Were any of them any good?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

12 hours ago, Northmoor said:

has anyone slagged off/praised the Tri-ang B12 yet?  It was one of our first locos (had to be, Dad started his spotting years at Norwich in the 1950s); it's crude yes  - ours was unpainted black with NE on the tender - but the proportions look OK to me.

It looked decent thanks to Stratford's neat design work (and the only truly successful UK inside cylinder 4-6-0 withal). The loco is somewhere between a representation of a B12/3 and a B12/4.

 

But the tender now, that's a good job. Take the extra 2mm in height out of the frames above the spring hangers and fit better wheels, saw the 'coal' out of the body and add a bunker, replace the moulded handrails and add any further detail of choice; and there's a tender for a number of GER classes and the GER section B17, very useful indeed.

 

Between a fellow named James in Southampton and this item I owe the idea of considering RTR product as 'feedstock'. He bought s/h Triang B12's principally for the motor and tender to further his modelling of Colchester in GER days

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

7 minutes ago, paul.anderson@poptel.org said:

...Hornby J52 can also be turned into a very decent model with a little body modification, a new chassis and a Mainly Trains body details kit. Another Iain Rice inspiration:

If lazy like me, a Bachmann 57xx mechanism can find a far better home in that little 'humpy' body; for the trouble of rotating the motor through ninety degrees, and cutting away the combination brake pull rod and shunter's step. (It has the correct Crewe wheelbase, 7'3"+8'3", Swindon did something useful in adopting that standard.)

[andyman7]

18 hours ago, Rugd1022 said:

 

The Triang BP was cutting edge modern image at the time...

 

 

 

 

 

 

18 hours ago, The Johnster said:

With what looks like an overlong Triang BG in the background and suitably up-market cars, possibly Minix, in the car park.  And a Jinty, despite the Ratio GW signals.  The Triang BP featured an SR emu power bogie and generic B1s everywhere else, as did the Metrocam dmu. 

The cars are Matchbox, the kiosk and phone booth is Merit and the fencing and steps come from the Airfix Trackside range. Staple ingredients of any OO model railway from the 60s to the 80s!

[31A]

2 hours ago, paul.anderson@poptel.org said:

It's a bit late for the time frame, but the Hornby J52 can also be turned into a very decent model with a little body modification, a new chassis and a Mainly Trains body details kit. Another Iain Rice inspiration:
 

 

 

2 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

If lazy like me, a Bachmann 57xx mechanism can find a far better home in that little 'humpy' body; for the trouble of rotating the motor through ninety degrees, and cutting away the combination brake pull rod and shunter's step. (It has the correct Crewe wheelbase, 7'3"+8'3", Swindon did something useful in adopting that standard.)

 

I took the lazy way out myself; yes it does scrub up very nicely with a little work:

 

 

[Dagworth]

On 12/09/2023 at 23:35, The Johnster said:

 

.Triang/HD E3001

 

 

 

.Anything from Trix, wrong scale.

 

The Triang class 81 is awful, wrong shape, the cab face is woeful, bogies that are more class 82, really not worth doing anything with whereas the Trix 81 is to scale, a much better shape, bogies based on the correct class albeit stretched to fit another mechanism. I have three Trix AL1s with rebuilt undergubbins and Heljan mechanics and they stand alongside most of my other AC electrics quite happily. 
 

Andi

 

 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

 

 

7 minutes ago, 31A said:

 

 

I took the lazy way out myself; yes it does scrub up very nicely with a little work:

 

 

That sets off memories, the start of private BR steam loco preservation.

 

https://blog.railwaymuseum.org.uk/captain-bill-and-the-old-lady/

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Here's a photo of a cover for you Johnster. I suspect that Chris Leigh might know something about this.

 

 

Sure and isn't dat der very fella, to be sure, bejaysus and begorrah at all at all.  Llanwern on a hazy summer morning before Newport Panel MAS, with a down Padd on the main overtaking a class 8 coal train on the relief.  There is a southwesterly breeze blowing.  We would consider these models to be pretty low-fi these days and one of them is to 3.8mm scale, but the scene is instantly identifiable and believable.  These cover photos were quite adventurous for those days, and were in line with Colin Gifford's Each a Glimpse books, which were another major influence on me.  Telephoto shots were becoming more common in Modern Railways, and were very effective, though it was to be some time before I could afford an SLR camera that could take a telephoto lens myself.

