Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

I have to agree with this. I’ve yet to build a loco chassis that I’m 100% happy with (several which run, but they’re never perfect). However, I’ve built a couple of high level boxes and they’re very easy to put together and they run very sweetly. So as far as I’m concerned it’s much easier to build the gearbox than the rest of the chassis and only takes about an hour (for me - quicker I’m sure if you’re experienced).

 

Having said this, it’s not a part that I particularly enjoy and I would love to buy a ready built motor gearbox. I’d be happy to pay a small premium for this and did buy a couple of DJH boxes three years ago when they were £60, but I think that DJH have priced themselves out of the market at £75 (for many people). This may be deliberate as I guess they may have lots of warranty claims on motors so it may be more hassle than it’s worth for them.

 

Sorry Tony, I wrote this and then scrolled down to your ‘put a lid on this debate post’! I won’t say any more.

 

No need to apologise, Andy. Not at all. 

 

I didn't suggest a 'lid' on the debate, rather that I'd be saying no more on it, because it seemed to be getting nowhere. That said (and in typical Wright hypocrite-style), where I find the DJH 'boxes extremely useful is when I'm building as a 'sub-contractor' for Geoff Haynes (I build so little for others now, apart from mates). To me, for say, the Craftsman GWR 2-4-2T I built of late, the DJH AM10 (GB2) was a 'perfect' prime mover.

 

 

 

 

 

If ever a drive could be described as 'drop-in', this was it; literally installed in minutes. Granted, it's expensive, but it is a beautiful mechanism. And, in this installation, completely invisible. 

 

Geoff's customer knows that the drive unit will be over £70.00, but he wants the loco to run 'perfectly (as he should). I'm sure a High-Level gearbox would give equally-smooth performance, but I'd still have to make it. Most gearboxes I've made (including HL ones) take me about an hour to put together (maybe less, maybe more). That's to make sure that everything is in perfect mesh and there's no undue noise. Occasionally, motors' pitches have to be altered to give optimum performance, which can take a bit longer. It could well be that others can make gearboxes in just minutes, but I'm not that skilled enough.

Now, without giving away my hourly rates for doing this sort of thing (making 'boxes), if a 'box construction has taken a wee bit of tweaking (and I've yet to come across one which doesn't), then any saving over a DJH gearbox's price might well be wiped out. 

 

By all means continue the debate (it is stimulating, after all), but (and I'll try to promise this), I won't be adding any more to it.

 

Other than to say I think HL gearboxes are superb.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

[Headstock]

11 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Whilst our club rooms are out of commission due the the Corona virus restrictions currently in force in Bradford, several of our members, including myself, have taken on the challenge of building a Parkside GN Pigeon Van.  As I have never built any rolling stock other than locomotives up until now I am effectively a complete novice.  Looking at the kit I’m guessing there must be options for super detailing the under frame.  Can anyone suggest either a complete brass replacement for the under frame or at least any source of brass super detailing components?
 

I initially looked at using Bill Bedford sprung W irons but on further examination I noted that the leaf springs are inboard of the W irons so is there another of springing the underframe anyone could suggest?

 

Thanks,

 

Frank

 

Good afternoon Frank,

 

what in the name of all that is holy, is a Parkside GN P (I can't say the P word) van? It sounds 'orrible'.

[Clem]

Everyone can make up their own mind on gearboxes and I have no wish to criticise anyone for their choice. However, I am most definitely in the HL camp and agree 100% with Tony Gee's and Frank's comments. You couldn't have a simpler gearbox to put together. I cut the gear stage axles to size using a carborundum disc in a mini drill and it takes just a minute and the idler spindle with the same, although my techinque is to do it a number of goes until it severs to avoid the motor having too much heat. (this seems to be the bit that seems to have been raised as complicated -  or have I got that wrong?). I always take my time on the assembly but it is incredibly straight forward and the big plus for anyone giving it a go is that the instructions are fully comprehesive.  These gearboxes are unbelievable value for money and people who do use them, swear by them (not at them!). 

