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

13 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

Yes, from September 1958. This is from 1959: 

8271659419_bc110033dd_c.jpgD208_MCut_Holloway_2-2-59 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

Thanks Robert,

 

Interestingly, the Parlour Brake Second at the south end has been replaced by a Mk.1 BG. 

 

What might be the reasons for this? An increase in parcels and a decrease in passenger numbers? Or (more likely?) a brake car out of action? 

 

I've seen BSKs used as brakes in Pullman sets and, on at least a couple of occasions, a Gresley Kitchen Car in the middle of a rake (presumably because a Pullman Kitchen Car was out of action?)

 

All very interesting stuff. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Clem said:

Good evening all. I hope everyone's well. I see one and all have been busy producing some lovely models. I'm just getting back up to speed. It must be the jabs. I think they put some illegal performance enhancing stuff in mine.

 

I know I've got a bit of thing about O4s.. and sorry for being a bit wordy and windbaggy, but bear with me if you've got the patience...

 

The Bachmann O4 is basically a very good model of the O4/1, but like so many RTR models, though basically accurate,  it has a few niggling little errors and some compromises. One of the most notable errors is the running plate shape around the cylinders. It widens out for a length over the cylinders like the original but on the model it widens out for a significantly longer section than it should. Probably, the most annoying thing is that they retooled the footplate getting it correct for the GWR ROD but kept the original tooling on the LNER based locos. Other 'little' errors include the reversing rod which is far too short when compared to the real thing. Also the cylinders, slide bars and piston don't line up with the centres of the driven wheels.

 

As well as this, the driving wheel wheelbase is shortened compared with the prototype and the distance between the leading driving axle and the pony axle is lengthened. This last discrepancy is more a compromise than error to enable the model negotiate very tight curves with the pony fouling the cylinders.Similarly the area between the frames is filled to fit in with the model's motor as designed.

 

I run my locos on a DC layout being an old fashioned stick-in-the-mud luddite (a bit like Tony) and I use Stewart Hine's Pentrollers which are still, to my way of thinking, one of the best controllers performance-wise that I've witnessed. (You have to be very careful with them though, they easily burn out with a prolonged short). I have converted a few of the Bachmann O4s using the Bachmann chassis and when pulling a longish train, they perform well enough. However, if light engine, they seem to have a tendency to hunt slightly with a kick every so often giving them a bit of jerky characteristic. When compared to my K's O4s, they can't hold a candle to the k's locos smooth running.

 

So for a while I've been of correcting some of the models errors, and trying out a scratch built sprung chassis for it. On top of that I've chosen one of the much more numerous O4/3s rather than an O4/1 for the prototype, Colwick's 63829. This entailed removing the ejector pipe. Anyway, here is a video of the first run of the completed model. I've re-profiled the running plate and opened out the frames and on the chassis I've made the wheelbase much more accurate to the prototype.I've attempted also to get the piston rods to line up correctly. All in all I think the changes have improved the look of the model and it certainly runs well (early days.. touch wood). I must give massive thanks to Andrew (Headstock) whose brilliant model of an O4/8 was modified similarly and was the inspiration for this little project.

 

I'll post a few photos of the different stages of the project if anyone's interested.

 

Clem

 

IMG_6685.jpg.b27dff09c8d3a2075293bbfe5828f21a.jpg

Nicely done Clem.  Very smooth as always for one of your models.

Frank

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

  • RMweb Premium
On 11/05/2021 at 20:36, Tony Wright said:

That's Steve Barnfield's address on the box, Andy.

 

So, yes, it looks like it's his kit. 

 

Can I see any glaring errors? I don't think so, but be aware (dependent on period) that the dome shifted position and latterly the smokebox door was changed to a more bulbous sort. Yours appears to have the original NER door. 

 

But, you're right; the same eBay principles apply to O Gauge as well as OO.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Thanks Tony,

 

There’s a spare brass dome and chimney in the box so I should have plenty of options for changing it around. Mine will be in 1920s condition so no worry about the smokebox door. But a lot of stripping down and rebuilding before I get to those detail questions. Getting it to work will be the first stage.

 

Andy

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My second video.  I think i might give myself a better camera for my birthday, but it will be a challenge to fight the right one.  There are so many out there and I don't have a lot of faith in the reviews anymore.

 

 

  • Like 17
  • Thanks 1
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Clem said:

Good evening all. I hope everyone's well. I see one and all have been busy producing some lovely models. I'm just getting back up to speed. It must be the jabs. I think they put some illegal performance enhancing stuff in mine.

