Wright writes.....

[landscapes]

9 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Anyway, back to modelling...........

 

Collected two locos I've built from Geoff Haynes today, after he'd painted them.................

 

Both DJH kits.

 

 

 

Modified to represent one of the roller bearing examples. 

 

 

 

This was the A2/3 built for Hornby to see what one might look like 'in the flesh'. Interestingly, Hornby is to do this one.  

 

And folk puzzle why I'm reluctant to paint locos myself................... Geoff hand-painted the crest for GREAT EASTERN!

 

 

Hi Tony

 

Two stunning looking locomotives, it’s a great shame you didn’t give Hornby 60519 Honeyway then I might not have to do a renumbering and naming job on it, only joking.

 

may I ask who’s nameplates you used?

 

Regards

 

David

[APOLLO]

Just to add that I've always thought our hobby of model railways is good for the soul - Creative, artistic, mechanical, electrical, woodwork, you name it.

 

It has certainly helped me keep "calm" over the many years, I've never been without a layout since my first Tri-ang TT train set back around 1960.

 

Brit15

 

 

[t-b-g]

This is not trying to nit pick but a genuine query over an aspect of the painting of those pacifics. It is something that I have wondered about for years and perhaps the assembled experts could answer the query.

 

The sliding cab windows on the models are painted green. Several years ago, I ws adding a few finishing touches to some locos that Roy Jackson had built and Geoff Kent had painted. The windows and frames were being  after Geoff had worked his magic.

 

I asked Roy whether the window frames should be green or varnished wood and he wasn't sure so we looked at a few colour photos and none were conclusive, so he made an "executive choice" and they were painted a wood brown colour.

 

Based on the photos of Great Eastern and Sun Castle, were we wrong and should they be painting green?

 

I tried to look at a few colour photos on the net now and although there are some to be found, the window frame is always so dirty I could not tell.

 

I did find a lovely shot of Great Eastern on the "Heart of Midlothian" in April 1957 with polished smokebox door hinges and handles plus the cylinder front was polished steel and I think the handrails were polished too.  They look to be lighter than the smoke deflectors. Perhaps an opportunity to make it really stand out in the crowd with a little "bull" if it fits with the period.

 

 

[cctransuk]

9 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I asked Roy whether the window frames should be green or varnished wood and he wasn't sure so we looked at a few colour photos and none were conclusive, so he made an "executive choice" and they were painted a wood brown colour.

 

Make of these what you will; (not my copyright - will remove if requested) :-

 

 

 

John Isherwood.

Edited September 11, 2020 by cctransuk

[t-b-g]

16 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Make of these what you will; (not my copyright - will remove if requested) :-

 

 

 

John Isherwood.

 

I don't know why but I can't see a "Thanks" button, so I will write it instead.

 

Thanks!

 

Even on a clear, large colour photo, it isn't easy to see but I think that they are mucky brown!

Edited September 11, 2020 by t-b-g

[Daniel W]

For what it is worth, I just thought I'd add my two cents to the discussions that have been had over the past few pages.

 

-Younger modellers getting stuck in: I find it strange that at the age of 30 I could be considered 'young' anymore, but by modelling standards, I suppose I very much am. However, one of the things that I suspect acts as something of a barrier to entry is the somewhat vintage method by which small suppliers operate. The ability to order through a website is going to become more and more vital as time goes on. This might be somewhat controversial, and perhaps overly critical, but the need to send in cheques or phone up is almost certainly causing a loss of business to smaller suppliers. I know that quite people's experiences trying to obtain directly from Markits have been rather variable, to say the least, and as they are the primary source of loco wheels for those new to kit building, this is far from ideal.

 

The question is ultimately this: Is it financially viable for smaller suppliers to employ someone in a customer-facing role to allow the owners to focus on design and manufacturing? Or indeed, would some smaller suppliers be better off not selling directly to the public at all and sell through third party suppliers?

 

-The mental health benefits of modelling: For a number of years, I struggled with anxiety and stress so severe that I developed an overactive thyroid. This, in turn, lead to depression, more stress and anxiety, along with all manner of physical symptoms. Only once I finally admitted to myself that I had a primarily mental -rather than physical- illness did I agree to be medicated. After many years of accumulating them, I was finally confident enough to work on my pile of plastic wagon kits, which in turn lead to me attempting some etched wagon kits. Now I am in the middle of building my first loco kit, something I never thought I would be doing a year ago. Even though my attempts are far from amazing, the sense of satisfaction that i have gotten from learning to solder and build things is quite unique and something that perhaps people my age are missing out on too often.

