Wright writes.....

[St Enodoc]

40 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

A descendant (note the spelling, please) of 'Great Colin'. Who (showing my ignorance) was he? 

He used to own MTK...

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good evening TSE,

 

There was also one used on the Banbury motor circa 1939. It has already been noted that there was spread after their introduction,  millions of pages back it seems. A picture of one at Clayton in the mid 1930's, perhaps delivering pigeons to Heathcliff, would be more useful than anything post war.

 

The thing is, the LNER (and the LMS for that matter) had hundreds of more typical vans doing all the hard graft up and down the system. These hard workers, the backbone of the real railway,  mostly get ignored by the model railway community. The ex NER BZs for example, had a wider geographical spread in both LNER and BR days, they were still  hard at it in the swinging sixties and counted their number in the hundreds. The Thompson BZ were built in greater numbers than the dia 120 BY, yet  modelers show little interest in either. Why is the dia. 120 BY's so popular, that they have spawned so many dodgy models and are seen to be an essential  part of every LNER/ER layout, when they were actually built in comparatively small numbers? Why are they so popular, when the basic technical data of the real vans, is so poorly understood by the people modeling them? A catchy nickname?

 

There is a rather telling photograph posted on this thread. Two models standing side by side, yet from different manufactures , both are supposed to be dia 120 BY's but they look so different from one another Which one is right, if any?

 

They are such a bummer to capture as a reasonable model, that I praise the Gods of model railways, that I have never uncovered one of the little *******, in my own modeling neck of the woods.

Good morning again, Andrew,

 

'There is a rather telling photograph posted on this thread. Two models standing side by side, yet from different manufactures , both are supposed to be dia 120 BY's but they look so different from one another Which one is right, if any?'

 

Could this be the photograph you mean?

 

 

In answer to you question, I'd say neither is 'right' ('any' implies more than two). 

 

The Chivers' example (left) was built by the late Dave Shakespeare, and clearly is too low with regard to the bodyside height. I built the Isinglass version (right), which would appear to be the correct height, but the tumbleholme isn't pronounced enough. This one has the two, shorter footboards, as illustrated in the Bradford Barton book I mentioned. It also didn't have the horizontal handrails. 

 

It's unwise to run both together side-by-side in a train, and this shot was set up for photographic purposes only. 

 

 

Another Chivers' example, this one built/painted/weathered by Rob Davey. 

 

Is the D&S one (below) better?

 

 

I built this one, and Geoff Haynes painted it. There was some discussion at the time regarding the springs/'W'-irons relationship, and it was established that some were built like this; with the springs to the outside. It looks like I've put the main footboard too low down on the solebar! 

 

What this quartet of vehicles shows (at least to me) is an example of how many models there must be out there which are really quite 'wrong'. Wrong in the their detail, wrong in their proportions/dimensions and wrong in their construction. In every case, these models were built with what was supplied in the respective kits (apart from the Isinglass one, where I substituted several metal bits for the running gear), without much in the way of modifications. 

 

Without appearing too slipshod, these will remain as they are - forming parts of trains over 40 wagons-long in some cases. 

 

Best to take photographs of them from 'far-away'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 10, 2020 by Tony Wright
typo error

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, polybear said:

 

Hi Tony,

I recall speaking to Steffan Lewis (RIP) about his excellent layout "Maindee East Engine Shed" and the fact that I hadn't seen it exhibited for several years; it turned out that it had been damaged (in the trailer?) when returning from Scaleforum (?) one year.  The Insurance Company paid for it to be repaired by a professional modeller; however Steffan didn't feel the same about it anymore as it "wasn't all his work". 

Good morning Brian,

 

Yes, Maindee East....... 

 

 

One of the finest layouts it's ever been my privilege to photograph.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

12 hours ago, Barry O said:

He is happy with it - he probably either doesn't know or doesn't care.. the Silver King depicted was from Carlisle but remained un changed as a 00 loco rather than being converted to EM.

 

Baz

'He is happy with it - he probably either doesn't know or doesn't care..'

 

Probably sums up most modellers' approach, Baz.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Headstock]

42 minutes ago, micklner said:

 

 

Pigeon Van  a cheap plastic kit available would be a probable reason, not many people worry about total realism on their railways.

 

 

My Chivers version with new handrails it need a a thinner stepboard made. The  painted roofline is straight, I presume flashlight effect/bounce.

 

 

 

 

 

Morning Mick,

 

sounds good in theory but there is a whole history of inaccurate kits, that both pre date and post date the illustrated model, some like the D&S 'pot pori' go for silly money.

[James Fitzjames]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

My most profound apologies, James.

 

As always, I should have taken my own advice and looked up the name first. Checking it up (in the RCTS) it seems to have an accent on the 'o' (something I can't reproduce). 

