Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

14 hours ago, davidw said:

I'm convinced. 

How did you create the lamp irons?

Good morning David,

 

As I always make lamp irons; from brass or nickel silver strip, usually the outside edges of an etched fret. 

 

I just pick a suitable width, and bend the irons to shape..

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, DougN said:

Looking Nice there Tony.  I was going to ask the question was the handrail completed with longer/ shorter handrail Knobs... However on going to bed last night I was looking through "Power of the V2's" only to find they were all short handrail knobs. The more I looked at the photos there is some very subtle rivets to the rear of the smoke box.

 

I will look seriously at your solution for the vertical band. The Finney kit allows for the one at the rear of the fire box/ cab interface.  Tonight I am intending to get all the handrail knobs installed to the 2 boilers.  

 

My last 2 weeks of losing parts has now stopped as they have all be rounded up and corralled. SO I hope to be able to continue to push forward. 

 

Good morning Doug,

 

Many locos appear to have been fitted with what might be described as 'short' handrail pillars. I have to say, usually with regard to ease of working, I tend to use short handrail pillars on cabs and tenders, and medium handrail knobs on boilers/fireboxes (those on the front of the smokebox and on the smokebox door of the V2 are short). They're made by Alan Gibson, though I tend to get them from Comet. 

 

The medium knobs probably protrude slightly too much, though they're more easily adjusted (to get a handrail entirely horizontal, for instance) than the short ones.

 

It's usually my standard practice. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Well, the loco bodywork is now complete on the Mike Trice 3D-printed V2.

 

It had been my plan to post further pictures last night, until this happened...................

 

 

Oh dear! 

 

How to fit the buffers (which, I think, are Replica ones)? 

 

Rather than risk a mini drill's power to open up the holes to take the shanks, I thought I'd do it gently, by hand. First, drill a pilot hole, then increase the diameter gently with broaches - that was the right-hand side (looking at the picture). Getting nearer to the diameter required, the edge of the beam snapped like chocolate from the fridge!

 

After many dark (very dark) mutterings, I then put the mini drill to use, and the left-hand side snapped off even quicker! 

 

Not only that, whilst attempting to enlarge the slot for the front screw-shackle (with a razor saw), the front footplate snapped clean off at 45 degrees!!!!!

 

I hope all will appreciate that I was not in the mood to take any more pictures of disasters....................

 

I went to bed fuming! 

 

 

Fortunately (for once) I was able to take my own advice and sleep on it. Thus, on awakening refreshed and with hope in mind, I've fixed the problem(s). 

 

One of the advantages of having built so many loco kits is the vast number of spares I've accumulated. For instance, having built DJH A1s/A3s for customers in the past, one ends up with several buffer beams, and one of these fitted perfectly. I soldered everything to it beforehand and then glued it to the 'wreckage' with expoxy, fixing the remains of the front steps by the same adhesive. The beautifully-printed rear buffer springs were lost forever! 

 

The reversing lever came from the same DJH A1/A3 source.

 

The line of the breakage of the front footplate can just be discerned beneath the smokebox dart. Fortunately, it was a single, clean break, but a bit more cleaning up is required. It was fixed back in place with superglue.

 

Mike supplied printed lubricators, but these were too small for my fingers' dexterity, so I substituted cast metal ones from a spares box. Note that they're offset.

 

There really should be two, small handrails adjacent to the lamp irons on the front platform, but discretion and valour sprang to mind - not that I'm usually discreet, and certainly not valorous. With an already severely-weakened front end, I'm drilling no more holes, resulting in details being missed off. I can live with that.

 

 

The grate-operating lever also came from a spare in a fret. 

 

Conclusion? 

 

Without doubt, when finished, this will be the best and certainly the most accurate V2 I'll possess. It really is a cracking body (sorry about the pun, but cracking in a complimentary sense). 

 

However (there's always an 'however') I've decided that, henceforth, the medium of 3D-printing for models is not for me (I knew my comments of last week were too good to be true). Perhaps naively, I approached the V2 from the standpoint of having built well in excess of 500 locomotives, 99% of those being made in metal. I've disliked cast resin as a medium for things like loco boilers from the outset (some Crownline kits), and, perhaps, a prejudice has stuck. 

