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

8 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

Oh crikey, Robert!

 

Yes, I would like to build (another) DJH Duchess. 'Utility' front style, like Tony's 46245 ...

 

Jubilees (Hong Kong) - already got two of them ... but would have two more in a shot. Lovely runners. I absolutely agree with you re RTR stuff from 10-15 years; with one or two exceptions, perfectly good enough for present day use.

 

Oh, me poor old wallet ...

Watch this space.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, robertcwp said:

Watch this space.

We will indeed!

 

It poses the question, at least to me, just how many collections of un-built kits and untouched RTR there might be out there. Hundreds? Thousands?

 

Is there a type who just collects kits, but never builds them? I know there are collectors who won't breach the packaging of their RTR items; to do so would devalue them, apparently (I don't 'get' that at all). Just collecting kits seems very different to me. 

 

In my own case, though I suppose I 'collect' kits in a way, I then build them. During the lockdowns, my 'strategic reserve' was heavily eaten into, and I've had to replenish it (20 loco kits didn't last long!). 

 

There's also the type who just 'collects' models built for him/her. Such a person, either through lack of skill or time, cannot build for themselves, so they commission such items. More often than not, these models never run because their home is exclusively a glass cabinet (which seems a shame to me). I have to collect a collection of such (locomotive) models on behalf of a widow. Though 'professionally-built/-painted' for her late husband, I have no idea how these run. In my experience, many don't run very well, though they look pretty. I'll be checking these out and posting pictures soon. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been questioned when buying limited edition models.

 

"Are you a collector or a modeller?"

"Modeller."

"So you want one which runs well."

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Funny 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

We will indeed!

 

It poses the question, at least to me, just how many collections of un-built kits and untouched RTR there might be out there. Hundreds? Thousands?

 

Is there a type who just collects kits, but never builds them? I know there are collectors who won't breach the packaging of their RTR items; to do so would devalue them, apparently (I don't 'get' that at all). Just collecting kits seems very different to me. 

 

In my own case, though I suppose I 'collect' kits in a way, I then build them. During the lockdowns, my 'strategic reserve' was heavily eaten into, and I've had to replenish it (20 loco kits didn't last long!). 

 

There's also the type who just 'collects' models built for him/her. Such a person, either through lack of skill or time, cannot build for themselves, so they commission such items. More often than not, these models never run because their home is exclusively a glass cabinet (which seems a shame to me). I have to collect a collection of such (locomotive) models on behalf of a widow. Though 'professionally-built/-painted' for her late husband, I have no idea how these run. In my experience, many don't run very well, though they look pretty. I'll be checking these out and posting pictures soon. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I think there are lots of collections of unbuilt kits. What I'm dealing with is at the extreme end in that there is no evidence that anything was ever started.

 

I have made a start on sorting through the kits and bits boxes. The initial stage is to divide locos and loco bits from everything else. It is becoming evident that boxes do not always contain what is stated on the outside.

 

I commission models from time to time because they can be done more quickly and to a better standard than I can achieve and, until I retire, I won't have time to develop the skills etc necessary, even if faculties permit by that time. However, those models are for use and must run. The latest such example is the restaurant twin that has gone into the King's Cross-Glasgow train on Retford. The biggest example is my layout. If I had done it myself, I would still be building it. It's been operational for over 20 years.

  • Like 7
  • Friendly/supportive 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

We will indeed!

 

It poses the question, at least to me, just how many collections of un-built kits and untouched RTR there might be out there. Hundreds? Thousands?

 

Is there a type who just collects kits, but never builds them? I know there are collectors who won't breach the packaging of their RTR items; to do so would devalue them, apparently (I don't 'get' that at all). Just collecting kits seems very different to me. 

 

In my own case, though I suppose I 'collect' kits in a way, I then build them. During the lockdowns, my 'strategic reserve' was heavily eaten into, and I've had to replenish it (20 loco kits didn't last long!). 