 

A descendant (note the spelling, please) of 'Great Colin'. Who (showing my ignorance) was he? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Hullo Tony,

 

'Descendant (touche - I cannot reproduce accents either) of Great Colin' is the hereditary title of the chiefs of Clan Campbell, now Dukes of Argyll. Why the LNER thought it a good idea to commemorate the mortal enemy of what the Campbells viewed as the   'Gallows Herd' of Lochaber on a locomotive that was to spend a deal of time in that locality is anyone's guess! Needless to say, it didn't go down well north of Bridge of Orchy...

Edited September 10, 2020 by James Fitzjames
Typo

[Barry O]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

'He is happy with it - he probably either doesn't know or doesn't care..'

 

Probably sums up most modellers' approach, Baz.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

I would agree.. but unless you have someone who really knows a prototype very well - no one notices or comments on the problems with a model railway vehicle running on a layout nobody is worried. Hence the great write ups on Hornby locos which have fixed trailing trucks, pipework missing, incorrect wheels., bits like the A4 seams which are enormous in comparison to the real thing etc. 

 

Baz

[Tony Wright]

2 minutes ago, Barry O said:

I would agree.. but unless you have someone who really knows a prototype very well - no one notices or comments on the problems with a model railway vehicle running on a layout nobody is worried. Hence the great write ups on Hornby locos which have fixed trailing trucks, pipework missing, incorrect wheels., bits like the A4 seams which are enormous in comparison to the real thing etc. 

 

Baz

You've got it in one, Baz!

 

I think what you've said sums up the philosophy of the 'layout loco' and/or the 'layout vehicle' (or anything on a layout?) most appositely. 

 

Viewed from 'stand-off scale' (a term used by a mate), on a layout (at least three feet away), who notices too many discrepancies? Especially with 'older' eyes! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[St Enodoc]

2 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

You've got it in one, Baz!

 

I think what you've said sums up the philosophy of the 'layout loco' and/or the 'layout vehicle' (or anything on a layout?) most appositely. 

 

Viewed from 'stand-off scale' (a term used by a mate), on a layout (at least three feet away), who notices too many discrepancies? Especially with 'older' eyes! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Quiz question for both of you - how many of my six-wheeled milk tanks actually have six wheels?

[Barry O]

1 minute ago, St Enodoc said:

Quiz question for both of you - how many of my six-wheeled milk tanks actually have six wheels?

at a guess .. none..

Baz

[St Enodoc]

19 minutes ago, Barry O said:

at a guess .. none..

Baz

Not quite that bad but you've proved the point - it certainly isn't all of them (in fact I don't know myself for certain without checking. Probably only about 10 of the 14). If I get one that's giving me grief one of the first things I do is to take the middle wheelset out.

[Headstock]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Andrew,

 

Thank you. I should have been more specific, rather than generalising. 

 

I was going on the tender I scratch-built for THE GREAT MARQUESS, which was the same as the J38 one, which was also the same as the 3,500 gall GS one first attached to LOCH LONG as built. 

 

David would best buy the DMR tender for his conversion. 

 

The Jamieson K1/1 kit had the tender with the low frontplate and larger cut-out. 

 

A lesson learnt for me. Always conduct the most-thorough research!

 

The irony is, now looking at the picture in my book again, I had scratch-built the right tender for my 61997. I wonder where the loco is now? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

I wondered about the bare brass showing on your original post of the K4, I think that it is a lovely little model, including the paint finish, pro paint jobs can look a little sterile on occasion. I'm glad to see it revitalised and running on LB. Thankfully, without any intentions of a repaint over your original workmanship.

 

With regard to modelers not caring about accuracy, what of manufactures who are making capital out of that?

[t-b-g]

49 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

You've got it in one, Baz!

 

I think what you've said sums up the philosophy of the 'layout loco' and/or the 'layout vehicle' (or anything on a layout?) most appositely. 

 

Viewed from 'stand-off scale' (a term used by a mate), on a layout (at least three feet away), who notices too many discrepancies? Especially with 'older' eyes! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

I sometimes think about whether the way we view models has changed over the years due to the advent of digital photography.

 

If you look back at magazines from, say, the 1970s, the sort of photos you see are the same sorts of views that you would get if you were looking at the layout in front of you. Most pictures are general views rather than ultra close ups.

 

To get a decent photo, as you will remember, required some good kit, lighting, very likely a big tripod mounted firmly on the floor.

 

The advent of clever, megapixel digital cameras, even in phones and suchlike mean that just about anybody can get a really cruel close up view without special equipment. You can still usually tell if the photographer is actually any good or not but even I can get a reasonably sharp image many times life size on my screen.