 

I know I've got a bit of thing about O4s.. and sorry for being a bit wordy and windbaggy, but bear with me if you've got the patience...

 

The Bachmann O4 is basically a very good model of the O4/1, but like so many RTR models, though basically accurate,  it has a few niggling little errors and some compromises. One of the most notable errors is the running plate shape around the cylinders. It widens out for a length over the cylinders like the original but on the model it widens out for a significantly longer section than it should. Probably, the most annoying thing is that they retooled the footplate getting it correct for the GWR ROD but kept the original tooling on the LNER based locos. Other 'little' errors include the reversing rod which is far too short when compared to the real thing. Also the cylinders, slide bars and piston don't line up with the centres of the driven wheels.

 

As well as this, the driving wheel wheelbase is shortened compared with the prototype and the distance between the leading driving axle and the pony axle is lengthened. This last discrepancy is more a compromise than error to enable the model negotiate very tight curves with the pony fouling the cylinders.Similarly the area between the frames is filled to fit in with the model's motor as designed.

 

I run my locos on a DC layout being an old fashioned stick-in-the-mud luddite (a bit like Tony) and I use Stewart Hine's Pentrollers which are still, to my way of thinking, one of the best controllers performance-wise that I've witnessed. (You have to be very careful with them though, they easily burn out with a prolonged short). I have converted a few of the Bachmann O4s using the Bachmann chassis and when pulling a longish train, they perform well enough. However, if light engine, they seem to have a tendency to hunt slightly with a kick every so often giving them a bit of jerky characteristic. When compared to my K's O4s, they can't hold a candle to the k's locos smooth running.

 

So for a while I've been of correcting some of the models errors, and trying out a scratch built sprung chassis for it. On top of that I've chosen one of the much more numerous O4/3s rather than an O4/1 for the prototype, Colwick's 63829. This entailed removing the ejector pipe. Anyway, here is a video of the first run of the completed model. I've re-profiled the running plate and opened out the frames and on the chassis I've made the wheelbase much more accurate to the prototype.I've attempted also to get the piston rods to line up correctly. All in all I think the changes have improved the look of the model and it certainly runs well (early days.. touch wood). I must give massive thanks to Andrew (Headstock) whose brilliant model of an O4/8 was modified similarly and was the inspiration for this little project.

 

I'll post a few photos of the different stages of the project if anyone's interested.

 

Clem

 

IMG_6685.jpg.b27dff09c8d3a2075293bbfe5828f21a.jpg

Superlative!

 

How wonderful to have you back.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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

8 hours ago, Theakerr said:

My second video.  I think i might give myself a better camera for my birthday, but it will be a challenge to fight the right one.  There are so many out there and I don't have a lot of faith in the reviews anymore.

 

 

Thanks for showing us all this. 

 

My compliments on such an excellent build/paint job. 

 

There's something about a heavy, kit-built locomotive in action which no plastic-bodied RTR equivalent can capture. I think it's the overall mechanical sound - the clunk as it goes over crossings; one just knows it's massive.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

19386422_DownTees-TynePullmanpassingUpQueenofScots01B.jpg.a79a5d7056af83e9842602f3aacca39f.jpg

 

Two Pullmans passing during Little Bytham's early days. Either one is very late and/or the other very early, because the 'Up 'QoS' and the Down 'TTP' would have not have passed at LB...

 

 

Hi Tony, do you normally run LB to a fully timetabled sequence, or just keep things moving one train after the other?

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Clem said:

Good evening all. I hope everyone's well. I see one and all have been busy producing some lovely models. I'm just getting back up to speed. It must be the jabs. I think they put some illegal performance enhancing stuff in mine.

 

I know I've got a bit of thing about O4s.. and sorry for being a bit wordy and windbaggy, but bear with me if you've got the patience...

 

The Bachmann O4 is basically a very good model of the O4/1, but like so many RTR models, though basically accurate,  it has a few niggling little errors and some compromises. One of the most notable errors is the running plate shape around the cylinders. It widens out for a length over the cylinders like the original but on the model it widens out for a significantly longer section than it should. Probably, the most annoying thing is that they retooled the footplate getting it correct for the GWR ROD but kept the original tooling on the LNER based locos. Other 'little' errors include the reversing rod which is far too short when compared to the real thing. Also the cylinders, slide bars and piston don't line up with the centres of the driven wheels.