 

In a way, my approach to completing this V2 body was the same as if I were building, say, a Parkside plastic (styrene) wagon kit, where the material is far more robust, flexible and forgiving. Drilling holes in, say, headstocks to take buffers has never resulted in their destruction. 

 

I should have been forewarned, because I broke bits on the Isinglass LNER 3D-printed van I built recently. 

 

Nothing should take away from the excellence of the accuracy of this 3D-printed V2 body, but I'm clearly far too ham-fisted to ever work in this material again. 

 

Without doubt, I'll recommend it for all who want a really good V2, and I'm not dissuading anyone from going ahead and acquiring one; but, be very careful in finishing it off. Far more careful than I was!

 

I think it's more a criticism of me than the product, and I'd like to thank Mike Trice once again for giving me the opportunity of making a really-accurate V2. 

 

Now, on to thorough layout-testing. I'll report accordingly.....................

Edited June 22, 2020 by Tony Wright
to add something

[gr.king]

I don't claim that cast resin is a perfect medium by any means, but I feel it does have the virtue of being a little easier to drill, without breakage, compared to current printed resin, which seems frequently to feature "gritty bits" in its structure which resist the drill, and it seems susceptible to splitting along the planes of its structure (a bit like graphite or slate) or simply shattering in random directions. Perhaps the printing technology will improve further in ways that address these problems?

[Northmoor]

9 minutes ago, gr.king said:

I don't claim that cast resin is a perfect medium by any means, but I feel it does have the virtue of being a little easier to drill, without breakage, compared to current printed resin, which seems frequently to feature "gritty bits" in its structure which resist the drill, and it seems susceptible to splitting along the planes of its structure (a bit like graphite or slate) or simply shattering in random directions. Perhaps the printing technology will improve further in ways that address these problems?

Sintering - for the non-engineers/metallurgists - is where a metal powder is heated under a moderate pressure to 0.3x the melting temperature, which causes the particles to bond.  It seems to me that 3D-printed polymer items behave like a sintered product where the process temperature was insufficient, so the layers haven't bonded properly.

Could any polymer scientists confirm if this makes sense?

 

[jrg1]

30 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Sintering - for the non-engineers/metallurgists - is where a metal powder is heated under a moderate pressure to 0.3x the melting temperature, which causes the particles to bond.  It seems to me that 3D-printed polymer items behave like a sintered product where the process temperature was insufficient, so the layers haven't bonded properly.

Could any polymer scientists confirm if this makes sense?

 

I had 3D printed walls produced.  The wall sides and ends did not have chamfers to fit together, and I tried to mill them.  The result was a mess.  The material is extremely brittle, and I had to carefully use a suitable file to finish off the 45 degree angle.

[landscapes]

Good morning Tony

 

With your vast knowledge of the LNER Pacific’s I hope you do not mind me asking you a question regarding the up and coming Hornby A2/2’s.

 

Would it be possible to change the identity of  60505 to 60502 in the late 1950’s period complete with AWS, smoke box number on the top hinge strap and late tender totem.

 

I do not mind carrying out any Minor alterations required to change the identity but I am not happy about trying to carve of the block of plastic representing the high smoke box number Plate that comes with Hornby’s 60501.
 

And if 60505 could become a donor it would just need new Name plates and new number transfers as far as I can see.

 

Any help or advise is greatly appreciated.

 

Regards

 

David

 

[Tony Wright]

55 minutes ago, gr.king said:

I don't claim that cast resin is a perfect medium by any means, but I feel it does have the virtue of being a little easier to drill, without breakage, compared to current printed resin, which seems frequently to feature "gritty bits" in its structure which resist the drill, and it seems susceptible to splitting along the planes of its structure (a bit like graphite or slate) or simply shattering in random directions. Perhaps the printing technology will improve further in ways that address these problems?

Thanks Graeme,

 

I should have mentioned that I have two of your resin-bodied V2s, and I didn't break anything of them when finishing them off. 

 

I've just been in email correspondence with Mike, and he's investigating less-brittle resins. However, due to the current crisis, they're in short supply.

 

He tells me he's still working on improvements to his V2 body before it's produced for sale. 