 

There's also the type who just 'collects' models built for him/her. Such a person, either through lack of skill or time, cannot build for themselves, so they commission such items. More often than not, these models never run because their home is exclusively a glass cabinet (which seems a shame to me). I have to collect a collection of such (locomotive) models on behalf of a widow. Though 'professionally-built/-painted' for her late husband, I have no idea how these run. In my experience, many don't run very well, though they look pretty. I'll be checking these out and posting pictures soon. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I think many of us are guilty of buying more kits than we can get through in a reasonable time - I know I am but lockdown has helped reduce the backlog. I have one friend who delights in buying kits/ sides/ and bits to complete them in bulk whenever he can get a ‘deal’. He says he will build them when he retires but he will need to live to a ripe old age!  I have nagged him to start building them and he has finally started to put some sides onto donor vehicles, but that has taken three years so I don’t hold out much hope for the kit mountain.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

We will indeed!

 

It poses the question, at least to me, just how many collections of un-built kits and untouched RTR there might be out there. Hundreds? Thousands?

 

Is there a type who just collects kits, but never builds them? I know there are collectors who won't breach the packaging of their RTR items; to do so would devalue them, apparently (I don't 'get' that at all). Just collecting kits seems very different to me. 

 

In my own case, though I suppose I 'collect' kits in a way, I then build them. During the lockdowns, my 'strategic reserve' was heavily eaten into, and I've had to replenish it (20 loco kits didn't last long!). 

 

There's also the type who just 'collects' models built for him/her. Such a person, either through lack of skill or time, cannot build for themselves, so they commission such items. More often than not, these models never run because their home is exclusively a glass cabinet (which seems a shame to me). I have to collect a collection of such (locomotive) models on behalf of a widow. Though 'professionally-built/-painted' for her late husband, I have no idea how these run. In my experience, many don't run very well, though they look pretty. I'll be checking these out and posting pictures soon. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Good morning Tony,

 

all the evidence suggests* that the majority of people who would call themselves railway modelers, never take the hobby any further than buying things, though a good proportion have a sort of intent to produce something that never happens. I don't think that has changed much over the last few decades, be it kit based or RTR.

 

* Re the various magazine surveys that have been discussed on this thread in the past and the continuing supply of unbuilt kits coming to market. Many of the latter when sold now, will probably remain unbuilt and will eventually come up for sale again.

Edited by Headstock
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Tony,

 

all the evidence suggests* that the majority of people who would call themselves railway modelers, never take the hobby any further than buying things, though a good proportion have a sort of intent to produce something that never happens. I don't think that has changed much over the last few decades, be it kit based or RTR.

 

* Re the various magazine surveys that have been discussed on this thread in the past and the continuing supply of unbuilt kits coming to market. Many of the latter when sold now, will probably remain unbuilt and will eventually come up for sale again.

 

I have a good collection of unbuilt kits, some of which I know I am the fourth owner of.

 

Thinking about how my tastes, interests and standards have changed since I bought them, they may well end up with somebody else.

 

There was a time when I thought a BEC D11 was "good enough" so I bought one. My knowledge of what a D11 should look like has improved and better alternatives are available, so I can't see me ever building it.

 

The Millholme B5 may yet get built as with a bit of work, they can be made to look half decent.

 

I do know some people who find collecting models (whether they be RTR, commissioned new or second hand kit built ones) a thoroughly enjoyable way to follow the hobby. They get as excited about searching out a good "find" as I do about finishing a nice model.

 

I don't have any problem with that. I have never believed that there is only one way to enjoy this hobby.

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

There was a time when I thought a BEC D11 was "good enough" so I bought one. My knowledge of what a D11 should look like has improved and better alternatives are available, so I can't see me ever building it.

 

 

I suspect something similar is true of a good proportion of the kits and bits I'm currently dealing with. Many date from long before newer kits or better RTR models became available, although not all. For example, I don't see a great deal of point in converting a Lima DMU to a Class 108 or improving a Lima 20 but many of the kits and bits are of things not available RTR and in some cases no longer even available as kits.

 

Meanwhile, the Parkside mountain has grown further as I found about 20 more in a box today, some of which had been opened. I think it has now reached its maximum extent. A Bachmann Mark 1 is included to give an idea of scale:

 

51244105473_06f51fcc4c_c.jpgIMG_0981m by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I do know some people who find collecting models (whether they be RTR, commissioned new or second hand kit built ones) a thoroughly enjoyable way to follow the hobby. They get as excited about searching out a good "find" as I do about finishing a nice model.