 

So we have two things diverging. We have, as you delicately put it, "older" eyes that see a bit less well than they used to but we have the photographic side that zooms in and highlights omissions and flaws far more than it used to.

 

For one, we have the layout loco concept and for the other, we need to put more detail on better than we ever have done before.

 

I don't know an answer, it is just something mull over in my mind sometimes!

 

  

[TheSignalEngineer]

11 hours ago, Headstock said:

The thing is, the LNER (and the LMS for that matter) had hundreds of more typical vans doing all the hard graft up and down the system. These hard workers, the backbone of the real railway,  mostly get ignored by the model railway community. The ex NER BZs for example, had a wider geographical spread in both LNER and BR days, they were still  hard at it in the swinging sixties and counted their number in the hundreds. The Thompson BZ were built in greater numbers than the dia 120 BY, yet  modelers show little interest in either. Why is the dia. 120 BY's so popular, that they have spawned so many dodgy models and are seen to be an essential  part of every LNER/ER layout, when they were actually built in comparatively small numbers? Why are they so popular, when the basic technical data of the real vans, is so poorly understood by the people modeling them? A catchy nickname?

Coming from the west side of Birmingham the LNER was never my strong point.

IIRC the D.120 stretched to about 60 examples plus another 30-odd similar vehicles built on s/h GNR frames to D170/176/177. There were 80 of the Thompson-based BZ built in 1950.

I think the D.120 was probably a popular subject because of the hassle of getting a 6-wheel underframe running on smaller radius curves. 

Regarding my Chivers van, it probably doesn't match any prototype one as when I started to look for photos I found about half a dozen examples which all had detail differences. Some were possibly later changes as the short step boards only appeared in a later BR livery example. I'm not sure whether the battery box positions matched up between lot numbers but I don't think so. 

I'm happy with the way I built it although the step boards are a bit thick but not that noticeable as it trundles round the layout on the local parcels train. 

 

Eric

[Headstock]

1 minute ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

Coming from the west side of Birmingham the LNER was never my strong point.

IIRC the D.120 stretched to about 60 examples plus another 30-odd similar vehicles built on s/h GNR frames to D170/176/177. There were 80 of the Thompson-based BZ built in 1950.

I think the D.120 was probably a popular subject because of the hassle of getting a 6-wheel underframe running on smaller radius curves. 

Regarding my Chivers van, it probably doesn't match any prototype one as when I started to look for photos I found about half a dozen examples which all had detail differences. Some were possibly later changes as the short step boards only appeared in a later BR livery example. I'm not sure whether the battery box positions matched up between lot numbers but I don't think so. 

I'm happy with the way I built it although the step boards are a bit thick but not that noticeable as it trundles round the layout on the local parcels train. 

 

Eric

 

Good afternoon Eric,

 

what modelers get up to is one thing, It's the manufactures that I have problems with. These things should be called out, then the buyer can make an informed decision. Knowledge is power, ignorance is just to be exploited.

[TheSignalEngineer]

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

Quiz question for both of you - how many of my six-wheeled milk tanks actually have six wheels?

My first six-wheeler was an old Ks Low Siphon. It wouldn't go through the siding points on my then layout so the middle wheels were glued in place and the bottoms filed off clear of the rails. 

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

You've got it in one, Baz!

 

I think what you've said sums up the philosophy of the 'layout loco' and/or the 'layout vehicle' (or anything on a layout?) most appositely. 

 

Viewed from 'stand-off scale' (a term used by a mate), on a layout (at least three feet away), who notices too many discrepancies? Especially with 'older' eyes! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 I have tried constructing kits at arms length, from three feet away and layout viewing distance. I just don't have the skills to do it. Unfortunately I have to adopt the one foot rule. 

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

You've got it in one, Baz!

 

I think what you've said sums up the philosophy of the 'layout loco' and/or the 'layout vehicle' (or anything on a layout?) most appositely. 

 

Viewed from 'stand-off scale' (a term used by a mate), on a layout (at least three feet away), who notices too many discrepancies? Especially with 'older' eyes! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Hello Tony

 

Seeing a train go around my layout where the viewing is over 20 feet away at some points is more exciting to me than looking at a static loco with all the wiggly pipes in the right place. 20 feet away I can make out what class it is but cannot see the wiggly pipes. Hats off to those who can get every little detail correct but good working layout locos and stock going clickty click over the rail joints is more fun for me.

[Headstock]

14 minutes ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hello Tony

 

Seeing a train go around my layout where the viewing is over 20 feet away at some points is more exciting to me than looking at a static loco with all the wiggly pipes in the right place. 20 feet away I can make out what class it is but cannot see the wiggly pipes. Hats off to those who can get every little detail correct but good working layout locos and stock going clickty click over the rail joints is more fun for me.

