Wright writes.....

[t-b-g]

29 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

One more recent Retford picture to finish the day.

 

And, what a wonderful day of comments. Many, many thanks to all.....................

 

 

A rigid Retford V2 waits for the road on a short cement train.

 

Buccaneer John's wonderful houses in West Carr Road are crying out to be completed....................... And, his footbridge in the background (to feature in close-up soon) is magnificent. 

 

 

 

Another contributor, Rick Hunt, who doesn't get a mention often, built the rather nice "Queens boards" signal and the guy rope supports etc. Or should that be "Queen's boards" as it was named after the adjacent hotel of that name? Even the little lineside (telephone or electrical gear?) box is a superb bit of modelling, the sort that can easily be lost in the big picture.  I remember when he came to fit it and the conversation went "You will have to alter it. It doesn't fit between the tracks" "I can't make it any narrower. It is a scale model of the real thing, the tracks must be wrong".

 

The S & T engineer won the day and the slight slewing of the track the V2 is standing on was the result!

Edited July 30, 2020 by t-b-g

[Chas Levin]

52 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

One more recent Retford picture to finish the day.

 

And, what a wonderful day of comments. Many, many thanks to all.....................

 

 

A rigid Retford V2 waits for the road on a short cement train.

 

Buccaneer John's wonderful houses in West Carr Road are crying out to be completed....................... And, his footbridge in the background (to feature in close-up soon) is magnificent. 

 

 

 

Lovely photo Tony, beautiful scene; and the rigidity of the V2 is duly noted 

[St Enodoc]

8 hours ago, Killybegs said:

 

The length/diam of the springs is critical, too short or too thick and the amount of movement on the bogie will be very limited which can lead to derailments. 

I prefer the look of b) but I think I would fix the springs at one end only.

[St Enodoc]

7 hours ago, t-b-g said:

So the rigid one must grip the track better. Obvious innit! 

Yes, provided that the track is perfectly level with no twist and the wheels are all perfectly aligned.

[St Enodoc]

5 hours ago, micklner said:

Any suggestions re the dreaded 0-4-4 Tank Loco, re the rear bogie set up ?

I have read articles suggesting that you build it with two bogies, like a coach.

[jrg1]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

Good evening Frank,

 

I'm not snoring.

 

It's all very fascinating. However, there's one thing I don't quite understand (only one I hear you all cry!). 

 

A loco body is a rigid, fixed length. Unless it's made of rubber, it doesn't flex. Thus, if one uses the bogie to effectively reduce the front overhang on a curve, then that surely must impact on the back end? I'm talking here of the likes of Graham's lengthy Prinny (though Thompson Pacifics have a potentially huge overhang at the front). If the front end tucks-in, then the back end must stick out further; mustn't it? 

 

Or, as usual, what am I missing?

 

When I laid out the fiddle yard roads on Little Bytham, particularly where they met Norman Solomon's scale-spaced scenic-side trackwork, I wanted the maximum front overhang to be present; to ensure passing vehicles didn't clout each other.

 

 

To this end, I used GREAT NORTHERN, the LNER loco with the longest overall wheelbase (excepting the Raven A2s), thus the one with the greatest potential overhang. A Pullman car, being the longest vehicle, was used to make sure there was sufficient clearance (the radius here is just less than 4'). 

 

Despite 60113's bogie just 'going along for the ride', I don't think the front overhang is excessive, though the rear end is a bit more extreme. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

I have built a Raven Pacific chassis, and used Hornby "Steamroller" (No Flange) wheels for the sprung pony truck, as the wheelbase is so long.  After reading the posts regarding bogies, I have decided to modify the bogie by moving the bogie pin towards the rear.  Will see how this performs.  I read that the grinding noise of the bogie wheels on the frame when running into Newcastle Central was a feature of these engines.

[Porcy Mane]

6 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

And, his footbridge in the background (to feature in close-up soon) is magnificent. 

 

JM's foot bridge is a smashing representation of cast iron and lattice work Victoriana.