 

I don't have any problem with that. I have never believed that there is only one way to enjoy this hobby.

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

I don't have any problem with it, it is by far the most dominant way that people enjoy the Hobby. In fact I benefit from it, being able to source and build kits that theoretically disappeared decades ago. In reality, they are still available and in as good condition as the day they were boxed, all those years ago.

 

Edited by Headstock
  • Like 1
  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

I suspect something similar is true of a good proportion of the kits and bits I'm currently dealing with. Many date from long before newer kits or better RTR models became available, although not all. For example, I don't see a great deal of point in converting a Lima DMU to a Class 108 or improving a Lima 20 but many of the kits and bits are of things not available RTR and in some cases no longer even available as kits.

 

Meanwhile, the Parkside mountain has grown further as I found about 20 more in a box today, some of which had been opened. I think it has now reached its maximum extent. A Bachmann Mark 1 is included to give an idea of scale:

 

51244105473_06f51fcc4c_c.jpgIMG_0981m by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

My theory is that a bad kit is "better than the one we haven't got". If there is a better alternative, why bother?

 

Does Sandra need more wagons for Retford? Some (all?) of those might come in handy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, t-b-g said:

 

My theory is that a bad kit is "better than the one we haven't got". If there is a better alternative, why bother?

 

Does Sandra need more wagons for Retford? Some (all?) of those might come in handy. 

Sandra has already acquired a lot of Bachmann wagons from the stock I had on offer. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

Sandra has already acquired a lot of Bachmann wagons from the stock I had on offer. 

 

That will save somebody many hours making up kits then!

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, robertcwp said:

I suspect something similar is true of a good proportion of the kits and bits I'm currently dealing with. Many date from long before newer kits or better RTR models became available, although not all. For example, I don't see a great deal of point in converting a Lima DMU to a Class 108 or improving a Lima 20 but many of the kits and bits are of things not available RTR and in some cases no longer even available as kits.

 

Meanwhile, the Parkside mountain has grown further as I found about 20 more in a box today, some of which had been opened. I think it has now reached its maximum extent. A Bachmann Mark 1 is included to give an idea of scale:

 

51244105473_06f51fcc4c_c.jpgIMG_0981m by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

 

I can see VanWides (BR VEV or VWV) and a single sliding door van.

 

Definitely some of interest.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MJI said:

 

 

I can see VanWides (BR VEV or VWV) and a single sliding door van.

 

Definitely some of interest.

When I retire, I might have time to go through the box, and the smaller box of Chivers ones, and the Slaters, Colin Ashby, Coopercraft and Ratio ones, and list them out.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

I have a good collection of unbuilt kits, some of which I know I am the fourth owner of.

 

Thinking about how my tastes, interests and standards have changed since I bought them, they may well end up with somebody else.

 

There was a time when I thought a BEC D11 was "good enough" so I bought one. My knowledge of what a D11 should look like has improved and better alternatives are available, so I can't see me ever building it.

 

The Millholme B5 may yet get built as with a bit of work, they can be made to look half decent.

 

I do know some people who find collecting models (whether they be RTR, commissioned new or second hand kit built ones) a thoroughly enjoyable way to follow the hobby. They get as excited about searching out a good "find" as I do about finishing a nice model.

 

I don't have any problem with that. I have never believed that there is only one way to enjoy this hobby.

I agree entirely Tony,

 

Though I did build a BEC D11 some three years ago. It was given to me as a gift, and I thought the best way to thank the gift-giver was to build it. 

 

It's been seen before, but there are many newcomers to this thread.

 

624127304_BECD1103.jpg.da5650bf99db68bfec77eda2c4ee8fec.jpg

 

1232084915_BECD1162662.jpg.aa07bcff87a750cc5e5db2341ab1e82a.jpg

 

571736703_D1162662.jpg.b8d1613ba5b2575f1b7435c2f8810e4d.jpg

 

It's certainly open to 'criticism' (though not Geoff Haynes' painting). I doubt if the tender is the correct type, and it doesn't match the loco's ride height. 

 

What can be said in its defence? Very little, except it's 'mine' in a unique way. 

 

There are far better alternatives.