Jesse, I wouldn't dream of ramming my ideas down anyone's throat and I don't think anyone else here would either. Surely this is just folk putting forward their own preferences, with the help of their own experience. As always, everyone to their own.

[cctransuk]

32 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

 

But then you have the worry of overheating the spindle if you're not in and out quickly. Someone mentioned wadding damp tissue paper between the spindle and the motor, to absorb the heat - very good advice.

 

I've used pliers to cut spindles in the past, too, despite being assured (on this forum, but not this thread) that I must be lying because pliers couldn't possibly get through hardened steel.

 

I must admit my preferred method is to avoid cutting the spindle at all costs, unless totally necessary - even if the end of the shaft has to protrude through the firehole slightly.

 

The origin of this part of the thread related to hardened steel idler shafts in HL gearboxes - there is no danger of overheating a piece of plain shafting.

 

As to heat transfer when cutting motor shafts, try : -

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/p/1588792803?iid=261925047918&chn=ps&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=710-134428-41853-0&mkcid=2&itemid=261925047918&targetid=938486033020&device=c&mktype=pla&googleloc=1006537&poi=&campaignid=10199638297&mkgroupid=101938342477&rlsatarget=pla-938486033020&abcId=1145987&merchantid=110769374&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIiLvCpP7R6wIVmKztCh0PfQm5EAQYBSABEgJ5YfD_BwE

 

or something similar.

 

I can't imagine that cutting hardened steel rod with even 'chunky' pliers can do the pliers much good!

 

To every problem there are at least two solutions - the proper way and a bodge. Money spent on tools and equipment is the best investment you can make - it'll save you time, worry and injury, and result in a far better outcome.

 

John Isherwood.

[micklner]

4 hours ago, 2750Papyrus said:

Mick, next time you make a High level gearbox, please would you consider recording the build to Facebook in a manner similar to  Mike Trice's teaking and lining tutorials?

Not a problem , I have a LNER N8 pending at the moment.

 

edit

I will have a look at the video and see if there any others tips to mention in due course.

Edited September 5, 2020 by micklner

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

If you take out the bits where explanation was being given but no actual modelling taking place, that probably balances out the sped up and off camera elements. 

 

I think the reason why the discussion is still going on is that when somebody with Tony Wright's "name" in the hobby starts steering people away from one product in favour of another, there are people who will say " If Tony Wright uses DJH boxes in preference to High Level ones then I will do the same".

 

There are enough of us who have found High Level products to be superbly designed and really easy to make that putting one person off trying a High Level box is one too many!

 

No high level (see what I did there) of skill is needed. You need to be able to fold an etch at a right angle, open up the holes (which is little more than removing the cusp from the etch) and solder a bearing into a hole.

 

I would agree that in the days of a force or push fit final drive gear, that element could be very tricky. Now they have grub screws, if you can build a pair of frames straight square and level you can build a High Level gearbox. If you cannot build a pair of frames straight, square and level, spending more money on a DJH box to save you half an hour isn't going to make it run any better.

 

I haven't used a DJH motor and gear as I would rather purchase 2 High level ones instead and the DJH ones are not going to fit in most of the the pre-grouping models I make without sticking out all over the place. I am sure they are excellent products, even if they are more expensive than my recent purchase of a big motor and a milled/machined brass gear mount ready assembled drive for an O gauge loco.

 

I would suggest that some of the less complicated (no swivelling or adjustable angles) High Level boxes are an absolutely ideal thing for a beginner to try. A couple of folds, a couple of soldered joints and a spot of loctite/superglue to fix the layshafts in the etch.

 

If you are into shunting and slow running, the 108:1 versions are just sublime. All my best running shunting locos have them.    

I'm very hesitant to call something you've written 'unfair', Tony, but I'm afraid I have to here.