 

Though I detected no 'gritty bits' as such, the drill certainly 'grabbed' at one point (and, it's sharp), causing the breakage of the buffer beam. 

 

Drilling holes for the lamp brackets also caused a tiny piece to break off as the bit came through. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

15 minutes ago, landscapes said:

Good morning Tony

 

With your vast knowledge of the LNER Pacific’s I hope you do not mind me asking you a question regarding the up and coming Hornby A2/2’s.

 

Would it be possible to change the identity of  60505 to 60502 in the late 1950’s period complete with AWS, smoke box number on the top hinge strap and late tender totem.

 

I do not mind carrying out any Minor alterations required to change the identity but I am not happy about trying to carve of the block of plastic representing the high smoke box number Plate that comes with Hornby’s 60501.
 

And if 60505 could become a donor it would just need new Name plates and new number transfers as far as I can see.

 

Any help or advise is greatly appreciated.

 

Regards

 

David

 

Good morning David,

 

'With your vast knowledge of the LNER Pacific’s I hope you do not mind me asking you a question regarding the up and coming Hornby A2/2’s.'

 

I'm always very cautious when someone considers that of me.................

 

I know when Hornby's designer and I met up here to go over the drawings, photographs, documents, tables, etc., with regard to the A2/2s (and the A2/3s), at any given time in their lives no two were exactly the same. In a class of only six, this makes mixing/matching difficult. 

 

I've not seen any actual proving models yet, but if 60505 THANE OF FIFE is going to be produced by Hornby in late-'50s condition, it will be rather difficult to alter her into 60502 (or any other). You see she was the only one of the class to receive a Thompson Dia.117 boiler, which meant a further-forward dome. Not only that, her tender was a streamlined non-corridor sort, while 60502's was an A3 high-sided, new-type, with curved in fronts to the tanks and beading. 

 

Add on to that the juxtaposition of the front numberplate/crossrail on the smokebox door (which 60506 also had for a time) and 60505's extended plates behind/between the sandbox fillers (which 60504 also had for a time, but only on one side!) and I think 60505 will have to stay as just that. 

 

60501 could be changed into 60502 (providing the vacuum ejector pipe is altered) once they received Peppercorn boilers (both had the same - in outward appearance - tenders). 

 

I have to say, though I happily assisted Hornby in the development of these models (and if any stone were left un-turned it could only have been a pebble), the decision with regards to which individual locos were chosen was Hornby's. I presented all my 'evidence', and then it was up to them. Clearly, 60503 and 60504 would have been difficult because of their retention of the original shortened P2 boiler.  

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Tony Wright]

Testing completed.....................

 

 

45+ plastic-bodied wagons presented no problems.

 

 

And neither did 14 carriages, half of which are kit-built. 

 

Just a hint of slipping on starting these heavy loads, and then she just romped away. 

 

Just the right amount of weight...........

 

She'll end up as 60828, a V2 which ran on the ex-GC section which I saw at Sheffield Victoria, but was at York by 1959, having been at Top Shed in the mid-'50s. However, I'll have to be careful because latterly she had separate cylinders. 

 

The borrowed K3 tender is ideal, because it's the sort she towed (Gresley's V2s by Peter Tuffrey, Great Northern books - annoyingly, most of the pages in this book are not numbered and neither are the plates, making reference extremely difficult). 

 

 

 

 

[grob1234]

I think the way you have overcome the problems you encountered is very sensible.

 

What 3D printed resin does is offer items like this on a very 'bespoke' basis, and I would imagine far cheaper (in terms of initial set-up) than say the complete design and manufacture of a white metal/brass kit. To see how much 3d printing has developed in a reasonably short period of time leaves me in no doubt as to the possibilities it offers. You want Humorist in its exact 1943 guise for example - no problem, just render it all in the CAD software and hit print! It really can be that individual.

 

However, there is always a compromise - in this case the material itself. White metal and brass are clearly excellent choices for kit built locos. But could I make one? Of course not. Could I print off my own A3 if I had the equipment - yes very much so. I think the mix of 3d resin and brass is an excellent compromise, and one I would consider as an intended route if I built one myself; replacing fragile detail with metal.

 

Can't wait to see it painted.

[Tony Wright]

1 minute ago, grob1234 said:

I think the way you have overcome the problems you encountered is very sensible.

