Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Though SE Finecast have updated its A2 considerably, my preference for making a model of a class member now is DJH.

 

703314243_A260539.jpg.0e961e063d80972679b5912c53e04c0e.jpg

 

As shown here by BRONZINO. I built this for Right Tracks 1 and 2, and Ian Rathbone painted it.

 

The layout looks bare without the point rodding.

 

Several A2s have been visitors on LB..................

 

1042465003_DJHA260532.jpg.0edfc65219738c846096c2355faa6db9.jpg

 

Including this DJH example, brought along by friends last year. 

 

1008043262_A2s60539.jpg.af4a0cb08e8f4ff824231a0242888686.jpg

 

And three years ago, friend Eric Kidd brought along his 60539 (much-modified Bachmann). Two BRONZINOs on Little Bytham? What will the 'spotters think? 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Willie Whizz said:

I too use an Excel spreadsheet workbook with separate 'tabs' for locos, carriages, and 3-4 sub-categories of rolling stock (vans, tanks etc.).  Trouble is, having accumulated and/or built a lot of this stuff over 30+ years while waiting for the "Wheel of Opportunity's" three categories of Time, Space and Money to align - and three 'false starts' on building layouts that never got much beyond tracklaying before the Wheel moved again - I have absolutely no idea now what any of it cost before I set-up the system about five years ago, and finally started to keep receipts.

 

I wonder what my Home Insurance Company would make of a claim that said (for example) "35 model carriages of various makes and types, typical 'replacement cost' say £40 each"?

Good evening Willie,

 

My recommendation is to take out a specialist insurance for your model railway items, especially if you have a lot.

 

I use Magnet (I have no commercial connection with the firm), and their rates are very good.

 

I would imagine that most 'ordinary' house insurances would be bamboozled by a claim for model railway items damaged, destroyed or nicked; unless you have a clause in the policies. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jack P said:

I hope this qualifies for posting here, as its slightly more 'on theme' than my usual stuff.

 

I was asked to add etched plates and weather my friends A4 'Kingfisher'

 

50304287542_ddeb182cb6_h.jpg

 

50303449288_b518aa906c_h.jpg

 

I understand that the painted plates weren't added until much later, but this is how he wanted it. Also my first time seeing an A4 model in the flesh. I really enjoyed picking all the rivet detail out on the valences.

Beautiful!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

Depends on your period. These vans really got around in BR days; one being a regular cast member on the Helston branch in deepest Cornwall in the late fifties/early sixties. They also turned up in various places across the Southern Region and (of course) the Somerset & Dorset. 

 

Yorkshire, and even "the other S&D" are almost on the doorstep by comparison.

 

I think the problem with these in model form is that, although there was only one diagram number, they weren't even all the same length, and the footboards and battery box locations varied. I've built the plastic Chivers kit more-or-less as per (do you have one of the older brass ones?). It was a delight to build and I'm quite happy with it. It's for running and I haven't even put handrails and handles on it, just picked out the moulded ones with a gold marker. The next one, I'll do properly, honest.....

 

John

 

 

 

Good evening Jon,

 

I don't think what went on in the hippy dippy sixties, is in the slightest bit relevant to Clayton. A layout set on an ex GN line, close to Wuthering heights country,  in the mid 1930's of the West riding of Yorkshire.

 

Your second paragraph is not accurate as regards one diagram with different dimensions. See later posts. The kit goes together very well but its not a good model of a dia.120 BY, even the ducket is of LMS styling, rather than LNER.

 

Fortunately, Clem is not one for just copying other modelers and manufactures mistakes. I'm sure he will make a cracking job of converting it into a more appropriate dia.170, based on the kit and also suitable for the real train that he is researching and constructing. I look forwards to seeing the results.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Northmoor said:

When you say it landed on your doorstep, exactly what altitude was it dropped from?

My sympathies, I once sent a loco to someone and when it arrived badly damaged, I think the package had a tyre mark over it.

Haha, that one was as good as Jonathan sending me a yellow pages directory for a taxidermist. 
 

Sh*t happens as they say, no matter, I’m going to go to the post office today and the blame will probably go round in circles. Just ganna get on with it and strip and re build it

  • Friendly/supportive 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jack P said:

I hope this qualifies for posting here, as its slightly more 'on theme' than my usual stuff.