 

The glory days!

 

When Llanwern steelworks was built, which I remember, trees were planted between the works and the SWML to shield the ugliness from passengers, though personally I likes a bit of heavy industry to look at, I does.  This forest was still saplings and failing to sheild anything from anyone throughout my railway career in the 70s, but by the mid-80s, and my middle age, it had grown.  An entire forest had been planted and grown in my lifetime, and I made me feel ancient.  Now the steelworks is gone, and the forest hides nothing, but it mature and not an unpleasant view from the window of a passing train, and I feel antediluvian, but to be fair I'm in my 70s now so it doesn't feel quite so unfair!

 

At night, and especially on a cold night in rain or mist, Llanwern was a spectacular sight, primeval forces unleashed, Prometheus in chains, a vision of hell, beautiful on it's own terms, like I says, I likes a bit of heavy industry I does.  You got a better view of the action than you did at Port Talbot, where the retaining wall for the PTR  flyover approach for the Dyffryn Yard line is still in place and blocks the view, but it's still pretty impressive.

[The Johnster]

8 hours ago, 31A said:

 

 

I took the lazy way out myself; yes it does scrub up very nicely with a little work:

 

 

 

Baccy 57xx chassis and a bit of work-up detailig certainly lifts this into the 'scale RTR' category, with the added advantage that this chassis is a very nice little runner.  Only real drawback, and I find it very apparent, is the GW fishbelly coupling rods; on a J52 they should be parallel and fluted.  This model has not been retooled into the current hi-fi category, so is very much worth working up in this way if your layout needs a J52!

 

Coupling rod issues were a feature in my unsuccessful war with a Hornby 2721.  This was bought very cheaply 'as seen' secondhand from my local emporium Lord & Butler and Peter Lord didn't want to sell it to me; it ran like a three-legged dog, with three different legs, but I went with the idea that I had only £5 to lose and if it was that bad I'd be able to diagnose and cure the problem,.  Diagnosis was indeed straightforward; a previous owner had had running problems and tried to lube his way out of it, and everything was gunged up.  This was the version with the sprung rear axle and front wheel drive, btw.  First job was to deep clean and relube, next was to find out what the problem was.  The cleaning/relubing got it running much more smoothly, but it couldn't be driven below about scale 15mph.  Tried all the usual suspects, binding rods, wheels out of quarter, keeper plate too tight, fouling on feed wires, and evenutally traced the problem to the sprung rear axle. 

 

This has two coil springs siting in holes in the chassis block and bearing down directly on to the rear axle.  It looks as if there should be a plate like on the Baccy pannier and 56xx sprung rear radial, but the service sheet showed that the loco does actually have bare spring ends, and suggests that spring pressure could be adjusted by trimming or stretching the springs, which sounded to me like a rather crude approach to the engineering aspect of it.  My springs needed trimming, as the rear of the loco was lifting off the axle, and part of the problems was that the axle had been badly scratched by the sharp ends of the spring coils, so as well as trimming them I gave them a seeing to with some emery.

 

The loco was worked up somewhat during this process; real coal, new chimney, dome, and safety valve cover (from a scrapped Westward 64xx), cast whitmetal buffers, etched numberplates, a repaint, cab window glazing, lamp irons, Modelu crew, smokebox dart, new cab roof, and a tarpaulin weather sheet with the fixings on the rear of the bunker.  The chassis was a lot better after the spring adjustment, but was badly geared and still not a good slow runner, so I eventually gave up and got a donor Bachmann 57xx chassis off the Bay for it.  Problem solved, it now ran perfectly like any Bachmann pannier, but the coupling rods were wrong for my prototype, 2761, which had fluted parallel rods.  I eventually gave up on it because of the oversized bunker hanging off the back, and returned the Baccy chassis to it's donor loco.  One of those older toolings that tempts you into making the effort, but ultimately don't cut the mustard!