 

1185532146_D1162661.jpg.c7da08322d67e5ec2922aa2b18a76983.jpg

 

Including this one, made RTR by Bachmann. All I've done here is to detail/rename/renumber/weather it to produce exactly the condition the real loco was in when I saw it at Kiveton Park in 1958. I saw PRINCE OF WALES four years earlier, but this time at Chester Northgate. It was very clean.

 

Since D11s never ran on Little Bytham post-War, both are really surplus to my requirements.

 

1391680171_Retford2382001D11.jpg.7f598be00fc9da70fa463833e9a50c89.jpg

 

That being the case, friend, Ray Chessum, EM-d it for service on Retford (it's carrying the wrong code!!!!!), by the simple expedient of widening the gauge of the loco's drivers and the tender's wheels, substituting the bogie wheels as well. Ironically, it (and another Bachmann one re-gauged by Sandra) are Retford's only working D11s at present (the original one seems to have developed running problems, or had the last time I saw it). A pity, because it's a beautiful model, built by Roy, of course.

 

293905071_Retford12101929D11.jpg.48c5b808714bfce09506ce9a919b6a0f.jpg

 

Sandra might well have fixed it by now...........................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Tony Wright
to add something
  • Like 18
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm delighted that there are collectors of loco kits; kits which will never get built, until bods like me acquire them! 

 

Unless a loco kit is particularly well-made, its resale value is usually less than its un-built equivalent.

 

I've already said that I'm making it my aim never to take on  any more (or even take apart) a loco which somebody else has started. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to Andrew (Headstock’s) post a couple of days back; apologies for the delay – computer time and modelling time are both hard to come by for me at the moment.

 

Can you produce any evidence of the Hush Hush being referred to as being Battleship grey in the 1930's and what version?

 

No.  But I think we are getting at cross-purposes here.  What I have been trying to say is that IF “people” were referring at the time to the Hush Hush locomotive being ‘battleship grey’, then the colour they were making the analogy with is a dark-ish grey with which Royal Navy ships based in home waters had been painted since the early 20th Century.  And you and I both know that there was in reality no one single exact shade of that colour over time, for all the reasons that have been listed (many of which are common issues to railways too).  Yet there was no shortage of “colour evidence” for what the Public Mind might have been conditioned with, even without actual colour photography – book illustrations, paintings, postcards, cigarette card images, Naval Reviews allowing large numbers to see the ships in the flesh … all of which would indeed have shown subtly (or not so subtly) different shades … but all of which, if a non-specialist was describing a dark-ish grey painted ‘big something-or-other’, would be recognisable and understood to the layman’s eye by the term ‘battleship grey’.  Which, I’d entirely accept, is little use to a serious modeller many decades later ...

 

How many ships can you name that required 15 to twenty hits for it to be disabled or be sunk? Forgive me but It sounds like some silly computer game. My Great uncles Ship certainly wasn't sunk by that rule of thumb.

 

If you don’t believe me that was the inter-war broad expectation I was summarising, would you believe the Royal Navy itself?  Andrew Field’s book ‘Royal Navy Strategy in the Far East 1919-1939’ quotes PRO document ADM 186/78 ‘Number of Necessary, Non-Vital Hits and the Percentage of Damage Inflicted on Other Vessels by a 15-inch shell.’

 

Condensing a complex account, the RN’s assessment of likely damage was based on three types of hits by heavy shell.  The first, ‘Vital Hits’, were any hits likely to blow up the target; next were ‘Speed Hits’ which slowed a target down; and finally came ‘Non-Vital Hits’, the effects of which were cumulative and gradually reduced a ship’s ability to fight.  You may therefore, for example, assign the 1941 loss of Hood to just the first serious blow landed on her as a ‘Vital Hit’, and the complete disablement of Lion at the Battle of the Dogger Bank in 1915 to the accumulated effects of some 15 heavy but so-called 'Non-Vital' shell hits over time.

 

On this basis, and making some allowance for subsequent improvements in armour-piercing shell technology, the RN broadly expected its older battleships and battle cruisers to be sunk or effectively disabled by about  (emphasis on the 'about') 15 heavy hits (i.e. excluding those hitting nothing of importance, such as just clipping stowed boats etc.).  More modern battleships, including the recently-completed Nelson class, would take about 18 such hits. The US Navy employed a broadly similar assessment approach with broadly similar conclusions about its own and the Japanese Navy’s ships. 

