange filed off, so perhaps you are onto something!

I've done exactly that on several six-wheeled diesel bogies that had the old-style stub axles on the middle wheelset.

 

I've also taken the middle wheelset out altogether on some troublesome six-wheeled vans and milk tanks...

Edited by St Enodoc
  • Like 2
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, robmcg said:

 

Congratulations Tony. I concur with your general feelings about creating things, and look forward to seeing this slightly fraught construction being painted and gracing LB. Having been recently creating pictures of A4s I certainly know a little about complex curves, and the dramas you encountered with the firebox of that 0-6-0!

 

That said, I would never get all the details right on an A4, especially tenders!  A curve here, beading there, invisible welding...   and as for tumblehome, I won't go there. (About to create' a teak Gresley post-war train with A4 in experimental blue,   where most men fear to tread!)

 

Best,

Thanks Rob,

 

And a very good morning to you. It's a glorious one here!

 

I think what this J17 build has shown is the value of constructive criticism. I thought I could get away with just 'fudging' something (that firebox!), but I'm glad my transgression was pointed out; and the model is the better for it. Deep down, I probably knew I'd be rumbled.................

 

Which illustrates the value of RMweb. Because so many post pictures of what they're doing, and expose what they do to critical analysis, then the end result should be more-accurate models. Or, at least I hope so. 

 

I suppose it comes down to 'give and take'. I've always been 'quick' to offer my opinion (if asked, usually), so I should be prepared to listen to those of others (and, I hope, I am).

 

What's the phrase? 'Put up, or shut up'? It certainly applies to me!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited by Tony Wright
to clarify a point
  • Like 11
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Willie Whizz said:

 

I seem to recall that was Peter Denny's explanation for why in the 1940s he chose to model the Great Central.  Firstly the signal posts, being 'solid', would be a great deal easier to model than the lattice types commonly used by many other railways.  Secondly, he had joined a club that was full of 'experts' on the Great Western Railway who delighted in rubbishing each others' creations and he didn't fancy the grief if he took that path, so decided to go for something (relatively) more obscure.  So there's a good precedent!

 

On the issue of the accuracy of drawings, and the way 'real' locomotives were built by skilled workmen using them as little more than a sketch of what was wanted, this is undoubtedly true, but there are fairly modern parallels.  One major reason for the abandonment - at vast waste of Taxpayers' money - some years ago of the project to rebuild the RAF's elderly Nimrod aircraft for a couple of decades more service was that it was discovered no two sets of wings on the machines, and the positions for fixing them onto the fusilages, were identical, so it could only have been rectified at further huge expense.  That couldn't be justified, so the whole concept had to be abandoned; no money was left to buy anything else, and Britain has been without an effective maritime reconnaissance and anti-submarine capability  for years which is only now being rectified.

That reminds me of wThey had the contract to rebuild hat was going on at LH when we went to measure up the MoD Vanguards and Steelman Royales in 2004. They had the contract to rebuild them all and when we got there the yard looked like this.

DSCF1056.JPG.ffc226ba04d939978a6eb6fffed5b47d.JPG

DSCF1065.JPG.abdc6b3eac214fce2744e472ef8ae29c.JPG

All the locos had been dismantled and there were parts of them all over the place. Talking to the man who had taken them to bits he was bitterly regretting not marking numbers on them all as he did, he was having great difficulty piecing them back together with very few dimensions exactly the same.

DSCF1038.JPG.d0be34a2375769211f9f520c29c0e32f.JPG

He had eventually learned the lesson of this though.....

They all went back together in the end of course (and then got painted in DLO purple).579159909_DLOlivery2.jpg.280e98d0173d32efe4b5d428498d1844.jpg

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

The thing that has made this drawing so memorable was the notes towards the bottom . "All dimensions in mm" and the next one below, "To be made with 1/8 inch steel plate".    

That seemed to have been a fairly common situation at one time, probably in the late 1970s or early 1980s. Drawing office people had adopted metric, but the poor souls at the sharp end were still using imperial micrometres and other measuring equipment. For a long time steel plate came in metric widths and imperial thicknesses. I can probably if prompted recite my 76.2 times table up to a figure of around 5000. (For setting out holes on a three inch pitch). 

Bernard

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

I think what this J17 build has shown is the value of constructive criticism. I thought I could get away with just 'fudging' something (that firebox!), but I'm glad my transgression was pointed out; and the model is the better for it. Deep down, I probably knew I'd be rumbled.................

 

Constructive being the most important word here. Hearing stories of some members getting personal messages telling them not to bother is quite heartbreaking that such keyboard warriors still can cause such upset. 

 

On the subject of marking out my favored method is to take a plan, if possible purchased from the NRM or elsewhere. import into a word document and manipulate so the drawing visible becomes to scale, print out , cut up and paste using spray mount onto the brass or nickle silver before fretting out. The only downside is the cleaning up once the part is cut out and filed to shape!

  • Like 4

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.