 

 

The V2 is fully sprung and has bogie side control.  Built by Mr. Becareful  (as christened by Roy) whom also built the Queens Board. 

 

6 hours ago, t-b-g said:

"You will have to alter it. It doesn't fit between the tracks" "I can't make it any narrower. It is a scale model of the real thing, the tracks must be wrong".

 

The S & T engineer won the day and the slight slewing of the track the V2 is standing on was the result!

 

The tale you tell has missed out the most essential part, Roy being at his most colourful and animated best before he went off and put the kettle on. The full story is probably best kept for the bar.

 

The slew in the track is as per prototype and it can just be made out in certain photographs.

 

 

Not may folk realise the work that Mr Becareful  put in on that, as only abut 30% of it is visible above "ground". This is the undergubbins and its associated test rig used for bench checking its operation and slotting arrangements. The servos are mounted in an etch by JM.

 

The question Mr Becareful asks is: does he re-start the building of Babworth gantry?

 

 

The battery cabinets were the work of Archie Axlebox of hereabouts who may be along to comment later but we're just about ready to go out for a day trainspotting whilst remaining in within our personal bubbles so it may be some time.

 

He does knock up a canny cabinet. Who knows, one day in the not to distance future they may be available as a white metal casting?

 

 

And finally, said member of the S&T dept.  (Archie) starting the ground works and showing off how much abuse the baseboards can take along with a rather well turned ankle.

 

 

Crikey! Was it six years ago?

 

Porcy

 

 

 

Edited July 31, 2020 by Porcy Mane

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, Porcy Mane said:

 

JM's foot bridge is a smashing representation of cast iron and lattice work Victoriana.

 

 

The V2 is fully sprung and has bogie side control.  Built by Mr. Becareful  (as christened by Roy) whom also built the Queens Board. 

 

 

The tale you tell has missed out the most essential part, Roy being at his most colourful and animated best before he went off and put the kettle on. The full story is probably best kept for the bar.

 

The slew in the track is as per prototype and it can just be made out in certain photographs.

 

 

Not may folk realise the work that Mr Becareful  put in on that, as only abut 30% of it is visible above "ground". This is the undergubbins and its associated test rig used for bench checking its operation and slotting arrangements. The servos are mounted in an etch by JM.

 

The question Mr Becareful asks is: does he re-start the building of Babworth gantry?

 

 

The battery cabinets were the work of Archie Axlebox of hereabouts who may be along to comment later but we're just about ready to go out for a day trainspotting whilst remaining in within our personal bubbles so it may be some time.

 

He does knock up a canny cabinet. Who knows, one day in the not to distance future they may be available as a white metal casting?

 

 

And finally, said member of the S&T dept.  (Archie) starting the ground works and showing off how much abuse the baseboards can take along with a rather well turned ankle.

 

 

Crikey! Was it six years ago?

 

Porcy

 

 

 

Terrific stuff,

 

Thanks for showing us. 

 

I should have mentioned Rick's signal, but I couldn't quite remember if it was his, Mick Moore's or Martin Lloyd's; both also great signal-builders and contributors to Retford.

 

I'm sure Sandra would love Rick to complete the Babworth gantry. Perhaps a PM?

 

Very best regards,

 

Tony. 

 

P.S. That V2 is magnificent, and, as you say, what canny cabinets. 

 

As I look through my collection of Retford pictures taken down the years, as Tony Gee comments, the number of highly-talented contributors is incredible. It would be a sin not to finish it (though who's going to make all those massive telegraph poles?). 

Edited July 31, 2020 by Tony Wright
to add something

[PMP]

4 hours ago, Porcy Mane said:

 

JM's foot bridge is a smashing representation of cast iron and lattice work Victoriana.

 

 

 

Porcy

 

 

 

JM’s bridge is another fascinating example of those signature pieces on the layout, that show the skillset of Roy’s friends and collaborators on the project. 
 