 

 'I think the reason why the discussion is still going on is that when somebody with Tony Wright's "name" in the hobby starts steering people away from one product in favour of another, there are people who will say " If Tony Wright uses DJH boxes in preference to High Level ones then I will do the same".'

 

Looking back through my more-recent posts, I don't think I've attempted to 'steer' anyone away from one product in favour of another. You're not comparing what I've said as 'like for like'.

 

In my last post (which was written before I read yours), you'll note my intention to say no more about the subject, but I had to respond to your implication. If this means my being even more of a hypocrite than usual, then so be it. I hope you'll also note my final comment on HL 'boxes. 

 

What I've been trying to say (obviously poorly) is that if one doesn't feel entirely happy about making-up a (complex) gearbox, then buy one which is ready-made - DJH (or Portescap), or....... That the DJH one is bigger, more difficult to disguise and certainly more-expensive I've not disputed. And, I have certainly not been trying to dissuade anyone from buying and building a High-Level 'box. 

 

What might be of interest for you you to know is that I've 'fixed' many locos I've had through my hands where a set of frames has been perfectly-square and well-assembled, but the loco runs as if it were at a lumberjacks' convention. Why? Because the prime-mover has not been put together properly, even ones as good as HL's products. My 'fix' has been to replace the noisy drives with either ones I've had to make-up (or rebuild) or with DJH ones. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[micklner]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I think this discussion has gone far enough, Mick,

 

At least as far as I'm concerned.

 

There's a big difference between 'complicated' and 'complex', and that's significant in my book. And, why am I seen as putting folk off by stating I've seen lots of bent 'boxes, etc? Some of those have been HL ones as well. I'm merely advising caution. 

 

Do you know the percentage of loco kits which are never completed? Even at an 'optimistic' guess it's over 90%! Most of that high percentage is caused by a failure to make the things go, including an inability to make the prime mover sweet. Would you sooner I say 'Go ahead, dive in at the deep end, spend your money, then watch your 'investment' gather dust in a mouldering box on an even more-dusty shelf'? 

 

Quoting from your list - 'Cut the gear shafts too (sic) length'. What are the 'gear shafts' made of, please? Hardened steel or just plain steel? How do you 'cut them off'? 

 

I concede the point entirely that (from your figures) the HL 'boxes plus the cheaper motors are incredible value for money and, though complex (not complicated), are easy enough to make. But what's 'easy enough to make'? To 'self-proclaimed experts' (and to lesser mortals) they're a doddle, of course. To someone with little model-making ability, any motor/gearbox assembly will be a problem to put together successfully. Which is where the DJH combo comes in................... Thought they're bulky, difficult to disguise and (in comparison) very expensive, they're super-smooth and dead easy to install. For those starting out on making locomotives, isn't that a reasonable starting point?

 

On all these points I'll say no more, and, if necessary, I'll admit 'defeat'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

The original point made by me was simply I do not like Gearboxes on view under Boilers and definatley not in a Cab  area. Simply use the correct motorising option on any model to avoid this disfiguring problem.

 

HL boxes give you that flexibilty , for little cost, or time to make one. If anybody wants to use a DJH box ,its simply their choice and no one else. Its their model and they can do what they like with it. The DJH ones I am sure super wonderful, and at £75 they should be . I simply wouldnt pay that price, when there are other cheaper options.

 

Each to their own.

 

 

Re Cutting shafts , I also cut them with a grinding disc and a Dremel. Hold the shaft in a vice , make  a small cut, let the metal cool and continue until cut right through. Never let the metal overheat. No idea how you could cut a shaft with pliers, without a bend resulting in the shaft , at which point the gearbox will simply not work when assembled !!.

 

 

[t-b-g]

14 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I'm very hesitant to call something you've written 'unfair', Tony, but I'm afraid I have to here.

 

 'I think the reason why the discussion is still going on is that when somebody with Tony Wright's "name" in the hobby starts steering people away from one product in favour of another, there are people who will say " If Tony Wright uses DJH boxes in preference to High Level ones then I will do the same".'