 

What 3D printed resin does is offer items like this on a very 'bespoke' basis, and I would imagine far cheaper (in terms of initial set-up) than say the complete design and manufacture of a white metal/brass kit. To see how much 3d printing has developed in a reasonably short period of time leaves me in no doubt as to the possibilities it offers. You want Humorist in its exact 1943 guise for example - no problem, just render it all in the CAD software and hit print! It really can be that individual.

 

However, there is always a compromise - in this case the material itself. White metal and brass are clearly excellent choices for kit built locos. But could I make one? Of course not. Could I print off my own A3 if I had the equipment - yes very much so. I think the mix of 3d resin and brass is an excellent compromise, and one I would consider as an intended route if I built one myself; replacing fragile detail with metal.

 

Can't wait to see it painted.

Thanks Tom,

 

'White metal and brass are clearly excellent choices for kit built locos. But could I make one? Of course not.' 

 

Who are you trying to kid? 

 

She'll go to Geoff Haynes for painting into BR green, once I've built the tender and completed the chassis.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[landscapes]

29 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning David,

 

'With your vast knowledge of the LNER Pacific’s I hope you do not mind me asking you a question regarding the up and coming Hornby A2/2’s.'

 

I'm always very cautious when someone considers that of me.................

 

I know when Hornby's designer and I met up here to go over the drawings, photographs, documents, tables, etc., with regard to the A2/2s (and the A2/3s), at any given time in their lives no two were exactly the same. In a class of only six, this makes mixing/matching difficult. 

 

I've not seen any actual proving models yet, but if 60505 THANE OF FIFE is going to be produced by Hornby in late-'50s condition, it will be rather difficult to alter her into 60502 (or any other). You see she was the only one of the class to receive a Thompson Dia.117 boiler, which meant a further-forward dome. Not only that, her tender was a streamlined non-corridor sort, while 60502's was an A3 high-sided, new-type, with curved in fronts to the tanks and beading. 

 

Add on to that the juxtaposition of the front numberplate/crossrail on the smokebox door (which 60506 also had for a time) and 60505's extended plates behind/between the sandbox fillers (which 60504 also had for a time, but only on one side!) and I think 60505 will have to stay as just that. 

 

60501 could be changed into 60502 (providing the vacuum ejector pipe is altered) once they received Peppercorn boilers (both had the same - in outward appearance - tenders). 

 

I have to say, though I happily assisted Hornby in the development of these models (and if any stone were left un-turned it could only have been a pebble), the decision with regards to which individual locos were chosen was Hornby's. I presented all my 'evidence', and then it was up to them. Clearly, 60503 and 60504 would have been difficult because of their retention of the original shortened P2 boiler.  

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Many Thanks Tony

 

You have a least put my mind to rest, I have ordered A2/2 60501 but wasn't sure if a change of order to 60505 would have been better.

 

With your answer it's now an east decision I will stay with my original choice, and go from there.

 

If all fails I will just keep is as 60501 Era 4 early to mid 1950's.

 

Thank you again for taking the time to explain the differences.

 

Regards

 

David

 

[grob1234]

8 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Tom,

 

'White metal and brass are clearly excellent choices for kit built locos. But could I make one? Of course not.' 

 

Who are you trying to kid? 

 

She'll go to Geoff Haynes for painting into BR green, once I've built the tender and completed the chassis.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Sorry Tony, I was rather slack in my prose.

 

What I meant to imply was that I would be unable to create a brass or white metal kit insomuch as designing all the etches, making the moulds for the white metal and casting them etc etc.

 

I'm always keen to have a bash at building one though - at the moment I'm lining out the tender of my C2. I don't think Geoff needs to worry about his income stream being challenged any time soon!

Edited June 22, 2020 by grob1234

[Tony Wright]

5 minutes ago, grob1234 said:

 

Sorry Tony, I was rather slack in my prose.

 

What I meant to imply was that I would be unable to create a brass or white metal kit insomuch as designing all the etches, making the moulds for the white metal and casting them etc etc.

 

I'm always keen to have a bash at building one though - at the moment I'm lining out the tender of my C2. I don't think Geoff needs to worry about his income stream being challenged any time soon!