 

One of the lessons from the limited evidence (major sea battles fought to a finish being actually quite rare events) is that timing of when and where any ship is hit during an action is crucial to how we regard the ship. Hood blew up in five minutes of action from the first serious hit, which found a critical vulnerability that had been known about by the Navy for many years but was never properly remedied (for a variety of reasons including the fact that though she was old she was still younger and more powerful than most of the rest of the Fleet so couldn’t be spared for modernisation). Lion on the other hand was finally crippled from damage to a feed-water pipe incurred by (IIRC) her tenth hit received (of fifteen) in a quite lengthy chase action, which even then took a further 15-20 minutes to actually stop the ship - and she was got home and was regarded as having stood-up well to her punishment.

 

It's not a question of a specific vulnerability in an Iowa class ship, one that would upset the gunnery and armour table fanatics. You have to except that any Battleship is vulnerable to being sunk. You also have to except that how a particular shell, or armour, or ships structure performs under a specific circumstance is not allowed for in armour and shell/gun penetration tables. 

 I do accept that, entirely.  A warships-related website I also frequent has recently had an extensive discussion on this very point.  But the impression you gave me in your earlier comments was that you had heard it said from a reputable source that New Jersey (USN Iowa class) would have been equally vulnerable to the very same shot which put paid to Hood in the very same circumstances.  I now understand that was not what you meant.

Edited by Willie Whizz
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, robertcwp said:

I think there are lots of collections of unbuilt kits. 

 

I commission models from time to time because they can be done more quickly and to a better standard than I can achieve and, until I retire, I won't have time to develop the skills etc necessary, even if faculties permit...........

I'm as guilty as the rest for having loads of kits. I think the term "KABLE" applies Kits Aquired Beyond Life Expectancy.

Good luck with hoping retirement will give you time to improve your skills! I packed in work nearly ten years ago, and I seem to be busier than ever, and still don't have time to build the kits. So along with others, some of mine will no doubt go on to new owners when I fall off my perch!

 

Nigel L

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I've just been asked a question by Jesse, from Australia. 

 

For the sake of all, I'd like to clarify my answer here. He'd like to repaint a damaged Hornby A2/2 into wartime black and asked (more or less) how authentic that might be. My answer, which appears to have ruined his day, was 'not authentic at all'. 

 

Hornby's A2/2s represent (respectively) how four of the class might have looked in the early-'50s and how one of the class looked in 1959. That is, as refurbished with Peppercorn boilers or a Thompson boiler. Thus, none is suitable for painting into LNER unlined black. 

 

Had Hornby made models of (what became) 60503 and 60504, then, with minor alterations, any of the class could be represented in LNER black, LNER green or BR green (up to the early-'50s in the case of 60501/2/5/6). Some commentators think that's what the firm should have done, but it takes into account none of the commonalities between the A2/2s and the A2/3s. 

 

I've seen so many A2/2 models where these differences have not been taken into account (mainly Millholme, which are rubbish at source, anyway - not the whole range of kits, just the A2/2 and A2/3 ones; see my picture of 60520 some pages back). 

 

So, by way of a visual explanation to clarify the differences..............

 

1663008440_6050404.jpg.27ff4ccfd3e2da8176cc13c0414f40e1.jpg

 

I built this example from a Crownline kit, and Ian Rathbone painted it.

 

60504 is 'representative' of all the class on rebuilding (other than it was painted black first). Please note longer smokebox, short central footplate section, boiler divided into four sections, slightly higher main handrail and full, 'V'-fronted cab. Without series alterations, this can not be done using the Hornby model. Why not?

 

1263296370_HornbyA226050206onlayout.jpg.c0fade37227f4279a35fa610291711f5.jpg

 

Because, please note, shorter smokebox, longer central footplate section, boiler divided into five sections, slightly lower main handrail and cut-back, partially 'V'-fronted cab (with the safety valves outside the roof). 

 

I modified this from a Hornby 60501. It featured recently in BRM. 