[31A]

19 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Only real drawback, and I find it very apparent, is the GW fishbelly coupling rods; on a J52 they should be parallel and fluted. 

 

It's true the coupling rods should have parallel sides rather than fish bellied, but the real 68846 does not have fluted rods:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GNR_J52_68846_at_Doncaster_Works.JPG

 

I did consider taking the rods off and filing the edges straight, but the mechanism was such a good runner that I didn't want to risk doing anything that might spoil that, and can live with them as they are.

[MikeCW]

Was this one any good?

 

Over 30 years ago I wanted a 3F 0-6-0T for my layout and the best commercial offering was this Margate example. I acquired a second-hand one for small money and, after a brief spell of buyer's remorse, thought that I would try to do something with it. I bought a Perseverance chassis kit from the long-gone Puffers of Kenton, some MayGib wheels and a Portescap motor. This was a lot of "high spec" and expensive underpinning for a poor body shell. But I got the chassis running and decided that I would have a shot at turning the body into something that would pass muster from that mythical "normal viewing distance". The work included cutting away the skirt from under the boiler and creating a new boiler underside from car body filler, as well as cutting away and replacing moulded handrails. It was a lot of effort but the result looked something like a "Jinty" (or "Jocko" as I understand that footplate crew called them). With its Portescap motor and lead weight in the tanks it could haul more than enough for my layout.

 

This year it was joined by a Bachmann version fitted with Youchoos DCC sound. I have renumbered, weathered and coaled the Bachmann model. 7331 is definitely superior in fidelity to the prototype than its poor relation No. 7308. Although 7331 is digital and 7308 is analogue I have lined them up on the same track for a photograph.

 

Current practice would have me consign 7308 to a shelf or drawer but I'm keeping it in service for several reasons. My locomotive roster is small but sufficient to operate the layout under either digital or analogue control. I think that 7308 can still pass muster as a recognisable "Jinty".  But the main reason is that there is a lot of effort and modelling history in this engine. That is part of my layout story, and interest, which I would hate to see lost.

 

From "normal viewing distance:

What isn't noticeable from this distance is that the Triang/Hornby body is shorter than the Bachmann version by a couple of millimetres.  I assume that Bachmann have got it right. For all that, 7308 is better than than the Bachmann model in a couple  of respects. It has front guard irons and, although both are Kadee fitted, it doesn't have the prominent, and in my view ugly, NEM coupler socket filling the space under the front and rear buffer beams. But I wonder what happened to the balance weight on the centre driving wheel?

 

It seems to me that the answer to "Is it any good?" is in large part subjective, dependent on how far one is prepared to go in modifying a commercial model and whether the work involved is regarded as drudgery or a satisfying modelling exercise.    

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by MikeCW
Grammar

[The Johnster]

Might be useful to consider which older models are best suited to attempts to work them up to pass muster on modern layouts.  I'm thinking in particular of models that have not been released to current standards, where the older RTR might be a useful starting point.  We have decided that the HD 8F has potential, but not for this consideration as a modern equivalent exists and is generally available.

 

.Triang L1.  Scores consistently in the polls, so somebody might have it up their sleeve, but there has been no RTR version since it went out of production. 

.HD R1. 

.Hornby J86

.Hornby J52

.Hornby E2/TTTE

.Hornby class 29? Not sure if there's a modern version.

.HD Watford/North London emu

.Graham Farish 81xx (probably not much use except for ths chassis block).

.Triang bogie Murgatroyd's chlorine tank

.Triang/Lima GW horsebox

.Dapol/Hornby L&Y pug

.Lima/Dapol 6-wheel GW Milta

.HD Mica B

.Hornby Saint

.Hornby D49.

.Hornby Churchward County

.Replica/Hornby Hawksworth County

.Triang S1 saddle tank, but I wouldn't recommend using this as a starting point; the Triang models is very malformed, in order to house the spring for the clockwork version. 

.HD GW TPO.

