Jump to content

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jack P said:

 

Did you? Oooof, I was watching that one!

I did, well once Tony gets round to building it, he’s slacked of a bit I think. 
 

 

Ooooh I’m going to cop it now :help:

  • Funny 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, robertcwp said:

Black solebars - should be blue on blue/grey livery.

Not convinced by the look of the windows - they look a bit shallow or not high enough at the top and the horizontal bar looks too thick.

Hard to see whether the curve of the bodyside is correct but on previous Heljan Mark 1s it hasn't been.

Looks like a hybrid of a late Mark 1 in some respects and an early one in others, as noted in other comments. In fairness, this is a difficult issue for manufacturers as there were subtle (and not so subtle) changes during the period over which the carriages were built and many earlier ones were modified in some way in later life.

Robert,

 

For me the worst feature is the colour of the grey, in the photograph the colour looks to be very pale green. Obviously I don’t know if the actual model is this colour but if it is then  I don’t remember the prototype being that colour.

 

Sandra

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Heljan Mk1 just don't look right. As Robert pointed out the body curve seems wrong, and the windows are not right, they look to shallow and the support rail for the sliding vents is too wide. As Martyn stated the underframe bits and bobs are a right mixture form different build periods. Didn't the Mk1 have a plain solbar, well it looked plain as the channel faced inwards, so why has the Heljan model got a lip on the lower edge? Minor detail compared to the overall shape. https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2018/01/mk1-coach-restoration-completed-at-lincolnshire-wolds-railway.html

 

Soon the Tri-ang Mk1 will be 60 years old, even its crudity compared to today's models it was the right shape.

 

Livery wise what hit me was the over wide white lining, nearly as wide as on the real thing.

Edited by Clive Mortimore
Edited to add a link to a real one.
  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the green was a reproduction issue, windows do not look right, did not notice the lip and often the sole bars are so dirty livery is unsure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Triang may be old but it is the right shape so easy to detail.

 

I have a rather nice Triang RMB with Commonweaths and flush glazing, resin gas boxes and air brake gear.

  • Like 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, MJI said:

Triang may be old but it is the right shape so easy to detail.

 

I have a rather nice Triang RMB with Commonweaths and flush glazing, resin gas boxes and air brake gear.

Tri-ang bodies are nice but the bogie centres are about a foot too close to the ends, which looks obvious to me.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Tri-ang bodies are nice but the bogie centres are about a foot too close to the ends, which looks obvious to me.

Whoops !!!!! I shouldn't have mention the Tri-ang model. All I was doing was trying to say that the Heljan model doesn't look right and thinking of a comparison most of us would be aware of. That is why added the link to the 304mm to the foot version at a similar angle to Tony's photo.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, sandra said:

Robert,

 

For me the worst feature is the colour of the grey, in the photograph the colour looks to be very pale green. Obviously I don’t know if the actual model is this colour but if it is then  I don’t remember the prototype being that colour.

 

Sandra

The colour is much better than on a 00 Hornby blue/grey Mark 1.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me please, Mr Wright, Sir.

 

I have been working on an LNWR George the Fifth Class 4-4-0 using the old GEM kit. Unfortunately, it did not come with the original instructions as they were sadly missing and thus putting it together was a total nightmare, Even some pieces broke uncluding the running-board just now. Now I am sad because I can never get it to run smoothly and properly.

 

I was told by some users on Discord that you can do repairs to kitbuilt locomotives and even build them. If I mailed the model to you, then maybe it would be finished and in good working order. Please can you try? I will gladly PM to you photographs of the model if it helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, LNWR18901910 said:

Excuse me please, Mr Wright, Sir.

 

I have been working on an LNWR George the Fifth Class 4-4-0 using the old GEM kit. Unfortunately, it did not come with the original instructions as they were sadly missing and thus putting it together was a total nightmare, Even some pieces broke uncluding the running-board just now. Now I am sad because I can never get it to run smoothly and properly.