 

I have also dabbled in 3D modelling and taught myself, CAD, for the times when I feel like putting the iron down for a while and doing something less noxious and hazardous to one's fingers! I even have a test etch for a sprung wagon subframe that is in the production queue with PPD.  The mental health benefits of learning new skills are fairly obvious, and railway modelling provides near-endless opportunities to do so. And that is without getting into the ability of modelling to stave off Alzheimers in the older generations.

 

I apologise for the wall of text and talking about myself overmuch, all I have left to say is: Long may this hobby continue!

 

Daniel

[polybear]

 

32 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I asked Roy whether the window frames should be green or varnished wood and he wasn't sure so we looked at a few colour photos and none were conclusive, so he made an "executive choice" and they were painted a wood brown colour.

 

Based on the photos of Great Eastern and Sun Castle, were we wrong and should they be painting green?

 

I tried to look at a few colour photos on the net now and although there are some to be found, the window frame is always so dirty I could not tell.

 

 

So would the answer be to paint the window frames on the model such that they look so dirty you can't tell?

Problem solved

[ROY@34F]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

This is not trying to nit pick but a genuine query over an aspect of the painting of those pacifics. It is something that I have wondered about for years and perhaps the assembled experts could answer the query.

 

The sliding cab windows on the models are painted green. Several years ago, I ws adding a few finishing touches to some locos that Roy Jackson had built and Geoff Kent had painted. The windows and frames were being  after Geoff had worked his magic.

 

I asked Roy whether the window frames should be green or varnished wood and he wasn't sure so we looked at a few colour photos and none were conclusive, so he made an "executive choice" and they were painted a wood brown colour.

 

Based on the photos of Great Eastern and Sun Castle, were we wrong and should they be painting green?

 

I tried to look at a few colour photos on the net now and although there are some to be found, the window frame is always so dirty I could not tell.

 

I did find a lovely shot of Great Eastern on the "Heart of Midlothian" in April 1957 with polished smokebox door hinges and handles plus the cylinder front was polished steel and I think the handrails were polished too.  They look to be lighter than the smoke deflectors. Perhaps an opportunity to make it really stand out in the crowd with a little "bull" if it fits with the period.

 

 

Tony ,

 

Definitely varnished wood . I'd say a light to mid brown , teak maybe 

 

Regards , Roy .

Edited September 11, 2020 by ROY@34F
Teak colour

[Chamby]

5 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

 

Our club has never been healthier -  when we're allowed to go! We'll be down to six people per night from next week.

 

 

This afternoon my club has been discussing the government's new social distancing guidance and we believe that in the absence of anything more specific, we best fit into their category of a leisure venue.  So with no additional local restrictions down here in Cornwall, we can still meet up in groups of six people, as long as each group avoids social interaction with each other.  So as we have more than one layout and sufficient space in our clubroom to accommodate two socially distanced groups, we'll work it in much the same way as a pub or restaurant accommodates its customers at different tables.  The government advice is specifically:

 

3. Rules in other venues and activities

Venues following COVID-19 secure guidelines will be able to continue to host more people in total - such as religious services in places of worship - but no one should visit in a group of greater than 6. When you visit one of these places, such as a pub, shop, leisure venue, restaurant or place of worship you should:

* follow the limits on the number of other people you should meet with as a group - no more than six people unless you all live together (or are in the same support bubble)

* avoid social interaction with anyone outside the group you are with, even if you see other people you know

* provide your contact details to the organiser so that you can be contacted if needed by the NHS Test and Trace programme

 

We also have the luxury of a coffee area so those who mostly just come to chatter might end up forming a third group there.  We'll probably give it a try anyway and see how well it works.   It's all very contrived but so are the guidelines. I somehow think we'll still be hurling abuse at each other across the room though, social interaction of a sort, some would say!

 

As a further example of the iniquity of the guidelines, my 88 year-old mother lives in Solihull which has just come under new restrictions for meeting in homes.  As she is 'bubbled' with my sister, the only way I can now visit her in compliance with the new guidelines there, is if we both visit her local pub where we can eat/drink as a group - we can legitimately meet up there, but not in the much safer environment of her own home.  Bonkers!

Edited September 11, 2020 by Chamby

[Buhar]

12 minutes ago, Chamby said:

hurling abuse

I think abuse fortunately travels much further than virus droplets so club traditions can be maintained. 

Alan 

[Tony Teague]

2 hours ago, Northmoor said:

I would argue there are plenty of collectors (of all sorts of items, not just model trains) who have no interest in investment value.

 

People who purchase purely to invest are speculators and God save us from them if the Sunday supplements start talking about model trains as "investments".