Sorry as well, Tom,

 

I was slack (even obtuse) in not understanding exactly what you meant.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[PJT]

2 hours ago, landscapes said:

I do not mind carrying out any Minor alterations required to change the identity but I am not happy about trying to carve of the block of plastic representing the high smoke box number Plate that comes with Hornby’s 60501.

 

1 hour ago, landscapes said:

Many Thanks Tony

 

You have a least put my mind to rest, I have ordered A2/2 60501 but wasn't sure if a change of order to 60505 would have been better.

 

With your answer it's now an east decision I will stay with my original choice, and go from there.

 

If all fails I will just keep is as 60501 Era 4 early to mid 1950's.

 

Thank you again for taking the time to explain the differences.

 

David,

 

You might just be lucky as far as moving the smokebox number plate is concerned.  I've noticed that several of the Hornby releases in more recent years (and even later identities of the same model, for instance the A3) have a separate number plate moulding with a tiny rectangular lug on the back that locates in a small piercing on the smokebox door.  The latter of course means that making good the shape and finish of the smokebox door after removing or resiting the plate is a great deal easier than on earlier models where you have to carve the plate off the door. 

 

Here's hoping.

 

Pete T.

[davidw]

Tony, 

 

Does the Comet chassis have registration marks, and slots like a DJH chassis?

 

Thanks in advance

 

David

[Barry Ten]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Testing completed.....................

 

 

 

 

Dear Tony

 

Could you possibly say a bit about your running-in and lubrication procedures, such as they are? Do you run the gearboxes

on the bench before putting them in locos? I'm always a little uncertain about how much (and what type) of lubrication to

add early in the process, and how gently to break locos in during their early running.

 

Al

[john new]

The talk about practice and increased luck a few pages back struck home over the weekend. For the BRM steps build challenge I drew up a draft image using Photoshop that was not bad, and needed a perforated plywood base jig saw cutting for it to sit on. The final phase to be a scratch build in card with hand painting.
 

Photoshop and other IT design tools I use regularly. My woodwork used to be rubbish, I am still not to professional standards but after doing a fair bit over the last two-years it is considerably improved and the plywood base was satisfactorily installed. When it came to the scratch build bit using card, at which a few years ago I was competent in, the end result was poor to awful! Reason, lack of use of that skill in the last decade through using Photoshop and card kit artwork based on my own photographs.

 

 

[polybear]

On 04/03/2020 at 20:42, PupCam said:

Unfortunately  Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate have had to be called in to investigate a serious accident when an Up Express ran into the rear of a stationary Pullman train held just north of the M&GN bridge.   The derailed Pullman cars fouled the adjacent line derailing a number of wagons.   Initial indications are that the signalling systems were operating correctly and human error was the likely cause.  It is too early to say whether any railway staff will be prosecuted.  

 

 

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Well, the loco bodywork is now complete on the Mike Trice 3D-printed V2.

 

It had been my plan to post further pictures last night, until this happened...................

 

 

Oh dear! 

 

How to fit the buffers (which, I think, are Replica ones)? 

 

Rather than risk a mini drill's power to open up the holes to take the shanks, I thought I'd do it gently, by hand. First, drill a pilot hole, then increase the diameter gently with broaches - that was the right-hand side (looking at the picture). Getting nearer to the diameter required, the edge of the beam snapped like chocolate from the fridge!

 

After many dark (very dark) mutterings, I then put the mini drill to use, and the left-hand side snapped off even quicker! 

 

Not only that, whilst attempting to enlarge the slot for the front screw-shackle (with a razor saw), the front footplate snapped clean off at 45 degrees!!!!!

 

I hope all will appreciate that I was not in the mood to take any more pictures of disasters....................

 

Hi Tony,

Do you recall the above incident by any chance?  I do - as Driver of the Up Express in question I still have whiplash As to what the outcome would have been if the loco in question was Mike's excellent resin V2 (complete with Geoff's paintwork) would have been doesn't bear thinking about.

Hopefully Mike is able to identify more robust resin material for manufacture.

Brian

[MikeTrice]

2 minutes ago, polybear said:

Hopefully Mike is able to identify more robust resin material for manufacture.

