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

  • RMweb Premium

I've got a huge mound of w/m kits to go on triang chassis! Sir has seen a heavily modified triang chassis (sprung front axle, drilled out block to take a slim branchlines 50:1 gearbox on the rear axle (so you just have a the bottom of the worm in the cab), Mashima can with fly wheel, jointed etched rods and romfords, and the chassis filed to give it a 'frame' look. On it sits a Wills Caley 782 tank body. The weight gives good pick-up (the sprung front axle helps with pick-up no end) and she purrs along.

I've got a few Wills Crabs with triang 2-6-2 chassis modifed, BEC's 700's that are having the Caley tank treatment and five HR 0-6-4 bankers that are getting a basic romford conversion. All worth while!

 

Andy G

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

My first loco kit was a Wills Flatiron on a Triang Jinty chassis. I even rewheeled it with Romford drivers. It still runs.

 

Since then I seem to have done the "reverse" of building bodies on RTR chassis... I have built and fitted Comet chassis to a number of RTR bodies due to Mazak rot, decrepitude (mainline chassis do wear out) and in attempts to improve the look of the loco.

 

I was given a Wills Crab on a rtr chassis many moons ago by Nicktoix. As part of a mates deal Mike Edge fitted a new compensated chassis to it as the original one had worn out.  Great to have very good modellees as friends.

 

Baz

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Today I was at long last able to carry out the long awaited haulage test of my LNER Q2.  Those who are regular readers of WW will remember that after a disappointing haulage test prior to the  start of the Covid epidemic the decision was taken to relocate its motor into the tender so that additional lead ballast could be placed in the firebox and boiler.  The haulage test was delayed due to the sports hall in which our clubrooms are housed being closed by Bradford Council during the various Covid lockdowns.  We only got back into the building for the first time a couple of months ago and since then we have been completing some re-programming of the bespoke digital control system before the layout could again be operated.

 

I am delighted to be able to report that the test was successful. A train of 29 assorted wagons was hauled without issue up the 1:50 gradient on the 54" radius embankment.  Next time I will add additional wagons to find out how many it will haul before it loses traction but this will be an academic test as there is nowhere to store a longer train on the layout.

 

I recorded the event on the attached video.  It is apparent that the driver must have had the regulator fully open because the train is moving at a significant (and probably non-prototypical) rate of knots.

 

 

 

Fantastic to see you back in the club rooms, Frank. The Q2 is looking excellent. As always, a lovely smooth runner. 

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

Just a follow up to the Wills A2 shown yesterday...............

 

85253756_6053860532A2s.jpg.b8a5deeacefa74dab6fd2ff71d54d049.jpg

 

In comparison with a modified Bachmann A2, it rather does show its age. 

 

The Bachmann A2 is much too clean, of course...................

 

1895571381_24A2andA160538and60125Bachmann.jpg.c50d045cb49ddec28cc44d237a19f5d3.jpg

 

Now, much more-realistic after a visit to Tom Foster's marvellous weathering workshop, it's seen passing a much-modified Bachmann A1.

 

These are the only two Bachmann LNER Pacifics I have on LB.  

 

 

  • Like 15
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Lyn is designed to run on 009 track (N Gauge?). 

 

Is this the correct gauge in 4mm Scale for the L&B? My knowledge on such matters is sadly-lacking. 

 

I do recall photographing a superb, large-scale layout of the L&B, built by (I think) Henry Holdsworth. It appeared in a early issue of BRM. I also photographed another superb depiction (in 7mm Scale, I think), built by Phil Crathorn of Wolverhampton. 

Edited by Tony Wright
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tony Wright said:

I think Lyn is designed to run on 009 track (N Gauge?). 

 

Is this the correct gauge in 4mm Scale for the L&B? My knowledge on such matters is sadly-lacking. 

It ought to be 1'11 1/2" - so 8mm, but 009 covers a multitude of sins, and is the sensible choice I suppose.

  • Agree 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

Thanks Tony,

 

I regard my K3 as a just about acceptable layout loco which would make yours more than acceptable. Mine’s clearly deficient in the cab department and being all white metal lacks some crispness. The chassis also suffers from the Bachmann small wheels. But it runs nicely and will outhaul any of my other K3s (two Bachmann and two SE Finecast). It’s the only K3 which will haul my 50 wagon loaded coal train as shown in this short video and so that’s what it gets used for and I’m very happy with it.

Andy
 

Hi

 

That is one very long coal train

 

David

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
10 hours ago, Barclay said:

It ought to be 1'11 1/2" - so 8mm, but 009 covers a multitude of sins, and is the sensible choice I suppose.