 

 

Edited by Tony Wright
to add something
  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Lemmy282 said:

I'm as guilty as the rest for having loads of kits. I think the term "KABLE" applies Kits Aquired Beyond Life Expectancy.

Good luck with hoping retirement will give you time to improve your skills! I packed in work nearly ten years ago, and I seem to be busier than ever, and still don't have time to build the kits. So along with others, some of mine will no doubt go on to new owners when I fall off my perch!

 

Nigel L

I don't doubt that once I retire I shall not have time for anything. It's something I hear often. Retirement might be only 4.5 years away.

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I agree entirely Tony,

 

Though I did build a BEC D11 some three years ago. It was given to me as a gift, and I thought the best way to thank the gift-giver was to build it. 

 

It's been seen before, but there are many newcomers to this thread.

 

624127304_BECD1103.jpg.da5650bf99db68bfec77eda2c4ee8fec.jpg

 

1232084915_BECD1162662.jpg.aa07bcff87a750cc5e5db2341ab1e82a.jpg

 

571736703_D1162662.jpg.b8d1613ba5b2575f1b7435c2f8810e4d.jpg

 

It's certainly open to 'criticism' (though not Geoff Haynes' painting). I doubt if the tender is the correct type, and it doesn't match the loco's ride height. 

 

What can be said in its defence? Very little, except it's 'mine' in a unique way. 

 

There are far better alternatives.

 

1185532146_D1162661.jpg.c7da08322d67e5ec2922aa2b18a76983.jpg

 

Including this one, made RTR by Bachmann. All I've done here is to detail/rename/renumber/weather it to produce exactly the condition the real loco was in when I saw it at Kiveton Park in 1958. I saw PRINCE OF WALES four years earlier, but this time at Chester Northgate. It was very clean.

 

Since D11s never ran on Little Bytham post-War, both are really surplus to my requirements.

 

1391680171_Retford2382001D11.jpg.7f598be00fc9da70fa463833e9a50c89.jpg

 

That being the case, friend, Ray Chessum, EM-d it for service on Retford (it's carrying the wrong code!!!!!), by the simple expedient of widening the gauge of the loco's drivers and the tender's wheels, substituting the bogie wheels as well. Ironically, it (and another Bachmann one re-gauged by Sandra) are Retford's only working D11s at present (the original one seems to have developed running problems, or had the last time I saw it). A pity, because it's a beautiful model, built by Roy, of course.

 

293905071_Retford12101929D11.jpg.48c5b808714bfce09506ce9a919b6a0f.jpg

 

Sandra might well have fixed it by now...........................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tony,

 

I have fixed it. The loco has the motor in the tender and it had been soldered to the tender chassis but it had become unsoldered. All I had to do was re-solder the motor in place.

 

I must admit having the motor in the tender is not an arrangement I’m keen on. The loco is rather noisy and the shaft driving the gearbox in the loco is apt to fall out if you need to pick the loco up. It is the very devil to get back in place. I believe this arrangement is widely used in N gauge but I think it is usually unnecessary in 4mm.

 

I regret to say that the Bachmann D11s do actually work better and are quieter than the kit built engine.

 

Sandra

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

21 minutes ago, sandra said:

Tony,

 

I have fixed it. The loco has the motor in the tender and it had been soldered to the tender chassis but it had become unsoldered. All I had to do was re-solder the motor in place.

 

I must admit having the motor in the tender is not an arrangement I’m keen on. The loco is rather noisy and the shaft driving the gearbox in the loco is apt to fall out if you need to pick the loco up. It is the very devil to get back in place. I believe this arrangement is widely used in N gauge but I think it is usually unnecessary in 4mm.

 

I regret to say that the Bachmann D11s do actually work better and are quieter than the kit built engine.

 

Sandra

Thanks for clarifying the point, Sandra.

 

It's my experience in more recent times that the majority of RTR locos work far better, more quietly, more smoothly and more sweetly than the majority of their kit-built equivalents. 

 

Needless to say, this isn't the case with the majority of Retford's locos, but those Hornby RTR ones I videoed a fortnight ago don't half run well. I know some might have been re-wheeled, but several haven't been. They pull well, too.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

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

5 hours ago, Willie Whizz said:

In response to Andrew (Headstock’s) post a couple of days back; apologies for the delay – computer time and modelling time are both hard to come by for me at the moment.