 

As well as this, the driving wheel wheelbase is shortened compared with the prototype and the distance between the leading driving axle and the pony axle is lengthened. This last discrepancy is more a compromise than error to enable the model negotiate very tight curves with the pony fouling the cylinders.Similarly the area between the frames is filled to fit in with the model's motor as designed.

 

I run my locos on a DC layout being an old fashioned stick-in-the-mud luddite (a bit like Tony) and I use Stewart Hine's Pentrollers which are still, to my way of thinking, one of the best controllers performance-wise that I've witnessed. (You have to be very careful with them though, they easily burn out with a prolonged short). I have converted a few of the Bachmann O4s using the Bachmann chassis and when pulling a longish train, they perform well enough. However, if light engine, they seem to have a tendency to hunt slightly with a kick every so often giving them a bit of jerky characteristic. When compared to my K's O4s, they can't hold a candle to the k's locos smooth running.

 

So for a while I've been of correcting some of the models errors, and trying out a scratch built sprung chassis for it. On top of that I've chosen one of the much more numerous O4/3s rather than an O4/1 for the prototype, Colwick's 63829. This entailed removing the ejector pipe. Anyway, here is a video of the first run of the completed model. I've re-profiled the running plate and opened out the frames and on the chassis I've made the wheelbase much more accurate to the prototype.I've attempted also to get the piston rods to line up correctly. All in all I think the changes have improved the look of the model and it certainly runs well (early days.. touch wood). I must give massive thanks to Andrew (Headstock) whose brilliant model of an O4/8 was modified similarly and was the inspiration for this little project.

 

I'll post a few photos of the different stages of the project if anyone's interested.

 

Clem

 

IMG_6685.jpg.b27dff09c8d3a2075293bbfe5828f21a.jpg

 

Good afternoon Clem,

 

I really like you freight trains, they always seem very genuine and well observed, with the right kinds of vehicles for your area and time period, quite rare.

 

I always thought the Bachmann O4 a slightly strange looking thing but I couldn't put my finger on why, until I measured one up. It has bags of potential though, I have another conversion in the offing, I think it's the same number as one of yours but when it was an Annesley engine, it's allocated to the southbound steel runner. The running board needs a fair amount of heavy duty sawing but as you have shown, it's well worth the effort. The newly exposed frames show up quite well, as is very apparent in your moving pictures.

 

I'm not too sure of the dome on the Bachmann model, I haven't looked at it too closely, as my engines are all reboilered variants. I'm sure it could look better but an original O4 expert may have more information. One thing that is worth adding, is the injector pipe work at the rear, it is quite prominent and fills in the gap. I include a screen shot, one of several I used when doing my locomotives.

 

Talking of screen shots, I shall do one of your grass and send it to Hornby.

 

791876413_636012.jpg.30e07d3d3a565944ca7756f0f333cccf.jpg

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Chamby said:

 

Hi Tony, do you normally run LB to a fully timetabled sequence, or just keep things moving one train after the other?

Good afternoon Phil,

 

It's run (when it is operated with friends) to a 60-train sequence, based on the PTTs and WTTs for the period.

 

I pictorially-described it all some time ago, but probably hundreds of pages back on here!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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

53 minutes ago, Headstock said:

I'm not too sure of the dome on the Bachmann model, I haven't looked at it too closely, as my engines are all reboilered variants. I'm sure it could look better but an original O4 expert may have more information. One thing that is worth adding, is the injector pipe work at the rear, it is quite prominent and fills in the gap. I include a screen shot, one of several I used when doing my locomotives.

Hi Andrew. I hope you are well. Are you getting access to your club's premises yet? I'm looking forward to when we can start having exhibitions again.

The O4 dome on the Bachmann looks to me to be close to being correct for a number of the unrebuilt engines but from the early 40s onwards the 'utility' dome was fitted and this is seen on the majority of the unrebuilt O4s in the 1950s. The utility dome has a flat top and is slightly conical in profile. I've been hoping someone would do an accurate casting (Graeme (King) do you do one?).

 

I only noticed when I looked at the side on still of the Bachmann dome that it starts to dip in the wrong place at the back. From the front it looks pretty good for that type of dome. 63829 was one of the very few O4/3s at Colwick to have one of these, most having the utility type as I've attempted to replicate on my K's O4/3 63638 below.