.Triang Hornby/Hornby LMS TPO. I don't think you could work up an LMS TPO from the older Triang model, too short,

.Triang Hornby GW Collett 57' bowended Restaurant Car

.Triang/Triang Hornby/Hornby small 4-wheeled crane.

 

And any others you might be able to remember that I've forgotten.  To qualify for this list it must have been available in the past in RTR form but is not currently available; desired upgrades of old models in current production like Hornby shorty clerestories or Dapol Fruit Ds don't count!

[Hroth]

The small crane (R127) is said to be a close match to its prototype, and an etch kit used to be available to bring it closer to reality.

 

I've a couple of Triang L1s, but I think I'll keep them as they are as they might become rare in original condition!

 

[Not Jeremy]

Mike

 

That is exactly how I created Radstock's 47316

 

 

Nice as the Bachmann model may be, I actually prefer your 7308, it absolutely looks like a Jinty and is something you created yourself. If you could only keep one of them then that is the one to keep.

 

Standing next to the Bachmann model it still looks absolutely "right" to my eyes.

 

In fact I'd go further, the subtle differences add to the realism of your scene, as in real life if you photographed two "identical" types you would likely as not see lots of minor differences between the two, and in the real world nothing is "perfect".

 

Which is why some of today's computer generated and perfect models can look a bit "dead" I think.

 

Also, great modelling on your layout too.

 

[Not Jeremy]

The Mainline 2P is a thing of beauty, although the tender drive is a bit of a let down, it never looked to me as though the driving wheels were going round as much as they ought to!

 

 

40568 ran off a layout once and I had to rebuild the front right corner, hence the lack of lining there.

 

I was tempted when Hornby reissued it, but didn't indulge because of the accursed traction tyres and the fact that I was/am now modelling in a larger scale.

 

The loco is hauling my "Replica" 3 coach southern region suburban set of coaches, which are also really nice.

[coronach]

5 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Might be useful to consider which older models are best suited to attempts to work them up to pass muster on modern layouts.  I'm thinking in particular of models that have not been released to current standards, where the older RTR might be a useful starting point.  We have decided that the HD 8F has potential, but not for this consideration as a modern equivalent exists and is generally available.

 

.Triang L1.  Scores consistently in the polls, so somebody might have it up their sleeve, but there has been no RTR version since it went out of production. 

.HD R1. 

.Hornby J86

.Hornby J52

.Hornby E2/TTTE

.Hornby class 29? Not sure if there's a modern version.

.HD Watford/North London emu

.Graham Farish 81xx (probably not much use except for ths chassis block).

.Triang bogie Murgatroyd's chlorine tank

.Triang/Lima GW horsebox

.Dapol/Hornby L&Y pug

.Lima/Dapol 6-wheel GW Milta

.HD Mica B

.Hornby Saint

.Hornby D49.

.Hornby Churchward County

.Replica/Hornby Hawksworth County

.Triang S1 saddle tank, but I wouldn't recommend using this as a starting point; the Triang models is very malformed, in order to house the spring for the clockwork version. 

.HD GW TPO.

.Triang Hornby/Hornby LMS TPO. I don't think you could work up an LMS TPO from the older Triang model, too short,

.Triang Hornby GW Collett 57' bowended Restaurant Car

.Triang/Triang Hornby/Hornby small 4-wheeled crane.

 

And any others you might be able to remember that I've forgotten.  To qualify for this list it must have been available in the past in RTR form but is not currently available; desired upgrades of old models in current production like Hornby shorty clerestories or Dapol Fruit Ds don't count!

Dapol do a class 29 and the class 21 predecessor

[Not Jeremy]

21/29s are OK, don't forget that Jouef/Playcraft made quite a creditable looking one in HO about a million years ago.

 

I'm afraid I am a bit of a sucker for the WR version, which Dapol have done a pretty good model of. A friend's example is pictured here with the "faces" of some other models.

 

 

Of course, if you want a really good looking 22 then you're best off building one of Fred Phipps 1/32 kits, here's D6318 as built and painted by Andrew Vines.