 

I was asked to add etched plates and weather my friends A4 'Kingfisher'

 

50304287542_ddeb182cb6_h.jpg

 

50303449288_b518aa906c_h.jpg

 

I understand that the painted plates weren't added until much later, but this is how he wanted it. Also my first time seeing an A4 model in the flesh. I really enjoyed picking all the rivet detail out on the valences.

Not bad for a southern modeller ;) 

Edited by Jesse Sim
  • Like 2
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jack P said:

I hope this qualifies for posting here, as its slightly more 'on theme' than my usual stuff.

 

I was asked to add etched plates and weather my friends A4 'Kingfisher'

 

50304287542_ddeb182cb6_h.jpg

 

50303449288_b518aa906c_h.jpg

 

I understand that the painted plates weren't added until much later, but this is how he wanted it. Also my first time seeing an A4 model in the flesh. I really enjoyed picking all the rivet detail out on the valences.

 

With all the talk of building vs. RTR I looked at that and thought "How many modellers could build one as good as that?".

 

Your weathering has really transformed the model into something rather special.

 

I know it is all down to personal opinion but isn't the shape of an A4, especially in that livery and condition, the most stunning shape to have run on our railways? It still looks modern today and isn't too unlike some of the present day train designs.

Edited by t-b-g
Spelling
  • Like 4
  • Agree 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

With all the talk of building vs. RTR I looked at that and thought "How many modellers could build one as good as that?".

 

Your weathering has really transformed the model into something rather special.

 

I know it is all down to personal opinion but isn't the shape of an A4, especially in that livery and condition, the most stunning shape to have run on our railways? It still looks modern today and isn't too unlike some of the present day train designs.

I agree completely 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MJI said:

Any details about the Helston one?

I've seen two or three photos where it seems to be in use on the branch passenger service, along with a single coach; a BC or BCK, I'm not sure which. 

 

My guess is there was too much traffic on offer for the small van compartment in that, and it wasn't uncommon for a useful van turning up with no "Return to Xxx" branding, to get "borrowed" until somebody asked for it back. By then BY vans were distinctly under-employed, so its possible nobody ever did!

 

Something similar happened on the S&DJR Burnham branch with a Thompson BZ, which got teamed with a LMS CK, IIRC.

 

John

 

 

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

 

Good evening Jon,

 

I don't think what went on in the hippy dippy sixties, is in the slightest bit relevant to Clayton. A layout set on an ex GN line, close to Wuthering heights country,  in the mid 1930's of the West riding of Yorkshire.

 

Your second paragraph is not accurate as regards one diagram with different dimensions. See later posts. The kit goes together very well but its not a good model of a dia.120 BY, even the ducket is of LMS styling, rather than LNER.

 

Fortunately, Clem is not one for just copying other modelers and manufactures mistakes. I'm sure he will make a cracking job of converting it into a more appropriate dia.170, based on the kit and also suitable for the real train that he is researching and constructing. I look forwards to seeing the results.

Thanks for the heads-up on the ducket, I'll make a point of acquiring/making the right sort for my next attempt. 

 

From photos, it also looks like most lost their full-length footboards in later life, though I'm guessing some might have been built that way.....

 

John

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Thanks for the heads-up on the ducket, I'll make a point of acquiring/making the right sort for my next attempt. 

 

From photos, it also looks like most lost their full-length footboards in later life, though I'm guessing some might have been built that way.....

 

John

 

I've made two from Chivers kits; I think they make up into nice enough models despite what's been said previously.  This is the most recently made one.  I replaced the ducket with a brass one from MJT.  I also replaced the handrails and upper door handles with ones made from wire; the lower (small) door handles are the moulded ones picked out as you did with gold marker pen.  I also fitted jumper cables at both ends; a bit of a mystery as to why the kit only shows them at one end.  I hope I've got the layout of the underframe equipment correct; I did spend a lot of time looking at photos of real ones, and may well have confused myself in the process ....

 

P1030010.jpg.d03e191941542bcbbd6853ece49ce240.jpg

  • Like 8
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

Thanks for the heads-up on the ducket, I'll make a point of acquiring/making the right sort for my next attempt. 

 

From photos, it also looks like most lost their full-length footboards in later life, though I'm guessing some might have been built that way.....

 

John

 

Evening John,

 

a suitable duckett is available as a fold up etch fro MJT (Dart castings) When assembled, it will require filing down a tad on the back face.

 

I have never seen a photograph of one with short foot boards but I have little interest in later life modeling. I'm told that at least one photograph exists but I doubt that most lost their long footboards. Non were built that way.