 

IMG_6706.jpg.ed0cd805dd42ad649e9e04b644fae47d.jpg

 

IMG_6705.jpg.f20586063af741ee2c1673d60c1f1a69.jpg

 

And I agree about the injector pipe - and also the brake pull rod. I used the Bachmann brake hangers and blocks on 63829 and they're actually too short and will need replacing. That's why I've not fitted the pull rod. 63638 also needs injector pipes and pull rods..

 

Putting it context, 63829 was a bit of an experimental stab in the dark - to see how easily a scratch chassis and motor could be readily made to fit the Bachmann body, and how difficult the task of removing the solid mass between the frames and the reprofiling of the running plate would be. I've also tried to alter the angle of the Bachmann cylinders and slide bars but that turned out to be quite awkward and I only achieved limited success.

 

Good to hear you're doing one of Annesley's unrebuilt O4s. Quite a few of Colwick's mid-fifties O4 allocation were at Annesley in your period, so I'm looking forward to seeing it when it's finished and finding out which it is.

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Clem said:

Hi Andrew. I hope you are well. Are you getting access to your club's premises yet? I'm looking forward to when we can start having exhibitions again.

The O4 dome on the Bachmann looks to me to be close to being correct for a number of the unrebuilt engines but from the early 40s onwards the 'utility' dome was fitted and this is seen on the majority of the unrebuilt O4s in the 1950s. The utility dome has a flat top and is slightly conical in profile. I've been hoping someone would do an accurate casting (Graeme (King) do you do one?).

 

I only noticed when I looked at the side on still of the Bachmann dome that it starts to dip in the wrong place at the back. From the front it looks pretty good for that type of dome. 63829 was one of the very few O4/3s at Colwick to have one of these, most having the utility type as I've attempted to replicate on my K's O4/3 63638 below.

 

IMG_6706.jpg.ed0cd805dd42ad649e9e04b644fae47d.jpg

 

IMG_6705.jpg.f20586063af741ee2c1673d60c1f1a69.jpg

 

And I agree about the injector pipe - and also the brake pull rod. I used the Bachmann brake hangers and blocks on 63829 and they're actually too short and will need replacing. That's why I've not fitted the pull rod. 63638 also needs injector pipes and pull rods..

 

Putting it context, 63829 was a bit of an experimental stab in the dark - to see how easily a scratch chassis and motor could be readily made to fit the Bachmann body, and how difficult the task of removing the solid mass between the frames and the reprofiling of the running plate would be. I've also tried to alter the angle of the Bachmann cylinders and slide bars but that turned out to be quite awkward and I only achieved limited success.

 

Good to hear you're doing one of Annesley's unrebuilt O4s. Quite a few of Colwick's mid-fifties O4 allocation were at Annesley in your period, so I'm looking forward to seeing it when it's finished and finding out which it is.

 

Good evening  Clem,

 

another reboilered loco I'm afraid, it being 63851, so not underbuilt. I could actually get away with it in its 6299 guise but 63851 does roll of the tongue nicely, decisions, decisions. It did end up at Colwick though, I'm sure you have one, though I may be confused.  A different style of dome will be carried again, I think that it's more of a GN looking thing. Its' a shame that a lot of the after market stuff has gone. Even the most modern RTR locomotives, could benefit from improved or alternative parts, such as chimneys and domes.

 

I scratch built a similar brake pull rod and cylinder arrangement for a B16/1, again its quite visible at the back end. That provided on the Bachmann O4 is quite good and  it was retained on my own efforts with the O4/8. I didn't have any problems with altering the angle of the cylinders or slide bars. As I recall, it was just a case of elongating the slots in the motion bracket to allow the repositioning of the slide bar ends. They were then re fixed in place by filling up the the lower part of the slot. In addition, a packing piece was filed up to the right shape, to realign the angle of the the cylinder transverse support bracket.

 

Even if the lengthening of the reversing rod and the shortening of the pony truck, was the only alteration that could be made, a lot of people could significantly improve the appearance of the Bachmann model by doing so. 

 

I think Shipley reopens on the 18th of May, There probably won't be much to see, unless the Clayton lot have secretly being breaking lockdown, I wouldn't put it past them but I had better go pay my subs, or at least push it under the door.

 

P.S. I also have a Gibson kit for another Annesley stalwart, 64375. Not a eight legs I no but

Edited by Headstock
P.S.
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The 0 gauge C12 which I put on here a few weeks back when I was having problems with the cab roof is now nearly complete.