Being pedantic (if we're allowed to go to two decimal places as the P4 people do) although it was built as 1' 11 1/2" gauge, or 7.83mm in 4mm scale, the restored line appears to be "metric 2ft" gauge, that is 600mm (7.87mm). 009 seems to be the right practical choice though!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Thanks Tony,

 

I regard my K3 as a just about acceptable layout loco which would make yours more than acceptable. Mine’s clearly deficient in the cab department and being all white metal lacks some crispness. The chassis also suffers from the Bachmann small wheels. But it runs nicely and will outhaul any of my other K3s (two Bachmann and two SE Finecast). It’s the only K3 which will haul my 50 wagon loaded coal train as shown in this short video and so that’s what it gets used for and I’m very happy with it.

Andy
 

A perfect example of a most-acceptable 'layout loco', Andy,

 

What impressive performance. 

 

Much more 'acceptable' to me than a beautifully-presented example, which won't run. Or, if it tries to it jams on curves, shorts out, stutters, derails and displays multiple tight spots. I've seen too many of those!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question... I've been sidetracked by a short little project of upgrading an old BSL model of a Gresley diagram 49 that I made ~40 years ago. (Photo below). When I originally put the windows in I used  evostick (I think). The glazing material must have been suspect as some of it has warped and others fell out. So, I'm re-glazing the side that's worst effected (as well as converting from P4). I haven't got any evostick in and I've tried bostick contact adhesive but I really can't get on with it being unmanageably stringy. Any ideas to the best adhesive for fixing. What about Glue and Glaze? Would it be reliable enough? When you're repairing, it's more tricky to fit glazing in tight corners with contact adhesive without making the situation worse. Hence Glue and Glaze. Any thoughts? 

 

Just a little addendum. I know this carriage is of its time and doesn't hold a candle to the Hornby version, but it has something that says Gresley teak panelled carriage to me and makes it a bit special in that way. I expect many of you did  the old BSL carriages of way back when. The sides are stamped out aluminium with white metal cast ends. To achieve the panelling effect, Fablon is cut and stuck to the sides. The beading is very thin strips of Fablon cut to length. But the effect was really quite authentic. I can't remember, but I think the Fablon was supplied with the kit. 

 

I converted it to P4 in the late 1980s and although it wasn't compensated, it seemed to run OK on P4.  I've just converted it to EM. All the interior compartments have all come to bits so that'll be next task after the glazing. The old wheels were steel and have rusted quite badly. I may use them as a wagon load!

 

 

Thanks.

Clem

 

IMG_7060.jpg.fe494277e725885c72d0502d824b3bbe.jpg

 

 

  • Like 15
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Speaking of 'most-acceptable' locos, dear friend, Richard Irven, brought these two around yesterday......................

 

1761088924_RichardIrven01.jpg.6498c7ce5b2b25392dd949aa07bbf784.jpg

 

397600124_RichardIrven02.jpg.fadf34fdecda20a1f999984a85c2a48e.jpg

 

Both are entirely his own work in every department. Both had suffered slightly in their flight over from the 'States, but both ran well (if in reverse to polarity convention). 

 

I think the 'Sir Sam Fay' is built from a K's kit and the other 4-6-0 from a Millholme kit. The carriages are from Worsley Works and scratch, and are representative of the types built for the opening of the GC London Extension in 1897/'98. Again, both are all his work.

 

What fascinating examples of model-making. No RTR-dependency here, just perfect examples of determination and self-reliance. 

 

Having no 'baggage' (like me) of trying to model remembered late-BR steam (he's not old enough), Richard has chosen a period/railway where just about everything in and on a model of it has to be built. How refreshing.

 

Thanks for bringing these around Richard. Perhaps you'll expand on how you made the models, please.

 

Lovely to see some GCR stuff! Richard has his own thread with a fair amount of constructional detail, which I always have a look at.

 

As for the polarity being the "wrong" way around, that makes it the same as all the locos on Buckingham, so he is in good company. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Clem said:

I have a question... I've been sidetracked by a short little project of upgrading an old BSL model of a Gresley diagram 49 that I made ~40 years ago. (Photo below). When I originally put the windows in I used  evostick (I think). The glazing material must have been suspect as some of it has warped and others fell out. So, I'm re-glazing the side that's worst effected (as well as converting from P4). I haven't got any evostick in and I've tried bostick contact adhesive but I really can't get on with it being unmanageably stringy. Any ideas to the best adhesive for fixing. What about Glue and Glaze? Would it be reliable enough? When you're repairing, it's more tricky to fit glazing in tight corners with contact adhesive without making the situation worse. Hence Glue and Glaze. Any thoughts? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I use varnish to fix glazing, paint it round the window area (inside!) and drop the glazing on it. Leave for an hour or so and then turn the model over to do the other side(s).

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

36 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

I use varnish to fix glazing, paint it round the window area (inside!) and drop the glazing on it. Leave for an hour or so and then turn the model over to do the other side(s).

Hi Michael. Would that be Klear, Humbrol Clear or spirit based?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
56 minutes ago, Clem said:

Hi Michael. Would that be Klear, Humbrol Clear or spirit based?

For me it can be all of the above, including thin viscosity superglue.