 

1 hour ago, 31A said:

 

I've made two from Chivers kits; I think they make up into nice enough models despite what's been said previously.  This is the most recently made one.  I replaced the ducket with a brass one from MJT.  I also replaced the handrails and upper door handles with ones made from wire; the lower (small) door handles are the moulded ones picked out as you did with gold marker pen.  I also fitted jumper cables at both ends; a bit of a mystery as to why the kit only shows them at one end.  I hope I've got the layout of the underframe equipment correct; I did spend a lot of time looking at photos of real ones, and may well have confused myself in the process ....

 

P1030010.jpg.d03e191941542bcbbd6853ece49ce240.jpg

 

Good evenIng 31A,

 

nice to see one in the flesh. Wow, it really does look a bit short in height, up to the level of the cornice! P for pygmy van?  I'm not sure what to make of the top lights, some sort of amalgamation. For dia 120, on first impression, I would be tempted to file out the lip in the lights on the double doors and the two in the centre above the ducket and leave the three at each end as they are. For the other diagrams I would perhaps file them all out.

 

SP Steve was right about the solebars being set too far inboard, again a feature more like dia 170 etc, except the latter have wooden not steel underframes.

 

Edited by Headstock
add info on toplights.
  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I wonder how many Wills kits (or BEC, or GEM, or other body-line types) are still running on top of Tri-ang mechanisms.

My Wills 2251, built in 1971, is still "runnable" although it's a long time since it has actually run. It might be disqualified though as it had a 5-pole motor and Romford wheels fitted about 30 years ago.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Mention of Wils kits on top of old Tri-ang mechanisms prompted me to dig out pictures of one example I still have. 

 

1509186423_A260532Wills.jpg.7d1a9b9278c702f3a07faaf4bb99d9ae.jpg

 

In the early-'70s, when the notion of building working mechanisms was still daunting to me, by building a Wills kit to go on top of a Tri-ang chassis at least one obtained a 'runner'. This old thing originally retained its Tr-ang wheels (with flangeless centre drivers!). I immediately considered myself a 'scale modeller' when later I bushed the chassis (including the gearwheel, which was Araldited in place on the axle!) and fitted Romford wheels; then, made Jamieson valve gear for it. When built, it had the Wills tender (beading on an A2 tender, with  turn-ins at the front, no rivets and corridor tender width?). A few years later I built a DJH tender for it. 

 

My painting of it is 'of its day'. 

 

1276250509_vans10fittedfreight60532.jpg.74f44ed57ae74c161553d43214c952b1.jpg

 

Despite still retaining its original XO4, it still sees service from time to time on LB. 

 

When I first built it, I used the dome provided (a 'banjo' type - Mr Roche, Oh dear!).  The multiple valve regulator gear was scratch-built. 

 

As can be seen, down its 45+ years of existence it's been 'improved' piecemeal, but only up to a point. 

 

505205789_6053860532A2s.jpg.81ee75b71b5cdc8f3e78080d4d6c2727.jpg

 

For my Crowood book, I used it as a comparison with a Bachmann A2 (which I detailed/renumbered/renamed). Quite a difference!

 

Does anyone out there have examples of Tri-ang-powered pieces of antiquity?

 

 

 

One day I will finish the transfers on my Triang A3, I decided 30 years ago the lining was not good enough and the boiler had to be see through underneath.

 

Got a 5 pole MRRC motor in it and used its X04 in another Triang loco.

 

Then started modding the tender to be like the 1970s version.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

I've seen two or three photos where it seems to be in use on the branch passenger service, along with a single coach; a BC or BCK, I'm not sure which. 

 

My guess is there was too much traffic on offer for the small van compartment in that, and it wasn't uncommon for a useful van turning up with no "Return to Xxx" branding, to get "borrowed" until somebody asked for it back. By then BY vans were distinctly under-employed, so its possible nobody ever did!

 

Something similar happened on the S&DJR Burnham branch with a Thompson BZ, which got teamed with a LMS CK, IIRC.

 

John

 

 

 

I will have to have a look as that branch is still a possible for a small layout. Even have a small prarie and a 22 just in case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, jwealleans said:

Lovely.   Compare that to the real thing here (starts at 6:28).   I think you've pretty much got it.