 

1B8CF95F-A9B7-46B4-86A2-9F1703074C96.jpeg.d7b819a17388cd8264f2b71ad70f12d1.jpeg
 

My soldering is not very neat but it’s smooth and will disappear under the paint. The filling on the roof corners seems to have worked well so thanks for the help on that.

 

I now have a MSC motor gearbox fitted which works very well and it’s nice and smooth on my test track even with only two pick ups per side. I haven’t tried it round corners and point work yet though and I’ll wait to do that before I tackle the brake gear in case of any problems which need filing back.

 

04546AC2-2A98-45DA-A69A-AED161E5230D.jpeg.5ee9fd13a3e1ec1c059dc947288fc587.jpeg

 

I have a question though about the cab interior which is built.

 

D9950E1D-1181-41EA-9E6D-9427349F3CB1.jpeg.911bce5bd4e6487e81ef08498abf7916.jpeg

 

However, it’s a very tight fit into the body as these two photos hopefully show.

 

2310C268-2D6F-4E59-BC4F-202B775EDBAC.jpeg.ca5bdca6a14b6c6194e0ec85f795fec9.jpeg

 

43706F8C-0BB2-48AE-95D2-641488768032.jpeg.8e1de6be2e2f38fcee88d0e6702fed56.jpeg

 

This means that when I fit the rear step and pipe work which goes under the cab, I won’t be able to get the cab out. So I’m wondering whether I need to paint it first. If so, how do how prevent overspray when I paint the outside? If anyone has a clever solution to this, I’m all ears!

 

One final question is what is this casting?

 

C36F52EF-2147-43A1-BD07-FFF969601183.jpeg.e3e1a757c761b32fa61c4d8a72823915.jpeg

 

It looks like a bit of reversing gear. But I can’t see any evidence of it on prototype photos and there’s no mention in the instructions. I wonder whether it’s part of the Ramsbottom safety valve assembly as there’s no lever in the kit.

 

Thanks in advance for any help.

 

Andy

Edited by thegreenhowards
  • Like 16
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Headstock said:

another reboilered loco I'm afraid, it being 63851, so not underbuilt. I could actually get away with it in its 6299 guise but 63851 does roll of the tongue nicely, decisions, decisions. It did end up at Colwick though, I'm sure you have one, though I may be confused. 

Yes, you're correct Andrew, I have modelled 63851. And it's the next one due for the treatment! It's been converted to EM just by pulling the wheels out and it runs OK with a load but it clunks through point work in a most unprototypical way. The pony has been brought forward and reversing rod done but the rest of the mods necessary weren't attempted during the conversion. Having done 63829, this will need doing later in the year. A few other jobs on the layout are more urgent.

After coming to Colwick from Annesley it stayed along with another O4/5 until the big freight loco reorganisation of January 1956 when a significant number of Colwick's O4s went to Mexborough in return for WDs. The O4/5s stayed at Mexborough until withdrawal in 1959 when their boilers came up for renewal and the sub class was rendered extinct.

 

IMG_6710.jpg.83af162191beef65282d223ac7d9c98b.jpg

  • Like 18
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

There probably won't be much to see, unless the Clayton lot have secretly being breaking lockdown, I wouldn't put it past them.

Good to see you posting again, we've missed seeing how your models are progressing Andrew.

 

I can assure both you and the authorities that at no time have 'the Clayton lot' broken any lockdown rules.  Perish the thought.....but as a result there has been no activity on the Clayton layout itself since March 5th 2020.  I'm looking forward to getting back into the clubrooms (albeit socially distanced) in a couple of weeks and testing the several locomotives that have been built during lockdown.  I can at last find out what the reworked Q2 with its motor in the tender can haul.  Think we might need to do some track cleaning first though....

 

Hope to see you at club soon.

 

Frank  

 

   

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Good to see you posting again, we've missed seeing how your models are progressing Andrew.

 

I can assure both you and the authorities that at no time have 'the Clayton lot' broken any lockdown rules.  Perish the thought.....but as a result there has been no activity on the Clayton layout itself since March 5th 2020.  I'm looking forward to getting back into the clubrooms (albeit socially distanced) in a couple of weeks and testing the several locomotives that have been built during lockdown.  I can at last find out what the reworked Q2 with its motor in the tender can haul.  Think we might need to do some track cleaning first though....

 

Hope to see you at club soon.

 

Frank  

 

   

 

The Clayton track cleaning gang ready for action. Watch out for contaminated track pins!

 

 

clayton track cleaning team.jpg

Edited by Headstock
  • Funny 12
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...