 

It’s nice to think that you can look around the ‘train set’ and see so many items that people built because they wanted too, and to a standard of uniformity that holds the project together. And I can put a face to most of the pieces too, which is a nice touch.

 

 

Heres the view southbound from the bridge, the original held (offstage) by my polite and erudite photo assistant, ‘Mrs Jackson’s little boy’

Edited July 31, 2020 by PMP
Chelling speck

[sandra]

11 hours ago, davefrk said:

 

Hi Sandra, I have the J52 I built to shunt the yard if you wish that back on Retford, It's been serviced and is ready to re-enter service, It's actually a bit of a stranger on my layout Wharfeside so it may as well move back to Retford.

I don't know if you remember me, I'm one of the 'Scots Gits' as Roy christened us and I usually worked the Babworth box when I could get down from Glasgow.

 

All the best to you and Retford.

Dave Franks.

Dave,

 

That would be great, there’s a tremendous shortage of tank locomotives.

 

I do remember Roy referring to the “Scots Gits” in his inimitable way but he had so many nicknames for various different people I was never entirely sure who was who. I hope he didn’t have a nickname for me!
 

Hope to see you soon.

 

Sandra

[robertcwp]

5 minutes ago, sandra said:

 

 

I do remember Roy referring to the “Scots Gits” in his inimitable way but he had so many nicknames for various different people I was never entirely sure who was who. I hope he didn’t have a nickname for me!
 

 

I hope he didn't have one for me either. I probably did not know Roy well enough to have earned one. 

 

At least one person had a nickname that cannot be repeated on this forum.

[St Enodoc]

11 minutes ago, sandra said:

I hope he didn’t have a nickname for me!

 

4 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

I hope he didn't have one for me either. I probably did not know Roy well enough to have earned one.

The best nicknames are those that are known to everybody except the victim!

[Tony Wright]

That wonderful Retford footbridge, looking north as an Up goods rumbles by.

 

 

Of course it's the only footbridge crossing the GN at Retford. The station had a subway.

 

I'm not sure of the A1's provenance, but it's not an original Retford one. 

 

 

[Denbridge]

21 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi,

i’m not sure that pictures will help, it really needs  diagrams with explanations.  I’m sure there are books written in the past which have already explained the principles far better than I could do. For me the pioneers and exponents of these techniques included Guy Williams and Mike Sharman.  I had several conversations with Mike when I was a young modeller but sadly never met Guy.

I’ll see what I can find in my book collection and report back.

Frank

In his various articles and books, Guy often stated that he built bogies that just "went along for the ride". He didn't feel that side control offered any benefits.

[t-b-g]

10 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Yes, provided that the track is perfectly level with no twist and the wheels are all perfectly aligned.

 

You have truly learned the path to good running on a layout.

 

Armed with that knowledge, you can go from this place into the world and you can call yourself a modeller.

 

 

[sandra]

39 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

That wonderful Retford footbridge, looking north as an Up goods rumbles by.

 

 

Of course it's the only footbridge crossing the GN at Retford. The station had a subway.

 

I'm not sure of the A1's provenance, but it's not an original Retford one. 

 

 

Tony,

The footbridge is truly magnificent. I visited Roy about two weeks before he died but in spite of him being very poorly he insisted in taking me across to the railway shed to show me the new footbridge. He was immensely pleased with it and we chatted about it and the rest of the railway but before long he became too tired and he had to return to the house to lie down.

 

The locomotive is actually mine, she is 60125 Scottish Union. It’s a very old DJH kit actually from their Banbury days. I bought it in a very distressed condition at the EM gauge society bring and buy stall at Bracknell a few years ago. It looked like it had been dropped and it was painted very badly in BR blue. I completely rebuilt it fitted a Mashima motor and High Level gearbox and sprayed it in BR green. My fear is that it is not really up to the standard required on Retford.

Sandra

[gr.king]

6 hours ago, Porcy Mane said:

 

Crikey! Was it six years ago?

 

Porcy

 

I often saw those notices instructing viewers not to lean on the layout.

 

?!?!?