 

Can you produce any evidence of the Hush Hush being referred to as being Battleship grey in the 1930's and what version?

 

No.  But I think we are getting at cross-purposes here.  What I have been trying to say is that IF “people” were referring at the time to the Hush Hush locomotive being ‘battleship grey’, then the colour they were making the analogy with is a dark-ish grey with which Royal Navy ships based in home waters had been painted since the early 20th Century.  And you and I both know that there was in reality no one single exact shade of that colour over time, for all the reasons that have been listed (many of which are common issues to railways too).  Yet there was no shortage of “colour evidence” for what the Public Mind might have been conditioned with, even without actual colour photography – book illustrations, paintings, postcards, cigarette card images, Naval Reviews allowing large numbers to see the ships in the flesh … all of which would indeed have shown subtly (or not so subtly) different shades … but all of which, if a non-specialist was describing a dark-ish grey painted ‘big something-or-other’, would be recognisable and understood to the layman’s eye by the term ‘battleship grey’.  Which, I’d entirely accept, is little use to a serious modeller many decades later ...

 

How many ships can you name that required 15 to twenty hits for it to be disabled or be sunk? Forgive me but It sounds like some silly computer game. My Great uncles Ship certainly wasn't sunk by that rule of thumb.

 

If you don’t believe me that was the inter-war broad expectation I was summarising, would you believe the Royal Navy itself?  Andrew Field’s book ‘Royal Navy Strategy in the Far East 1919-1939’ quotes PRO document ADM 186/78 ‘Number of Necessary, Non-Vital Hits and the Percentage of Damage Inflicted on Other Vessels by a 15-inch shell.’

 

Condensing a complex account, the RN’s assessment of likely damage was based on three types of hits by heavy shell.  The first, ‘Vital Hits’, were any hits likely to blow up the target; next were ‘Speed Hits’ which slowed a target down; and finally came ‘Non-Vital Hits’, the effects of which were cumulative and gradually reduced a ship’s ability to fight.  You may therefore, for example, assign the 1941 loss of Hood to just the first serious blow landed on her as a ‘Vital Hit’, and the complete disablement of Lion at the Battle of the Dogger Bank in 1915 to the accumulated effects of some 15 heavy but so-called 'Non-Vital' shell hits over time.

 

On this basis, and making some allowance for subsequent improvements in armour-piercing shell technology, the RN broadly expected its older battleships and battle cruisers to be sunk or effectively disabled by about  (emphasis on the 'about') 15 heavy hits (i.e. excluding those hitting nothing of importance, such as just clipping stowed boats etc.).  More modern battleships, including the recently-completed Nelson class, would take about 18 such hits. The US Navy employed a broadly similar assessment approach with broadly similar conclusions about its own and the Japanese Navy’s ships. 

 

One of the lessons from the limited evidence (major sea battles fought to a finish being actually quite rare events) is that timing of when and where any ship is hit during an action is crucial to how we regard the ship. Hood blew up in five minutes of action from the first serious hit, which found a critical vulnerability that had been known about by the Navy for many years but was never properly remedied (for a variety of reasons including the fact that though she was old she was still younger and more powerful than most of the rest of the Fleet so couldn’t be spared for modernisation). Lion on the other hand was finally crippled from damage to a feed-water pipe incurred by (IIRC) her tenth hit received (of fifteen) in a quite lengthy chase action, which even then took a further 15-20 minutes to actually stop the ship - and she was got home and was regarded as having stood-up well to her punishment.

 

It's not a question of a specific vulnerability in an Iowa class ship, one that would upset the gunnery and armour table fanatics. You have to except that any Battleship is vulnerable to being sunk. You also have to except that how a particular shell, or armour, or ships structure performs under a specific circumstance is not allowed for in armour and shell/gun penetration tables. 

 I do accept that, entirely.  A warships-related website I also frequent has recently had an extensive discussion on this very point.  But the impression you gave me in your earlier comments was that you had heard it said from a reputable source that New Jersey (USN Iowa class) would have been equally vulnerable to the very same shot which put paid to Hood in the very same circumstances.  I now understand that was not what you meant.