 

Afternoon Clive,

 

the two things are not mutually exclusive, Just even more tumultuous on the scale of fun. Think super fun, with wiggley pipes on.

Edited September 10, 2020 by Headstock

[Chuffer Davies]

3 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Morning Mick,

 

sounds good in theory but there is a whole history of inaccurate kits, that both pre date and post date the illustrated model, some like the D&S 'pot pori' go for silly money.

Little did I realise when I posted my original question with regards the Chiver's Pigeon Van kit that I would stir up so much debate. 

 

Long story short appears to be that I have in my possession an inaccurate kit of a prototype which probably never ran on the Queensbury Line despite one of the most popular recreational activities of the population living next to the line was Pigeon racing.   I will contact Andrew (Headstock) for advice on how Pigeons would have been transported on the line circa 1930 and then I will decide how to proceed. 

 

I may have a Chiver's kit for sale shortly! 

 

And I thought building accurate models of locomotives was complicated.  Who would have thought?

 

Chuffer Hell!

 

Frank  

[Headstock]

11 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Little did I realise when I posted my original question with regards the Chiver's Pigeon Van kit that I would stir up so much debate. 

 

Long story short appears to be that I have in my possession an inaccurate kit of a prototype which probably never ran on the Queensbury Line despite one of the most popular recreational activities of the population living next to the line was Pigeon racing.   I will contact Andrew (Headstock) for advice on how Pigeons would have been transported on the line circa 1930 and then I will decide how to proceed. 

 

I may have a Chiver's kit for sale shortly! 

 

And I thought building accurate models of locomotives was complicated.  Who would have thought?

 

Chuffer Hell!

 

Frank  

 

Afternoon Frank,

 

they are probably the most controversial vehicle in the history of model railways, best avoided unless absolutely necessary.

 

On pigeon traffic, check out

 

https://www.steve-banks.org/prototype-and-traffic/128-pigeon-traffic-historical

 

I don't agree with absolutely everything Steve has to say. However, it is a good source of information and portrays real vans, both in reality and in the mass media, involved in pigeon traffic.

[SP Steve]

I've made a start on trying to correct the height anomaly - I don't have a drawing for the 120s but by checking on pictures the ratio of the distances between the various horizontal components I've determined that the main difference between prototype and kit is the top light band.

 

I'd thought they looked a little narrow so felt adding a 1mm square section and recreating them would be the easiest route (I've measured the various kit components to rail height and they come in at 40.7mm so assuming the rain strip - rail height is 5' 6" or 42mm then I'm only 0.3mm down).

 

Another thing the kit has wrong is that the vertical pillars between the three opening top lights are the same width as the lower panel beading - they aren't so that was another reason to take this route.

 

Of course now the ends will need to be corrected but hey ho, it keeps me off the streets.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 31, 2022 by SP Steve

[Barry O]

18 minutes ago, SP Steve said:

I've made a start on trying to correct the height anomaly - I don't have a drawing for the 120s but by checking on pictures the ratio of the distances between the various horizontal components I've determined that the main difference between prototype and kit is the top light band.

 

I'd thought they looked a little narrow so felt adding a 1mm square section and recreating them would be the easiest route (I've measured the various kit components to rail height and they come in at 40.7mm so assuming the rain strip - rail height is 5' 6" or 42mm then I'm only 0.3mm down).

 

Another thing the kit has wrong is that the vertical pillars between the three opening top lights are the same width as the lower panel beading - they aren't so that was another reason to take this route.

 

Of course now the ends will need to be corrected but hey ho, it keeps me off the streets.

 

 

Life is too short sometimes....

[MikeTrice]

Sorry if this is a bit late:

[Porcy Mane]

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

On pigeon traffic, check out

 

https://www.steve-banks.org/prototype-and-traffic/128-pigeon-traffic-historical

 

 

 

Hmmmmmm. I remember the thread on an old version of RM web were Mr Banks and a hastily created alter ego to back up his theories, had each one of his opinions on pigeon traffic and the Diagram 120 van thoroughly debunked. Despite references  from others to official drawings clearly titleing the van as, "fitted with shelves for pigeon traffic" Mr Banks's intransigence was quite telling.

 

No doubt you will have been here:

 

https://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7760&sid=f2832738f132627a8273370f1ecf7a73&start=60#p116087

 

and from further down the thread:

 

https://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7760&sid=f2832738f132627a8273370f1ecf7a73&start=60#p116087

 

There are plenty of photographs knocking about showing these with BYP and pigeon branding although I'm talking in the BR period.

 

P

 

 

Edited September 10, 2020 by Porcy Mane