 

You are probably right, but I doubt that it alters the collector's sentiment towards altering the items he has collected - so I'd still maintain that the difference is that the 'modeller' sees his purchases as consumables, and makes use of them accordingly.

[thegreenhowards]

32 minutes ago, Chamby said:

 

This afternoon my club has been discussing the government's new social distancing guidance and we believe that in the absence of anything more specific, we best fit into their category of a leisure venue.  So with no additional local restrictions down here in Cornwall, we can still meet up in groups of six people, as long as each group avoids social interaction with each other.  So as we have more than one layout and sufficient space in our clubroom to accommodate two socially distanced groups, we'll work it in much the same way as a pub or restaurant accommodates its customers at different tables.  The government advice is specifically:

 

3. Rules in other venues and activities

Venues following COVID-19 secure guidelines will be able to continue to host more people in total - such as religious services in places of worship - but no one should visit in a group of greater than 6. When you visit one of these places, such as a pub, shop, leisure venue, restaurant or place of worship you should:

* follow the limits on the number of other people you should meet with as a group - no more than six people unless you all live together (or are in the same support bubble)

* avoid social interaction with anyone outside the group you are with, even if you see other people you know

* provide your contact details to the organiser so that you can be contacted if needed by the NHS Test and Trace programme

 

We also have the luxury of a coffee area so those who mostly just come to chatter might end up forming a third group there.  We'll probably give it a try anyway and see how well it works.   It's all very contrived but so are the guidelines. I somehow think we'll still be hurling abuse at each other across the room though, social interaction of a sort, some would say!

 

As a further example of the iniquity of the guidelines, my 88 year-old mother lives in Solihull which has just come under new restrictions for meeting in homes.  As she is 'bubbled' with my sister, the only way I can now visit her in compliance with the new guidelines there, is if we both visit her local pub where we can eat/drink as a group - we can legitimately meet up there, but not in the much safer environment of her own home.  Bonkers!

I think that’s quite a liberal interpretation of the rules, but good luck with it. We have two rooms so did consider a social group in each but we’d be bound to mix, so I think we’ll have to stick to six for now.

 

 

[chrisf]

56 minutes ago, Daniel W said:

I apologise for the wall of text and talking about myself overmuch, all I have left to say is: Long may this hobby continue!

 

Daniel

 

Don't.  It's good to talk.

 

Chris

[Chuffer Davies]

I have at last had a successful test run of a model I have been developing over an extended period for Shipley MRS's Clayton project.  The Q2 was my first attempt at designing my own kit of etches and was initially all but completed about 3 years ago.  At the time of completion I was unable to test its haulage abilities on Clayton although it did have a test run on Retford where it proved capable of hauling Roy's longest goods train.   It was fitted with a Portescap 1219 unit but the motor was upgraded to a 1230 unit because of the anticipated demands that would be placed on it.  

18 months ago we were at last able to run trains around Clayton and I was then able to give the loco a proper haulage test on the 1:50 gradient.  The test was disappointing to say the least  with the model slipping to a halt with 18 wagons where as the target was a minimum of 30 wagons.  

Followers of WW will know that I have been experimenting with locating motors in the tender of my models and it was apparent from the failed test run that the Q2 was a candidate for conversion.  Having put this off for several months I have finally bitten the bullet and performed the conversion.  The LRM frames in the tender were replaced with some etched frames of my own design that include a vertical gearbox to transfer the drive from the motor to a shaft running down the centre of the tender's frames beneath the footplate.   The Portescap unit was removed and the back of the loco's frames were modified to receive a gearbox I've designed based upon the High Level Road Runner Compact+ unit, the difference being that my unit has been designed to accept small ball races to support the worm's shaft.  

Having dealt with the mechanical changes the next job was to exploit the space now available in the boiler and firebox by packing it with lead.  This necessitated an amount of disassembly in order to gain full access to the back of the boiler. 

 

Having inserted as much lead as I could the model was reassembled.  The  loco is now 5½oz heavier than before coming in at a total weight of 14½oz, hopefully it will now be capable of hauling the load for which it has been built up the 1:50 gradient. 

 

Regrettably we currently have no access to the layout and so I am only able to test the loco on a yard of track on my work bench, but at least I can finish it off and get on with something else.  