 

Looking back through my more-recent posts, I don't think I've attempted to 'steer' anyone away from one product in favour of another. You're not comparing what I've said as 'like for like'.

 

In my last post (which was written before I read yours), you'll note my intention to say no more about the subject, but I had to respond to your implication. If this means my being even more of a hypocrite than usual, then so be it. I hope you'll also note my final comment on HL 'boxes. 

 

What I've been trying to say (obviously poorly) is that if one doesn't feel entirely happy about making-up a (complex) gearbox, then buy one which is ready-made - DJH (or Portescap), or....... That the DJH one is bigger, more difficult to disguise and certainly more-expensive I've not disputed. And, I have certainly not been trying to dissuade anyone from buying and building a High-Level 'box. 

 

What might be of interest for you you to know is that I've 'fixed' many locos I've had through my hands where a set of frames has been perfectly-square and well-assembled, but the loco runs as if it were at a lumberjacks' convention. Why? Because the prime-mover has not been put together properly, even ones as good as HL's products. My 'fix' has been to replace the noisy drives with either ones I've had to make-up (or rebuild) or with DJH ones. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

There will be people reading this who think that if you, with all your experience, regard them as complex and requiring "mucking about" with, they will think "Not for me".

[Tony Wright]

3 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

There will be people reading this who think that if you, with all your experience, regard them as complex and requiring "mucking about" with, they will think "Not for me".

Am I so really poor at expressing myself, Tony?

 

Perhaps I'd better give up posting anything else! 

 

If I'd have said that any gearboxes (not just HL ones) are not complex at all, nor require any level of skill to assemble them so that they're super sweet, what would the reaction have been, I wonder? My comments would have been disingenuous in the extreme. 

 

As for 'mucking about', have you never had to do that with any of your modelling? I do it all the time!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[t-b-g]

3 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Am I so really poor at expressing myself, Tony?

 

Perhaps I'd better give up posting anything else! 

 

If I'd have said that any gearboxes (not just HL ones) are not complex at all, nor require any level of skill to assemble them so that they're super sweet, what would the reaction have been, I wonder? My comments would have been disingenuous in the extreme. 

 

As for 'mucking about', have you never had to do that with any of your modelling? I do it all the time!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

It could just as easily be me misinterpreting your words Tony. I can be very good at that.

 

I do huge amounts of mucking about. If I ever got on "Mastermind", my specialist subject would have to be "Mucking about on a modellers workbench since 1976".

 

One thing I am superb at is not using my time effectively!

[grob1234]

Well with all this discussion regarding HL boxes, I did wonder how long it would be before my ugly mug appeared on the discussion.

 

I made that video a while back, and there's a fair bit of waffle on my behalf, I admit. I thought Chris' product was excellent so I offered him the video to try and show that it was an easy build.

 

I also made the video during the very early stages of making models - the point being, I felt comfortable enough to film myself making one with relatively little experience.

 

How long does it take to make a HL box? I have literally no idea. I've never timed myself. I find making the 'mechanics' of the loco quite pleasing, especially when it runs silky smooth. All personal preferance, there is, in my view no right or wrong way to approach this hobby. 

 

Having said that I would say anyone could have a go at an HL box, they aren't too much money, and you might enjoy it - why not have a try?

 

With regards to cutting the shafts, I would probably use a rotary tool, with the stock held in a vice.

 

Edit - I would also add that I have exclusively used HL boxes on all my builds. I see no reason to change, so, Tony I can understand your preferance for DJH boxes. 6 to one and all that jazz...

Edited September 5, 2020 by grob1234

[micklner]

1 hour ago, micklner said:

Not a problem , I have a LNER N8 pending at the moment.

 

edit

I will have a look at the video and see if there any others tips to mention in due course.