I have identified a potential solution and have ordered the resin in question. Unfortunately it will be a few days before it arrives and then I will have to carry out some experiments and put them to the Tony Test before knowing if it will work. I have created a special test piece comprising just the front of the loco to see the impact on the steps and drilling for the buffers.

[jrg1]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning David,

 

'With your vast knowledge of the LNER Pacific’s I hope you do not mind me asking you a question regarding the up and coming Hornby A2/2’s.'

 

I'm always very cautious when someone considers that of me.................

 

I know when Hornby's designer and I met up here to go over the drawings, photographs, documents, tables, etc., with regard to the A2/2s (and the A2/3s), at any given time in their lives no two were exactly the same. In a class of only six, this makes mixing/matching difficult. 

 

I've not seen any actual proving models yet, but if 60505 THANE OF FIFE is going to be produced by Hornby in late-'50s condition, it will be rather difficult to alter her into 60502 (or any other). You see she was the only one of the class to receive a Thompson Dia.117 boiler, which meant a further-forward dome. Not only that, her tender was a streamlined non-corridor sort, while 60502's was an A3 high-sided, new-type, with curved in fronts to the tanks and beading. 

 

Add on to that the juxtaposition of the front numberplate/crossrail on the smokebox door (which 60506 also had for a time) and 60505's extended plates behind/between the sandbox fillers (which 60504 also had for a time, but only on one side!) and I think 60505 will have to stay as just that. 

 

60501 could be changed into 60502 (providing the vacuum ejector pipe is altered) once they received Peppercorn boilers (both had the same - in outward appearance - tenders). 

 

I have to say, though I happily assisted Hornby in the development of these models (and if any stone were left un-turned it could only have been a pebble), the decision with regards to which individual locos were chosen was Hornby's. I presented all my 'evidence', and then it was up to them. Clearly, 60503 and 60504 would have been difficult because of their retention of the original shortened P2 boiler.  

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

I assume that 3D printing will continue to improve in quality and decline in price.  So it would be an ideal medium to produce limited runs of a class such as the A2/2's with all the various differences-perhaps with the producer crowd funding proposed variations?

[Headstock]

23 hours ago, Erichill16 said:

Sorry for the brief reply last night, I’d been up late watching a film but thought it polite to reply straight away. As with my loco fleet Im trying  to update/improve my wagons  so most of the stock is already painted but I’m going to try your method out on some stock already built.
By the way  I’m having difficulties in getting some Airfix/Dapol well wagons to run without derailing, the axles are true. Do you run any and have any advice?
Regards

Robert

 

Robert,

 

I don't know much about Dapol Airfix well wagons, or the foibles of RTR, do they represent a GWR Crocodile? Having 'true axles' is all very well but what are the wheels like? They sound very old models, so they probably have poor wheels that need replacing. To solve your problem, the solution is always one of three things, the wheels, the track or the vehicle. Eliminate all three as a cause and your problem will be solved.

[Headstock]

47 minutes ago, MikeTrice said:

I have identified a potential solution and have ordered the resin in question. Unfortunately it will be a few days before it arrives and then I will have to carry out some experiments and put them to the Tony Test before knowing if it will work. I have created a special test piece comprising just the front of the loco to see the impact on the steps and drilling for the buffers.

 

Good afternoon Mike,

 

I think that everybody appreciates the work that you are doing and nobody is in a tearing hurry to get anything by this evening. Tomorrow morning will be more than fine.

[Erichill16]

24 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Robert,

 

I don't know much about Dapol Airfix well wagons, or the foibles of RTR, do they represent a GWR Crocodile? Having 'true axles' is all very well but what are the wheels like? They sound very old models, so they probably have poor wheels that need replacing. To solve your problem, the solution is always one of three things, the wheels, the track or the vehicle. Eliminate all three as a cause and your problem will be solved.

Thanks for your input, the models are very, very old. I think they are a BR Prototype based on a GER design. I have cheated and numbered the as the GER version and used Romford wheels in bearings. I don’t have a OO layout myself so deciding whether it’s the track or not is not easy. The chassis is square,the wheels are ok therefore it must be other people’s trackwork! Mmmmmmmm.

Perhaps it’s time to build layout!
Regards ROBERT