 

47570A8F-D0CD-4906-823F-27C90A6097A6.jpeg.320f607816c3dd7aed7702f23a6d8724.jpegThe Mk1’s here have used the capillary action and either Klear or Humbrol gloss varnish as an adhesive.

15186E3C-FA4C-4A25-817B-3BA7D60F8C32.jpeg.ff9e0c292dad69aaa5aadf690244b37d.jpegThe 74xx below has cyano as an adhesive with tiny touches in the corners. All these windows are individually fitted rather than a ‘sheet’ fixed to the inside

A84F0343-947C-44B6-8CA3-7E356ED63CBF.jpeg.800833fc676e5a272fb4388d75e78acd.jpeg

Edited by PMP
Add pics
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Seeing Richard's locos inspired me to open my ancient Millholme Class 8 (Fish engine) kit.

 

I haven't done an "old style" kit for a while.

 

This is as it came out of the box, still wrapped in tissue paper. An interesting starting point.

 

20210731_120438.jpg.8355e67516ce6eaae10f87916719f861.jpg

 

There are a few things in the kit that I think I will alter. The rivets on the smokebox weren't there in GCR days and all the photos I have show a four column safety valve. The instructions say that tall and short domes are included but the tall one is missing so I will either scrounge one from the spares box or make one. The cab roof will require attention too as the edge appears rather too thick. It may get replaced or find itself attacked with files. The angles and ribs on top don't look bad.

 

I will probably use the Millholme frames as a template to make some new ones too, although I may just fill in the cut out for the X04 style motor. There doesn't seem to be anything preventing them being mounted wider apart to suit EM gauge. I will add details like brakes, standpipes etc. which are not included in the kit.

 

The castings are, generally decent quality so I hope it produces a good loco.

Edited by t-b-g
Spelling
  • Like 8
  • Round of applause 2
  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
50 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

20210731_120438.jpg.8355e67516ce6eaae10f87916719f861.jpg

 

The castings are, generally decent quality so I hope it produces a good loco.

 

That's an interesting footplate shape you have there.....

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
12 minutes ago, polybear said:

 

That's an interesting footplate shape you have there.....

 

It wasn't the starting point I had hoped for when opening the box!

 

The kit is very much a throwback to the earlier days of building loco kits. You have two choices. You can build them "from the box" and end up with something that looks like what it is supposed to be but perhaps isn't 100% accurate or you can treat it as a starting point and be prepared to put some work and time in to turn it into a "proper job" that can stand alongside more modern models without looking like a poor relation.

 

Neither approach is right or wrong. One gets you a reasonable loco fairly quickly and the other gets you a better version but can take a much longer time.

 

I prefer the starting point option and don't mind putting the hours in. The reaction when somebody asks "What is the origin of xyz?" and you name a fairly grotty kit that they haven't recognised the origin of is very satisfying.

 

It happened to me the other day when I saw a K2, which I first took to be a London Road one as it had none of the "chunkiness" of the Nu-Cast version. Yet it turned out to be a Nu-Cast that somebody had put the extra effort into.

 

My "rule of thumb" is that if you can't tell the origin of the model then that is a result.  

  • Like 10
  • Agree 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

Seeing Richard's locos inspired me to open my ancient Millholme Class 8 (Fish engine) kit.

 

I haven't done an "old style" kit for a while.

 

This is as it came out of the box, still wrapped in tissue paper. An interesting starting point.

Should be good at going uphill. :)

  • Like 2
  • Funny 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
21 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

I hope whoever has just shelled out 200 notes on Ebay for one of those kits is prepared for that sort of thing.

 

I certainly wouldn't (and didn't) fork out anything like that!

 

I haven't even mentioned the tender yet! Mine will probably end up with a Mike Edge designed etched one.

 

Perhaps I should have flogged mine rather than started it but I do like a challenge. 

Edited by t-b-g
To add content
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PMP said:

For me it can be all of the above, including thin viscosity superglue.

 

47570A8F-D0CD-4906-823F-27C90A6097A6.jpeg.320f607816c3dd7aed7702f23a6d8724.jpegThe Mk1’s here have used the capillary action and either Klear or Humbrol gloss varnish as an adhesive.

15186E3C-FA4C-4A25-817B-3BA7D60F8C32.jpeg.ff9e0c292dad69aaa5aadf690244b37d.jpegThe 74xx below has cyano as an adhesive with tiny touches in the corners. All these windows are individually fitted rather than a ‘sheet’ fixed to the inside

A84F0343-947C-44B6-8CA3-7E356ED63CBF.jpeg.800833fc676e5a272fb4388d75e78acd.jpeg

Thanks for posting this. The Mk1 looks terrific. Where it's fitted within the frame like your pannier (good job by the way!) I've started using Glue and glaze. I do my kirk carriages like that. It was really for the BSL model and for etched brass models (for which I've previously used evostick). I suppose the point is it's possible to use evostick successfully when you're building it, but when repairing it, the stringiness can be a nightmare.

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 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...