 

 

 

         

Edited September 11, 2020 by Chuffer Davies
grammar

[Theakerr]

There has been frequent mention about the power of observation recently.  However, observation is defiantly not my favorite word or activity right now.  Last night I was in the process of servicing one of my Little Engine's J11s and for what ever reason I noticed it did not have a Vacuum Ejector Pipe (Should this have capitals?).  With mounting dread I looked at my other Little Engine's J11.  Also, no vacuum ejector pipe (no capitals so at least one will be correct).  I only built them 33+ years ago and they have run more or less constantly since then with one being my pride and Joy.  For 33+ years I did not observe the omission and the world was great.  Now every time I look at them I will see the omission.   I suppose I will have to order a couple and try to fix them but I am more than a bit nervous because I don't want to damage the paint.  I did also check my Little Engine's 04 and it has no vacuum ejector pipe but that is OK because it did not have vacuum braking.

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, landscapes said:

Hi Tony

 

Two stunning looking locomotives, it’s a great shame you didn’t give Hornby 60519 Honeyway then I might not have to do a renumbering and naming job on it, only joking.

 

may I ask who’s nameplates you used?

 

Regards

 

David

Good evening David,

 

Many thanks.

 

I use 247 Developments' 'plates.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

I don't know why but I can't see a "Thanks" button, so I will write it instead.

 

Thanks!

 

Even on a clear, large colour photo, it isn't easy to see but I think that they are mucky brown!

'Mucky brown' it is, then.

 

I'll get the paintbrush out! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, ROY@34F said:

Tony ,

 

Definitely varnished wood . I'd say a light to mid brown , teak maybe 

 

Regards , Roy .

 

I did paint them with Precision Paints LNER Teak, so great minds think alike, although yours was from experience and mine a bit of a guess!

[Tony Wright]

37 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said:

I have at last had a successful test run of a model I have been developing over an extended period for Shipley MRS's Clayton project.  The Q2 was my first attempt at designing my own kit of etches and was initially all but completed about 3 years ago.  At the time of completion I was unable to test its haulage abilities on Clayton although it did have a test run on Retford where it proved capable of hauling Roy's longest goods train.   It was fitted with a Portescap 1219 unit but the motor was upgraded to a 1230 unit because of the anticipated demands that would be placed on it.  

18 months ago we were at last able to run trains around Clayton and I was then able to give the loco a proper haulage test on the 1:50 gradient.  The test was disappointing to say the least  with the model slipping to a halt with 18 wagons where as the target was a minimum of 30 wagons.  

Followers of WW will know that I have been experimenting with locating motors in the tender of my models and it was apparent from the failed test run that the Q2 was a candidate for conversion.  Having put this off for several months I have finally bitten the bullet and performed the conversion.  The LRM frames in the tender were replaced with some etched frames of my own design that include a vertical gearbox to transfer the drive from the motor to a shaft running down the centre of the tender's frames beneath the footplate.   The Portescap unit was removed and the back of the loco's frames were modified to receive a gearbox I've designed based upon the High Level Road Runner Compact+ unit, the difference being that my unit has been designed to accept small ball races to support the worm's shaft.  

Having dealt with the mechanical changes the next job was to exploit the space now available in the boiler and firebox by packing it with lead.  This necessitated an amount of disassembly in order to gain full access to the back of the boiler. 

 

Having inserted as much lead as I could the model was reassembled.  The  loco is now 5½oz heavier than before coming in at a total weight of 14½oz, hopefully it will now be capable of hauling the load for which it has been built up the 1:50 gradient. 

 

Regrettably we currently have no access to the layout and so I am only able to test the loco on a yard of track on my work bench, but at least I can finish it off and get on with something else.  

 

 

 

         

Brilliant work!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tom F]

10 hours ago, Bucoops said:

 

That's great news that you've been able to shed some of the excess weight. I wish I had the will power for that. I've progressively crept up over the last few months, and I was overweight to begin with. It's far too easy to stress eat, isn't it?

 

It's good to see you've been able to get some counselling. There seems to be a postcode lottery on that. I really hope it's of help, there is nothing here unfortunately. I think I've had 4 different appointments cancelled because of the current mess.

 

Again, you have absolutely nothing to apologise for.

 

Thank you
I asked around via a therapist friend who put me onto a young woman who is kindly offering the sessions for £15. Couldn't afford to say no (and certainly couldn't afford the typical prices). It's good just being able to talk.

Thanks for the support and comments. 

Regarding Humber Dock, I've just set up a thread for it. Here's to the future and a new adventure!

 

[Erichill16]

Tom, hope you find T1 kit, good luck.

 

Robert

Edited September 11, 2020 by Erichill16
Correct spelling

[Clem]

1 hour ago, Chuffer Davies said:

I have at last had a successful test run of a model I have been developing over an extended period for Shipley MRS's Clayton project.  The Q2 was my first attempt at designing my own kit of etches and was initially all but completed about 3 years ago.  At the time of completion I was unable to test its haulage abilities on Clayton although it did have a test run on Retford where it proved capable of hauling Roy's longest goods train.   It was fitted with a Portescap 1219 unit but the motor was upgraded to a 1230 unit because of the anticipated demands that would be placed on it.  