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, sandra said:

Tony,

The footbridge is truly magnificent. I visited Roy about two weeks before he died but in spite of him being very poorly he insisted in taking me across to the railway shed to show me the new footbridge. He was immensely pleased with it and we chatted about it and the rest of the railway but before long he became too tired and he had to return to the house to lie down.

 

The locomotive is actually mine, she is 60125 Scottish Union. It’s a very old DJH kit actually from their Banbury days. I bought it in a very distressed condition at the EM gauge society bring and buy stall at Bracknell a few years ago. It looked like it had been dropped and it was painted very badly in BR blue. I completely rebuilt it fitted a Mashima motor and High Level gearbox and sprayed it in BR green. My fear is that it is not really up to the standard required on Retford.

Sandra

Thanks Sandra,

 

For what it's worth, all the rebuilding/repainting of SCOTTISH UNION is your work, and you've resurrected an old model. Not only that, it runs superbly (and thus, in that respect, more than reaches the 'standard required' on Retford).

 

And, anyway, now that the whole thing is yours, who sets the Retford standard? I know you'll set the bar high, but even some of the great man's earlier work would require the eye of faith to 'bring it up to standard' so to speak; all those ancient ex-GC and ex-GN 2-8-0s, devoid of brakes, lamp brackets, cab glazing and a myriad of detail omissions. But, who in their right mind would 'reject' those on Retford? As for those old Kitmaster coaches..............

 

Anyway, if the group gets back together, you'll have no fear of 'standards'. 

 

Remember, Retford has a 'broad brush' approach, on the grand scale. Geoff said just as much at Roy's funeral. I recall an incident where a visitor commented on the lack of brakes and other detail on a Roy-built N5. The loco was standing at Babworth and Roy was by the flat crossing. My quoting Roy verbatim would result in the moderators banning me, but it went along the lines of not being able to see which class of loco it were, let alone whether it had brakes! Even assuming anyone could see the loco at all at that range!

 

Good running on Retford is always paramount, and from what I saw of your work on Tuesday, it's fully 'up to standard'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited July 31, 2020 by Tony Wright
to add something

[t-b-g]

52 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Sandra,

 

For what it's worth, all the rebuilding/repainting of SCOTTISH UNION is your work, and you've resurrected an old model. Not only that, it runs superbly (and thus, in that respect, more than reaches the 'standard required' on Retford).

 

And, anyway, now that the whole thing is yours, who sets the Retford standard? I know you'll set the bar high, but even some of the great man's earlier work would require the eye of faith to 'bring it up to standard' so to speak; all those ancient ex-GC and ex-GN 2-8-0s, devoid of brakes, lamp brackets, cab glazing and a myriad of detail omissions. But, who in their right mind would 'reject' those on Retford? As for those old Kitmaster coaches..............

 

Anyway, if the group gets back together, you'll have no fear of 'standards'. 

 

Remember, Retford has a 'broad brush', approach, on the grand scale. Geoff said just as much at Roy's funeral. I recall an incident where a visitor commented on the lack of brakes and other detail on a Roy-built N5. The loco was standing at Babworth and Roy was by the flat crossing. My quoting Roy verbatim would result in the moderators banning me, but it went along the lines of not being able to see which class of loco it were, let alone whether it had brakes! Even assuming anyone could see the loco at all at that range!

 

Good running on Retford is always paramount, and from what I saw of your work on Tuesday, it's fully 'up to standard'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I agree with all of that. Roy was always very careful when the layout was being photographed that the more basic locos stayed well away from the camera.

 

He used to say that when they were going past on a train, you didn't see whether they had brakes or not. It was only when they were in front of a lens.

 

There were certainly a number of real "top drawer" models but there was a very good range of standards that all seemed to blend together.

 

I did notice that Sandra's V2 has a pair of wheels under the cab. That was more than many of Roy's did!

 

So Sandra, please don't worry. It is great that there will be some of your locos on the layout and I look forward to seeing them. We can't all build locos like Roy and paint them like Geoff, no matter how hard we try! 