 

I was told by some users on Discord that you can do repairs to kitbuilt locomotives and even build them. If I mailed the model to you, then maybe it would be finished and in good working order. Please can you try? I will gladly PM to you photographs of the model if it helps.

Good morning,

 

PM sent.

 

I have no idea what 'Discord' is, though my dictionary describes it as 'disagreement, variance, strife, quarrel, be different, be dissonant, jar or clash', so it doesn't sound much of a recommendation. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Funny 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, LNWR18901910 said:

Excuse me please, Mr Wright, Sir.

 

I have been working on an LNWR George the Fifth Class 4-4-0 using the old GEM kit. Unfortunately, it did not come with the original instructions as they were sadly missing and thus putting it together was a total nightmare, Even some pieces broke uncluding the running-board just now. Now I am sad because I can never get it to run smoothly and properly.

 

I was told by some users on Discord that you can do repairs to kitbuilt locomotives and even build them. If I mailed the model to you, then maybe it would be finished and in good working order. Please can you try? I will gladly PM to you photographs of the model if it helps.

Can anyone out there help this gentleman, please? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I have no idea what 'Discord' is

 

It's an app/site that allows for voice chat, live streaming, as well as the ability to share text and images. The primary audience is 'Gamers'.

 

It's a little bit like a mash-up of Skype + Facebook 

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, sandra said:

Tony,

 

I’m glad you like this kit for coincidentally I’m building one of the original Nucast kits which is probably over forty years old. I’m building it using the original white metal chassis and the Romford wheels provided in the kit. Here is a photo of the loco on the 9-50 Grantham/Doncaster at Retford.39CF46C5-79FA-4D6F-BFE4-3F98DB522B44.jpeg.6dca5cc16e19ceccf155e4de03c03ff4.jpeg

It’s still very much work in progress and I’m far from happy with some aspects of the model but I think building this kit or the London Road Models kit will long remain the only way of obtaining a model of one of these locomotives for I can’t see an RTR manufacturer providing one any time soon.1CF790E2-363A-43A0-8835-699CD8315038.jpeg.57ad93b061ba20260fc0b235333df0c0.jpegThis is the other side of the engine, isn’t it amazing how taking photographs emphasises all the faults but whatever, at least I can say it’s all my own work and I do think building a loco makes you have a special relationship with it. It’s so satisfying when you actually get the thing to work and haul a train.

 

Sandra

Looks better put together than some of the recent rtr Pacific’s on the Hornby thread ;)

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Bodywork completed on the new Nu-Cast K2.

 

1167627871_newNu-CastK211.jpg.7b45a72d780a032db4d0bd8c4a4e08a3.jpg

 

Just the motion to erect now.

 

For anyone contemplating acquiring one, my suggestion (indeed, recommendation) is to go ahead and do so. 

 

A lovely kit to build! 

Tony

 

I have had a Nucast K2, purchased about 1992 by my Dad from one of his visits to Dave Cleal, stashed away for a rainy day (which hasn't come yet!). I've just had a look through the kit out of curiosity. I knew it had the etched chassis. The castings appear to be fairly crisp, eg the edges to the running plates and rivets on covers for access to superheater header. I've also got the latest Markits wheels, Maygib sprung GN buffers and a turned brass chimney as extra bits I've accumulated for it along the way. I note from comments you have made previously with the original version of the kit that the cylinders didn't fit, the piston rods were too short and motion bracket too high. I look forward to hearing your comments on the 'updated kit'. Judging by what I see the cylinders must now fit ok?

 

Regards

 

Andrew

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst we were tackling a little visitor in our loft, Mrs 2750 at last persuaded me that I would never get around to reading again all the magazines stored up there.  I've been working my way through them, saving items of interest and binning the rest and today came across the July 1996 edition of Steam World, edited by one Chris Leigh. 