18 months ago we were at last able to run trains around Clayton and I was then able to give the loco a proper haulage test on the 1:50 gradient.  The test was disappointing to say the least  with the model slipping to a halt with 18 wagons where as the target was a minimum of 30 wagons.  

Followers of WW will know that I have been experimenting with locating motors in the tender of my models and it was apparent from the failed test run that the Q2 was a candidate for conversion.  Having put this off for several months I have finally bitten the bullet and performed the conversion.  The LRM frames in the tender were replaced with some etched frames of my own design that include a vertical gearbox to transfer the drive from the motor to a shaft running down the centre of the tender's frames beneath the footplate.   The Portescap unit was removed and the back of the loco's frames were modified to receive a gearbox I've designed based upon the High Level Road Runner Compact+ unit, the difference being that my unit has been designed to accept small ball races to support the worm's shaft.  

Having dealt with the mechanical changes the next job was to exploit the space now available in the boiler and firebox by packing it with lead.  This necessitated an amount of disassembly in order to gain full access to the back of the boiler. 

 

Having inserted as much lead as I could the model was reassembled.  The  loco is now 5½oz heavier than before coming in at a total weight of 14½oz, hopefully it will now be capable of hauling the load for which it has been built up the 1:50 gradient. 

 

Regrettably we currently have no access to the layout and so I am only able to test the loco on a yard of track on my work bench, but at least I can finish it off and get on with something else.  

 

 

 

         

What an exquisite model Frank, and a lovely runner to boot. It's a crying shame it's operating period was too early for my layout. I wish I had the confidence to try a split drive like you've done here. I think it's the extra variables that put me off. What make of universal joint do you use for the transmission of the shaft motion to the loco gear box? I seem to remember Exactoscale made them.

 

Weren't you looking at producing a J1 too? Now, with the last Colwick J1 going in August '54 (65002 with a short ex-J6 chimney), I could definitely squeeze one of those in. 

[Buhar]

5 minutes ago, Clem said:

What make of universal joint do you use for the transmission of the shaft motion to the loco gear box? I seem to remember Exactoscale made them.

You remember correctly, they had a little gearbox but I think the universal joint was neoprene tubing.  Dave Hammersley at Roxey Mouldings has a couple of ball joints in his range.  However, I am interested to see a bit more detail of Frank's solution(s).

 

Alan  

[Chuffer Davies]

2 minutes ago, Clem said:

What an exquisite model Frank, and a lovely runner to boot. It's a crying shame it's operating period was too early for my layout. I wish I had the confidence to try a split drive like you've done here. I think it's the extra variables that put me off. What make of universal joint do you use for the transmission of the shaft motion to the loco gear box? I seem to remember Exactoscale made them.

 

Weren't you looking at producing a J1 too? Now, with the last Colwick J1 going in August '54 (65002 with a short ex-J6 chimney), I could definitely squeeze one of those in. 

Hi Clem,

many thanks for your kind comments.  The UJ attached to the gear box in the loco is a superb Markits product.  Exactoscale did make a unit (see picture below) but I found it to be quite rigid (because of the plastic sleeve that surrounds it)  and only suitable for the flexible joint in the tender.  The Markit's UJ is full length in the Q2 but I have shortened them slightly in my J7 and J1 models to fit the available space.

 

Knowing that I will have to build a number of models this way I have made it easier to do as follows: 

 - I've designed replacement tender frames (EM or S4) for LRM tenders.  These have a built in gearbox to take the drive from the motor to the drive shaft.  The frames have been designed to be built either rigid or sprung using CSBs. 

 

- For any non standard tenders I have also designed a gear frame only solution that allows any set of tender frames (EM or S4) to be converted to accept the motor and drive shaft.

 

- I now have a couple of alternate High Level RRC+ gear frames that I can install in my loco's.  As I build new prototypes I will add further gearbox frames to my collection to suit as necessary.

 

 

In this way I have eliminated most of the problems with installing this type of drive system, the only problem being that each installation needs some sleeves to enable gears with 2mm centres to be attached to 1.5mm drive/motor shafts, this also being the inside diameter of the small ball races used in my solution.  I turn these sleeves up in a lathe as I haven't found an alternate source as yet.

 

I'm sure we can sort something out if you want to have a go.....       

 

Regards,

 

Frank         

[manna]

G'Day Folks

 

I like to model what I used to see in the old Mags, you get plenty of different prototypes, some for very little money, look in on my thread. 

Terry ( aka manna)