 

 

 

 

 

[Flying Pig]

7 hours ago, MikeCW said:

What isn't noticeable from this distance is that the Triang/Hornby body is shorter than the Bachmann version by a couple of millimetres

 

I think this was a new model, roughly contemporary with the Mainline J72.  It retained the excessive buffer height of its predecessor and I'm pretty sure the one I bought about 1978 had the old undersized middle wheelset, but the body and chassis were new.

[Flying Pig]

24 minutes ago, Not Jeremy said:

The Mainline 2P is a thing of beauty, although the tender drive is a bit of a let down, it never looked to me as though the driving wheels were going round as much as they ought to!

 

Clearly of Airfix parentage and a sibling of their 4F.  The latter looked very good indeed to me and got a number of additional grabrails and other details, but the tender drive as supplied was awful and needed a remedial bearing on the front right wheel (40 thou plasticard Evostuck to the chassis) to mesh its gears and stay on the track.  After that it would plod round nicely with all my wagons, but it was never quiet. A good example of how the new manufacturers of the time prioritised their efforts.

 

Hornby have never attended to the skinny dome on their Midland pair, with its odd taper for easier mould extraction.  A decent 2P or Midland 483 is a hole waiting to be filled when all the freaks and one-offs have been done by current manufacturers. (LMS fans should be required to show proof of purchase for at least one before they are permitted to buy a Lickey Banker or Turbomotive.)

[Hroth]

41 minutes ago, coronach said:

Dapol do a class 29 and the class 21 predecessor

 

You've made it look really unhappy.....

 

[PMP]

9 hours ago, MikeCW said:

Was this one any good?

 

Over 30 years ago I wanted a 3F 0-6-0T for my layout and the best commercial offering was this Margate example. I acquired a second-hand one for small money and, after a brief spell of buyer's remorse, thought that I would try to do something with it. I bought a Perseverance chassis kit from the long-gone Puffers of Kenton, some MayGib wheels and a Portescap motor. This was a lot of "high spec" and expensive underpinning for a poor body shell. But I got the chassis running and decided that I would have a shot at turning the body into something that would pass muster from that mythical "normal viewing distance". The work included cutting away the skirt from under the boiler and creating a new boiler underside from car body filler, as well as cutting away and replacing moulded handrails. It was a lot of effort but the result looked something like a "Jinty" (or "Jocko" as I understand that footplate crew called them). With its Portescap motor and lead weight in the tanks it could haul more than enough for my layout.

 

This year it was joined by a Bachmann version fitted with Youchoos DCC sound. I have renumbered, weathered and coaled the Bachmann model. 7331 is definitely superior in fidelity to the prototype than its poor relation No. 7308. Although 7331 is digital and 7308 is analogue I have lined them up on the same track for a photograph.

 

Current practice would have me consign 7308 to a shelf or drawer but I'm keeping it in service for several reasons. My locomotive roster is small but sufficient to operate the layout under either digital or analogue control. I think that 7308 can still pass muster as a recognisable "Jinty".  But the main reason is that there is a lot of effort and modelling history in this engine. That is part of my layout story, and interest, which I would hate to see lost.

 

From "normal viewing distance:

What isn't noticeable from this distance is that the Triang/Hornby body is shorter than the Bachmann version by a couple of millimetres.  I assume that Bachmann have got it right. For all that, 7308 is better than than the Bachmann model in a couple  of respects. It has front guard irons and, although both are Kadee fitted, it doesn't have the prominent, and in my view ugly, NEM coupler socket filling the space under the front and rear buffer beams. But I wonder what happened to the balance weight on the centre driving wheel?

 

It seems to me that the answer to "Is it any good?" is in large part subjective, dependent on how far one is prepared to go in modifying a commercial model and whether the work involved is regarded as drudgery or a satisfying modelling exercise.    

 

That’s a lovely example of how good the perseverance +bits could make massive improvements to the bodies of the day. I did a similar one but went DS10/13 (can’t recall which) and Romfords. Mines long gone though. That body was a significant leap forward for Hornby over the earlier versions. It was pretty accurate which is why with your adaptation it stands well against the Bachmann type which is overall, on the money. I’d hazard a guess that yours might run better than the Bachmann variety too, the Bachmann one being a bit ‘foggy’ on start and stop due to the top gear and worm interface not being the best.