 

I would have loved to have shared that film with my father.  He started at St John's College in York in 1939 so possibly would have witnessed the frozen Ouse, I don't recall him talking about it though.  One thing he did recall was that on occasions students, operating in pairs, would reach out of the corridor windows to drop a destination board near the river (from the Scarborough Railway Bridge perhaps?).  Apparently the boat house had quite a collection of these.  I doubt that this was approved of by either the college or the L.N.E.R. but they probably never knew what was going on.   He did not have many good things to say about the Duke of Kent so perhaps it's as well he never saw it!

Edited by Adam88
typo
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Headstock said:

Fortunately, Clem is not one for just copying other modelers and manufactures mistakes. I'm sure he will make a cracking job of converting it into a more appropriate dia.170, based on the kit and also suitable for the real train that he is researching and constructing. I look forwards to seeing the results.

Yikes! No pressure then!

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

Thanks for the heads-up on the ducket, I'll make a point of acquiring/making the right sort for my next attempt. 

 

From photos, it also looks like most lost their full-length footboards in later life, though I'm guessing some might have been built that way.....

 

John

Good morning John,

 

The top photograph on page 15 of BR General Parcels Rolling Stock, A Pictorial Survey by David Larkin, Bradford Barton, 1978 shows a BY (E70217E) with two short footboards, beneath the doors. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, chris p bacon said:

 

I agree.  I've been travelling regularly from Bedfordshire to the Borders over the last 12 months, as I'm in a small truck I take a break at Scotch Corner and park right at the back of the car park where it's quiet (stops people helping themselves to things off the back) On the way back on a Sunday evening I'm always there at roughly the same time and watch a procession of small vans arriving and parking up to swap over bags of parcels. There are sometimes 8-10 vans swapping over and the amount of stuff that is flung from one van to the other and kicked about is astonishing.  

I thought at first it was a 3rd rate courier company, but after a while it became obvious it was Amazon. 

 

Dave, 

I hope that doesn't mean you sample the Bacon Rolls !!! I was introduced to them by Mr King and Mr White on our way to visit "Grantham" near Bishop Auckland ?

Now when I transfer Guide Dogs to or from Scotland I suggest this lay by as a meeting point. Doggies not allowed Pork so have to bee greedy and eat it all myself.:D

Regards,Derek.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

My Wills 2251, built in 1971, is still "runnable" although it's a long time since it has actually run. It might be disqualified though as it had a 5-pole motor and Romford wheels fitted about 30 years ago.

It qualifies perfectly John.

 

I think Wills did four 0-6-0 tender loco kits to go on top of a Tri-ang 'Jinty' chassis - your 2251, a Southern Q, a 4F and a J39. The chassis probably wasn't accurate for any of them; which caused a problem for those who wished to make 'correct' frames for the locos, because the splashers matched the 'Jinty's' wheel spacing. That said, didn't Wills do a 'scale' chassis for the 4F? 

 

I know when Dave Ellis of SE Finecast reintroduced the kits, it was all with new tooling, along with etched nickel silver chassis. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jack P said:

I hope this qualifies for posting here, as its slightly more 'on theme' than my usual stuff.

 

I was asked to add etched plates and weather my friends A4 'Kingfisher'

 

50304287542_ddeb182cb6_h.jpg

 

50303449288_b518aa906c_h.jpg

 

I understand that the painted plates weren't added until much later, but this is how he wanted it. Also my first time seeing an A4 model in the flesh. I really enjoyed picking all the rivet detail out on the valences.

Now that looks amazing...

 

You've given me some inspiration to get an LNER A4! I always though Garter Blue looked 'Toy-like' compared to Brunswick, but a properly weathered one like yours just looks the business!

  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

Haha, that one was as good as Jonathan sending me a yellow pages directory for a taxidermist. 
 

Sh*t happens as they say, no matter, I’m going to go to the post office today and the blame will probably go round in circles. Just ganna get on with it and strip and re build it

Good morning Jesse,

 

It'll be interesting if you ever find out where the actual damage was done - in Australia, in transit or (most likely?) here in the UK. 

 

It's interesting that (as we spoke of yesterday) the kit was glued together, and the 'impacts' have reduced it once again to its component parts. Were it soldered, the damage would probably have been much more severe. 

 

I assume it was insured when you posted it to me? As I mentioned, when I posted your C2 off to you, it was covered by the most-comprehensive insurance available (that's why it cost over £75.00 to send it!). Which meant that, had the worst happened (fortunately, it didn't), its full value would have been paid out.

 

I know we personally spoke of these things yesterday, but it might be of interest to others. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
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.