Re the HL video build , all good tips,  just a couple of minor differences in how I do the assembly in the order listed as  in the video

 

Removing etches . I always use a sharp Stanley knife, I have had Swan Morton blades break through the mounting hole where they fit onto on the handle when trying to cutting metal, not recomended.

 

I personally cut the steel rod in a small vice with a cutting disc and a Dremel drill , make small cuts ensure the steel is cool ,then another small cut and continue till cut through. Nevr let the metal overheat.

 

Dont burn yourself when soldering, in this case hold the metal onto a soldering block with a wood cocktail stick . I dont like pain !!

 

I dont like the Lego brick idea for checking corners , always only use a good quality set square. There is no need to check the inside of the corner , the outside will be the same angle !!.

 

Use a scrawker to ease the folding joints before bending of any kit  etches. Cut along the etched  line until you see a faint witness line/mark  on the other plain side of the metal. A much easier bend can then be done, and the bend will close up better too.

 

Not sure if he soldered the corners on the inside of the etch after folding, before further assembly. A must do practise.

 

I fit the motor to the box , the attach the worm to the shaft . The worm should be sliding fit on the shaft , securing with superglue. before gluing dont guess the gap ,centre the worm over the top gear , ensure there is running clearance between the gear and worm then glue the worm in position.

 

cheers.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 5, 2020 by micklner

[Dave John]

I suppose there is a lot of difference between different peoples requirements. Personally I like messing about and making things myself. One of the useful bits of the HL range are the drive extenders.

I mean, who would try driving the front axle by using a drive extender almost vertically to put the motor up into the boiler leaving daylight underneath and still allowing proper compensation at the rear? Daft idea that ..... 

 

[Steamport Southport]

35 minutes ago, Dave John said:

I suppose there is a lot of difference between different peoples requirements. Personally I like messing about and making things myself. One of the useful bits of the HL range are the drive extenders.

I mean, who would try driving the front axle by using a drive extender almost vertically to put the motor up into the boiler leaving daylight underneath and still allowing proper compensation at the rear? Daft idea that ..... 

 

 

Caley Coaches 670?

 

Very intriguing prototype.

 

http://www.caleycoaches.co.uk/class670.php

 

I've got a few of the coaches to build. Not considered any CR locomotives yet.

 

 

 

Jason

[Dave John]

It is the Cl. 670, build details over on the blog. 

[Chuffer Davies]

3 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good afternoon Frank,

 

what in the name of all that is holy, is a Parkside GN P (I can't say the P word) van? It sounds 'orrible'.

Sorry my mistake the kit if from Chivers not Parkside. 

 

This is a restored example of the prototype: https://www.nnrailway.co.uk/portfolio-items/lner-4-wheel-pigeon-van-byp6843/

 

Any advice on how to improve on the basic kit would be appreciated.

 

Frank

 

[Steamport Southport]

16 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Sorry my mistake the kit if from Chivers not Parkside. 

 

This is a restored example of the prototype: https://www.nnrailway.co.uk/portfolio-items/lner-4-wheel-pigeon-van-byp6843/

 

Any advice on how to improve on the basic kit would be appreciated.

 

Frank

 

 

I think there has been some discussion on the kit in the Chivers thread in the Small Suppliers section. Before we started discussing other things. Anything of use there?

 

 

 

 

Jason

[Barry Ten]

3 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

The origin of this part of the thread related to hardened steel idler shafts in HL gearboxes - there is no danger of overheating a piece of plain shafting.

 

 

 

 

John Isherwood.

 

Thanks, john - my mistake.

[Tony Wright]

With the topic regarding gearboxes being current, perhaps the following examples might be of interest...........

 

I'm saying nothing contentious (I hope), but all I'll state is that I've used all of those illustrated below with success. 

 

 

Comet's simple, single-stage drive. Easy to put together and ideal for small locos. 

 

 

The two-stage version.................

 

I don't usually fix flywheels to my motors, but this assembly came from the collection of a deceased modeller.