 

I don't know if TW has seen this but the title page has several shots of the M&GN overbridge at Little Bytham, whilst inside is an article by Peter Kay on it's demolition in March 1964.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, sandra said:

Tony,

 

I’m glad you like this kit for coincidentally I’m building one of the original Nucast kits which is probably over forty years old. I’m building it using the original white metal chassis and the Romford wheels provided in the kit. Here is a photo of the loco on the 9-50 Grantham/Doncaster at Retford.39CF46C5-79FA-4D6F-BFE4-3F98DB522B44.jpeg.6dca5cc16e19ceccf155e4de03c03ff4.jpeg

It’s still very much work in progress and I’m far from happy with some aspects of the model but I think building this kit or the London Road Models kit will long remain the only way of obtaining a model of one of these locomotives for I can’t see an RTR manufacturer providing one any time soon.1CF790E2-363A-43A0-8835-699CD8315038.jpeg.57ad93b061ba20260fc0b235333df0c0.jpegThis is the other side of the engine, isn’t it amazing how taking photographs emphasises all the faults but whatever, at least I can say it’s all my own work and I do think building a loco makes you have a special relationship with it. It’s so satisfying when you actually get the thing to work and haul a train.

 

Sandra

Thanks for showing us this model, Sandra.

 

A couple or so 'critical' observation, if I may, please? 

 

On the offside, the loco is effectively in reverse gear.

 

On the nearside (and, to some extent, on the offside), the cylinder looks to be far too low. Its top should be right underneath the footplate. I found considerable filing was necessary to the cylinders' overall lengths to achieve a snug fit. 

 

The prototype had 3' 2" pony wheels, with ten spokes. Yours has 14mm, 12 spoked ones. The instructions are wrong in this respect. 

 

I think they'd all lost their frame-mounted guard irons by Retford's period.

 

All the above said, I commend your making of this model. And, I doubt it'll ever be a type available RTR (or, at least, I hope not).

 

Keep up the good work. 

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 2750Papyrus said:

Whilst we were tackling a little visitor in our loft, Mrs 2750 at last persuaded me that I would never get around to reading again all the magazines stored up there.  I've been working my way through them, saving items of interest and binning the rest and today came across the July 1996 edition of Steam World, edited by one Chris Leigh. 

 

I don't know if TW has seen this but the title page has several shots of the M&GN overbridge at Little Bytham, whilst inside is an article by Peter Kay on it's demolition in March 1964.

I do have a copy (somewhere?); thanks for mentioning this. 

 

I used it during the building of the layout.

 

I thought its demolition was in 1963. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

Tony

 

I have had a Nucast K2, purchased about 1992 by my Dad from one of his visits to Dave Cleal, stashed away for a rainy day (which hasn't come yet!). I've just had a look through the kit out of curiosity. I knew it had the etched chassis. The castings appear to be fairly crisp, eg the edges to the running plates and rivets on covers for access to superheater header. I've also got the latest Markits wheels, Maygib sprung GN buffers and a turned brass chimney as extra bits I've accumulated for it along the way. I note from comments you have made previously with the original version of the kit that the cylinders didn't fit, the piston rods were too short and motion bracket too high. I look forward to hearing your comments on the 'updated kit'. Judging by what I see the cylinders must now fit ok?

 

Regards

 

Andrew

The cylinders do now fit, Andrew,

 

However, as I've just mentioned, a lot of fore and aft filing was necessary to get them to fit snugly. Better, I suppose, than their being too short.

 

The piston rods are exactly the right length now. The crossheads now have a hole to take a small BA screw to pivot the little end of the con' rod, rather than the previous daft cast metal (and very weak) spigot. 

 

Having built two of these kits already, the castings in this latest one are probably the best. Perhaps the same as the one I built when the kit was first produced (with a white metal chassis, which I  chucked away and scratch-built an alternative), but certainly better than a later example (which came with an etched chassis).

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MikeParkin65 said:

Looks better put together than some of the recent rtr Pacific’s on the Hornby thread ;)

Some of them aren't put together too badly..............

 

1771584633_HornbyA226050101.jpg.32c85f111b81bbaf0a3ee403ec6aa31e.jpg

 

1372909265_HornbyA236051201.jpg.34df2efe7ebcdb05f0a4aa02751bbe54.jpg

 

Just to 'balance' the criticisms.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 7
  • 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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...