Edited July 31, 2020 by t-b-g
Spelling

[FarrMan]

15 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

A loco body is a rigid, fixed length. Unless it's made of rubber, it doesn't flex. Thus, if one uses the bogie to effectively reduce the front overhang on a curve, then that surely must impact on the back end? I'm talking here of the likes of Graham's lengthy Prinny (though Thompson Pacifics have a potentially huge overhang at the front). If the front end tucks-in, then the back end must stick out further; mustn't it? 

 

Or, as usual, what am I missing?

Tony

 

Centrifugal force will encourage the loco to go to the outside of the curve. The longer the rigid chassis, the longer the line across the arc between front and rear rigid wheel centre lines. That means that at the centre of the arc, the distance between the true curve and the straight line of the chassis will be further. As with a 9F, depending on this distance, the middle wheel or intermediate wheels will need to have sufficient sideplay to negotiate the curve required. All this means that the longer the rigid chassis, the more overhang on the INSIDE of the curve and less on the OUTSIDE of the curve. Though this is not what happened on the 'real thing', it would look more natural on a model going round non scale tight curves. If the front bogie and rear pony truck are made rigid, then both front and rear of the loco would keep much more in line with the following and, if appropriate, preceding vehicles, making buffer lock much less likely. If you want me to produce a formula to calculate how much sideplay a given length of rigid chassis would need on a given radius curve, I am sure that I could come up with something!

 

Lloyd

[gr.king]

Centrifugal force?

[FarrMan]

Just now, gr.king said:

Centrifugal force?

The opposite of centripetal force.

 

Lloyd

[ArthurK]

17 hours ago, micklner said:

Have you a photo please ?

 

Any suggestions re the dreaded 0-4-4 Tank Loco, re the rear bogie set up ?

 

 

 

Not really a problem if you compensate both the driving wheels and  the bogie.  Allow the bogie take the weight with no vertical movement. Use a small diameter support for bogie so that it can rock.

 

I recommend this method for both 4-4-0s and  0-4-4s.

 

ArthurK

[St Enodoc]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

You have truly learned the path to good running on a layout.

 

Armed with that knowledge, you can go from this place into the world and you can call yourself a modeller.

 

 

All I've got to do now is to put it into practice...

 

Seriously, of course Tony, what I was implying through my opaque irony is that such perfection is impossible to achieve - which is why we rely on slop in so-called rigid chassis or springs/compensation to, yes, compensate for the inherent tolerances or errors

[Tony Wright]

53 minutes ago, FarrMan said:

Tony

 

Centrifugal force will encourage the loco to go to the outside of the curve. The longer the rigid chassis, the longer the line across the arc between front and rear rigid wheel centre lines. That means that at the centre of the arc, the distance between the true curve and the straight line of the chassis will be further. As with a 9F, depending on this distance, the middle wheel or intermediate wheels will need to have sufficient sideplay to negotiate the curve required. All this means that the longer the rigid chassis, the more overhang on the INSIDE of the curve and less on the OUTSIDE of the curve. Though this is not what happened on the 'real thing', it would look more natural on a model going round non scale tight curves. If the front bogie and rear pony truck are made rigid, then both front and rear of the loco would keep much more in line with the following and, if appropriate, preceding vehicles, making buffer lock much less likely. If you want me to produce a formula to calculate how much sideplay a given length of rigid chassis would need on a given radius curve, I am sure that I could come up with something!

 

Lloyd

Thanks Lloyd,

 

'If you want me to produce a formula to calculate how much sideplay a given length of rigid chassis would need on a given radius curve, I am sure that I could come up with something!'

 

That sounds far too much like hard sums to me!

 

Whether it would look more natural on a model, to some extent is irrelevant on the main line depiction of Little Bytham, because any tight curves are out of sight or in the fiddle yard. As long as all my locos negotiate these without any problems, I'll leave formulae creations to those clever enough; certainly not me!

 

Regards,

 

Tony.