 

For some reason (why, I don't know) I find these 'boxes run sweeter (in some cases, but not all) if the intermediate gearwheel is not secured to its lay-shaft by a grubscew, but just allowed to rotate freely. That being the case, two scrap brass 'cheeks', soldered to the frames, prevent the lay-shaft from slipping out. 

 

 

A Comet two-stage 'box made-up and Mashima motor installed in a Millholme H16. 

 

I've never found the need to fix the frontplate to the 'box. 

 

In this case, the intermediate gearwheel was fixed to the lay-shaft by a grubscrew.

 

 

Branchlines also makes a simple, single gear mount. I've used these with success. 

 

 

Branchlines' multi-boxes are probably better for bigger locos (at least those accommodating a hefty motor). This one's installed in a DJH 'Semi' I built. 

 

Again, this assembly came from a deceased's estate, and I initially tried it (as seen here). However, it was not too well-assembled, resulting in the Mashima motor giving up (it looks a bit tatty in this shot). I had to strip the chassis down (ugh!), rebuild the gearbox and fit a new Mashima motor. After that, it just romped away (as anyone who has seen Shap will testify - I hope). 

 

 

A comparison  between a DJH AM10 (GB2) assembly (in a B2) and a Comet two-stage 'box (in a B17). Both run superbly. The DJH one was ready-made (but more expensive). For some reason, I fitted the frontplate to the Comet 'box this time. 

 

 

 

A Markits two-stage 'box. With the fattest and longest Mashima available for 4mm, the combo is ideal for a V2.

 

Other types later.....................

 

 

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Sorry my mistake the kit if from Chivers not Parkside. 

 

This is a restored example of the prototype: https://www.nnrailway.co.uk/portfolio-items/lner-4-wheel-pigeon-van-byp6843/

 

Any advice on how to improve on the basic kit would be appreciated.

 

Frank

 

 

Good evening Frank,

 

Got you, the Chivers LNER dia 120 BY. I'm slightly disappointed, I thought you may have discovered a new GNR NPC type, such as a hound van.

 

Two things to consider, the dia 120 BY were built for the former Great Eastern section, they wouldn't have been seen pottering around the moors above Bradford.  A further five, to a different diagram, were built for the southern area or the GN mainline, a tad more plausible but they differed considerably from your kit.

 

A second thing to consider, beyond historical accuracy. Many different  manufacturers have produced kits of these annoying little vans over the years, none have succeeded in producing an accurate one. Unfortunately, the Chiverse kit is no exception. You would end up with, a typically beautifully crafted sprung chassis, carrying an inaccurate body, of a prototype unlikely to be seen in the vicinity of Clayton, unless kidnapped by local sheep farmers. Sheep van anybody?

Edited September 5, 2020 by Headstock

[t-b-g]

I can't remember who's make of gearbox it was, which is probably a good thing, as this story doesn't end well.

 

Quite a few years ago, I went over to visit Roy Jackson, who was trying out a gearbox that he hadn't used before. It was a two stage box with a steel worm and a brass intermediate and final gear.

 

The loco was a Pacific and it was being tried out on a heavy train.

 

"Come and have a look at this", he said and I watched the loco going round ever so smoothly and quietly. On the face of it a total success.

 

"Now look closely at the track".

 

There was a very thin but noticeable trail of gold all the way around the layout, between the rails.

 

He picked up the loco and turned it over to show me the teeth on the brass gears, which were already down to thin stumps.

 

The trail round the layout was the dust from the rapidly wearing brass gears as it went round.

 

Needless to say it came out and was replaced.   

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening Frank,

 

Got you, the Chivers LNER dia 120 BY. I'm slightly disappointed, I thought you may have discovered a new GNR NPC type, such as a hound van.

 

Two things to consider, the dia 120 BY were built for the former Great Eastern section, they wouldn't have been seen pottering around the moors above Bradford.  A further five, to a different diagram, were built for the southern area or the GN mainline, a tad more plausible but they differed considerably from your kit.