Edited September 16, 2023 by PMP
Addition

[MikeCW]

1 hour ago, Not Jeremy said:

Mike

 

That is exactly how I created Radstock's 47316

 

 

Nice as the Bachmann model may be, I actually prefer your 7308, it absolutely looks like a Jinty and is something you created yourself. If you could only keep one of them then that is the one to keep.

 

Standing next to the Bachmann model it still looks absolutely "right" to my eyes.

 

In fact I'd go further, the subtle differences add to the realism of your scene, as in real life if you photographed two "identical" types you would likely as not see lots of minor differences between the two, and in the real world nothing is "perfect".

 

Which is why some of today's computer generated and perfect models can look a bit "dead" I think.

 

Also, great modelling on your layout too.

 

Thank you for the kind words and encouragement; and the food for thought in your comments. 

 

I enjoy both making things (not always as successfully as I would like) and bringing older models back to life.  The latter interest can be seen in my two earlier posts featuring Hornby-Dublo locomotives. I have about 60 of these, well over half bought as "non-runner for spares or repairs". 

 

For my "scale" layout I have tried to integrate kit-built and modified ready-to run in such a way that the provenance of an engine or item of rolling stock is not obvious at first glance.  It's not always easy as the current generation of RTR is so good, but a few added or changed details, renumbering, weathering, coal and crew all help.  For example, I have a couple of Bachmann G2 0-8-0s on the bench at the moment. I am replacing the late-LMS chimneys with the earlier LNWR type and changing the twin smokebox door levers to the LNWR wheel and single lever. I will change the tender on one to an earlier type which will involve heavy modifications to a vintage GEM kit.

 

The Stanier 5P5F has been mentioned on this thread so, to avoid going too far off topic, here are my twins, Hornby Armstrong Whitworth-built Black Fives in BR livery. The first is as sold by Hornby, the second is after a lengthy work-over using a Brassmasters detailing kit as well as some bits and pieces from my own store.

 

 

The locomotive benefits from a lot of additions under the footplate while considerable work has gone into the tender coal space, now only half-full of real coal. The tender frame sports cast axleboxes which replace the slightly "weak" plastic mouldings.  A repaint in 1936 LMS livery (with uneven numbers alas), some weathering and, to my eyes, the engines "lives" in a way that its untouched sibling doesn't.  It's your point about how the perfect model (though Hornby's has faults) can look "dead".

 

I like your own "Jinty" and the far more sophisticated weathering job than mine.  How much more satisfying than just taking the Bachmann model out of its box and putting it straight to work on your layout.

 

Mike

 

 

 

[MJI]

The 2P

 

 

Does do up well

 

Airfix 2 D are also pretty good,  snd detail well.

 

 

[MJI]

Lima 47.

 

Different aircon set

 

[Not Jeremy]

What a great thread!

 

I love all the different things everyone has done with their models.

 

And this picture absolutely does it for me:

 

 

Some years ago, my friend Dave and I built a half decent model of Monkton Combe. Panniers etc nothwithstanding, my very favourite stock was my Lima 47 hauling Dave's Airfix Mk 2Ds.

 

I ran it and ran it, what a great looking combo it is!

 

Thank you

Edited September 16, 2023 by Not Jeremy
is was

[MJI]

3 minutes ago, Not Jeremy said:

What a great thread!

 

I love all the different things everyone has done with their models.

 

And this picture absolutely does it for me:

 

 

Some years ago, my friend Dave and I built a half decent model of Monkton Combe. Panniers etc nothwithstanding, my very favourite stock was my Lima 47 hauling Dave's Airfix Mk 2Ds.

 

I ran it and ran it, what a great looking combo it is!

 

Thank you

Everything but NEA and BAR is laserglazed.

 

So far produced from them

 

2C BSO

2D TSO TSOT FK BFK

2E TDO FO

2F TSO FO

 

top rake is a WR set with 50

47 set is NESW service with ER stock.

 

Got one last WR set or two to do. twin BFKs.

 

I converted all my Lima BGs to restaurants.