 

Good evening Willie,


thanks for the comprehensive reply,


Firstly, You can't prove that Home fleet dark grey was Widley recognised as the sire of the term Battleship grey. I'm quite happy to stand by by it being a generic term that existed before Home fleet Dark grey and after it. The majority of the population in the 1930's will have never even seen a Battleship. People were not so well travelled at the time and the picture quality on the wireless was terrible The first time my 2nd WW great uncle, who thought in the Indian Army, saw a Battleship, was HMS Warspite, he had to go all the way out to the far east, she wasn't Home fleet grey. MY Father recalled film (in BW with Flash Gordon if I remember correctly) of the Coronation fleet review prior to the War but it was far to expensive to travel to go see the fleet in colour. He did see a NER Z Atlantic though in generic steam loco green. The first and last Battleship that he saw, was after the War and out of service/in reserve along with a three funnel cruiser, I think he said the cruiser was Cumberland and the Battleship may have been Rodney or Nelson, neither would have been painted in Home fleet grey. I can't imagine he was shocked to find out that Battleship grey was not the colour he was 'conditioned' into thinking it was by pre war cigarette cards. I would also draw your attention to the fictitious green Hush Hush card. Now to be produced as an 'alternative history' model. My first WW Great Uncle didn't leave any notes on the shade of Battlecruiser grey.


ADM 186/78


As far as I'm aware, ADM 186/78 was a set of War game rules. As I have read bits, it's not a case of not believing you,  I except what you are saying, I have never attributed too much  real world value to ADM 186/78,  beyond how the Navy valued the defensive properties of its various capitol ships at the time, even if they were wrong. 


The RN had some funny ideas about the decisive range of Battle, obsessing over the number of hits rather than what the hits were doing. After Jutland, the RN had a rather schizophrenic relationship with armour, armament and plunging fire. possibly trying distract from how it's own ammunition handling had aided the Germans in sinking its own ships. The whole affair contributed to the 'closing to the decisive the range battle' mentality, were decks were less vulnerable to plunging fire and ironically plugging fire could not be used decisively against and enemy. My own thoughts are that Battleships were quite easy to mission kill or cripple with gunfire. However,  gunfire is not the most efficient way to sink ships.


Hood blew up in five minutes of action from the first serious hit, which found a critical vulnerability that had been known about by the Navy for many years.


What was the critical vulnerability that had been known about for years?. Don't pull out the deck armour thing again! Everybody, including two Admiralty boards pretty much dismissed the vulnerable of Hoods decks to Bismarck's shells at the range that she was hit and blew up. Nobody else has definitively found the critical vulnerability you mention. If She was so flawed it would be easy to pin down, I would be interested to hear what your thoughts are?. It has been theorized what may have happened, that theory usually involves a plausible explanation but one that could not have been foreseen in the design of the Ship. For example, the under water hit on P of  W, were an unexploded shell was found in the wing compartment close to the boiler room. If the fuse had not failed (which you would expect it to do under the circumstances) the resulting explosion of the shell would have broken her back and she probably would have been sunk, In the right local to a magazine, a similar hit, if the fuse survived, would have blown up Hood and would have also blown up Iowa.


One of the lessons from the limited evidence (major sea battles fought to a finish being actually quite rare events) is that timing of when and where any ship is hit during an action is crucial to how we regard the ship


Forgive me, I don't understand what this means. It seems to me that you only offering one real world example, HMS Lion, a ship that wasn't sunk and with not much to compare it against. I don't know how I would regard that ship, very nice?


But the impression you gave me in your earlier comments was that you had heard it said from a reputable source that New Jersey (USN Iowa class) would have been equally vulnerable to the very same shot which put paid to Hood in the very same circumstances.  I now understand that was not what you meant.


I said the opposite over and over, that you can't replicate the shot that killed hood because we don't know how it happened. I.e., Bismarck's guns could pierce Hoods 12'' main belt at any range and reach her magazine with every shot, no She couldn't. It was a golden BB, such a shot would also be required to kill New Jersey.* I genuinely look forwards to your explanation of how it happened.


I consider Battleship New Jersey museum and memorial a reputable source on Battleship New Jersey, they have one to look at.

 

* See the P of W shot above.

Edited by Headstock
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 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...