 

A second thing to consider, beyond historical accuracy. Many different  manufacturers have produced kits of these annoying little vans over the years, none have succeeded in producing an accurate one. Unfortunately, the Chiverse kit is no exception. You would end up with, a typically beautifully crafted sprung chassis, carrying an inaccurate body, of a prototype unlikely to be seen in the vicinity of Clayton, unless kidnapped by local sheep farmers. Sheep van anybody?

Hi Andrew

 

Even if it was loaded with prize swedes from Norfolk  for Yorkshire ?

[Chuffer Davies]

44 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I can't remember who's make of gearbox it was, which is probably a good thing, as this story doesn't end well.

 

Quite a few years ago, I went over to visit Roy Jackson, who was trying out a gearbox that he hadn't used before. It was a two stage box with a steel worm and a brass intermediate and final gear.

 

The loco was a Pacific and it was being tried out on a heavy train.

 

"Come and have a look at this", he said and I watched the loco going round ever so smoothly and quietly. On the face of it a total success.

 

"Now look closely at the track".

 

There was a very thin but noticeable trail of gold all the way around the layout, between the rails.

 

He picked up the loco and turned it over to show me the teeth on the brass gears, which were already down to thin stumps.

 

The trail round the layout was the dust from the rapidly wearing brass gears as it went round.

 

Needless to say it came out and was replaced.   

Hi Tony,

We had the identical situation when we first exhibited Hungerford at the host club's exhibition - Wakefield.  At the time all the large locomotives on the layout (King, Castles, 28xx, etc.) had been built by the then late Mike Bradley and were fitted with X05 style motors and Romford(?) gears (steel worm and brass pinion).  The trains on Hungerford comprise heavy kit built vehicles  and are of prototype length.  The layout performed well on the Friday night but part way through Saturday morning Mike's locomotives started failing with stripped gears and by the afternoon we had run out of spares.  In sheer desperation I purchased half a dozen Portescap units (Ouch!)  and through most of Saturday night I replaced the gears in the failed locomotives.  This included having to file out any milled brass frames to create a large enough opening to accept the gear boxes.   We got through Sunday without further incident but after the show I commenced on a programme of work to replace the Romford gears from the remainder of Mike's locomotives.  In several cases I completely replaced the chassis with Perseverance kits.   These locomotives have given great service year on year ever since without further incident.  A testament to the quality of the Portescap units.  Its such a shame that the later units make such a dreadful noise.

 

I'm sure the original gears would have given excellent service on the average home layout but under exhibition conditions they couldn't cope.  Not an experience I would ever want to repeat.

 

Frank      

[Chuffer Davies]

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening Frank,

 

Got you, the Chivers LNER dia 120 BY. I'm slightly disappointed, I thought you may have discovered a new GNR NPC type, such as a hound van.

 

Two things to consider, the dia 120 BY were built for the former Great Eastern section, they wouldn't have been seen pottering around the moors above Bradford.  A further five, to a different diagram, were built for the southern area or the GN mainline, a tad more plausible but they differed considerably from your kit.

 

A second thing to consider, beyond historical accuracy. Many different  manufacturers have produced kits of these annoying little vans over the years, none have succeeded in producing an accurate one. Unfortunately, the Chiverse kit is no exception. You would end up with, a typically beautifully crafted sprung chassis, carrying an inaccurate body, of a prototype unlikely to be seen in the vicinity of Clayton, unless kidnapped by local sheep farmers. Sheep van anybody?

Thanks Andrew,

 

I'll email you to discuss the inaccuracies of the kit in the hope that they can be corrected.  Whether or not we can then justify running it on Clayton is a different debate.  

 

Frank

[Headstock]

12 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Andrew

 

Even if it was loaded with prize swedes from Norfolk  for Yorkshire ?

 

Norfolk to Leeds city markets by train would be quite plausible. It would still be miles and miles and a convoluted journey away from 't moors though.