Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

I have to say, this thread does once again emphasise the power of the RMWeb monster!

Excellent narrative on subjects from Tony, with more constructive input from others as well. Marvellous photography. The re-kindling of fond lineside memories by many of us. And of course the social aspect behind it all. The friendships between fellow modellers, and in some case the theraputic effects of it all. Once again, thanks to Andy Y for the beginning, and not forgetting everyone else since who contributes to this extraordinary forum.

 

Stewart

Thanks Stewart.

 

I'm glad this thread has generated interest, and my thanks are also due to those who've posted with their comments, views and questions.

 

Today, as has been posted elsewhere, many, many folk said farewell to Dave Shakespeare. The number of mourners present was a testament to the man, to his influence and to his inspiration. I'm glad that I, and my wife, were able, along with Andy York, Ben Jones, Richard Wilson and Gilbert Barnatt to be representatives from the model railway community. If other modellers were present, my apologies if I haven't mentioned them by name. 

 

It's on sad days like these where the discussions about this or that, which is better, the cost of things, the merits of different control systems and any of the myriad conundrums surrounding the modelling of railways are put into perspective. What are they, in comparison to the life, and the fight for it, of a courageous man and his marvellous wife? Of little consequence I'd say, but then Shaky wouldn't have wanted us just give up on the whole thing.

 

It was with with Andy and Gilbert afterwards at the country club that our conversation returned (inevitably) to railway modelling, and to what I'd posted recently. It made me think how 'out of step' I might be in some ways. Thinking of Dave, and his incredible impressionist and broad-brush approach to modelling, made me consider what might be really important to the hobby as a whole. I've mentioned how much better I consider kit-built locos to be than RTR examples. But that's me, and I've never thought about the greater cost implications, say, of making sure at source, for example, that a Bachmann A1 would be able to haul 15 bogies at speed. They suit most folk, for most who own one (or several) don't have enough space to run such a rake. It might be my own selfishness that dictates that an RTR A1 (or any other comparative motive power) should be able to do what a prototype A1 could do. The fact that it won't (without considerable extra weight, and then it still struggles) isn't really an issue for me (selfishness, I admit) because I have seven DJH examples, which will, and I made six of them. But, in Gilbert's case, without all the more recent RTR locomotives, he'd have almost no motive power to operate Peterborough North. In fact, apart from a few kit-built examples (which he's been disposing of), all his locos are (admittedly-modified) RTR. So, who am I to 'dictate' what is better, other than to state that I still believe that railway modelling, in all its aspects, should be about making things? Making things in the way Shaky did.

 

As to my being 'out of step', I sometimes wonder if I have a bit of the Taliban in me with regard to observing models. Andy Peters has posted some splendid images above of some locos he no longer owns. Instead of enjoying them for what they are (excellent RTR products), I couldn't help but be 'disappointed' that GREAT EASTERN has two mechanical lubricators, rectangular covers to the Cartazzi and tender axlebox keeps, a rear footplate and tender soleplate which don't line up and a return crank which leans the wrong way (the last two 'faults' appertaining to HAPPY KNIGHT as well). And why, as a Carlisle Canal-allocated A3, has CORONACH got an AWS bang-plate? And why has MERLIN in double-chimney guise got no badge on its cladding, yet still retains the long guard-irons? These are not criticisms by the way, just observations. Though I would try to get details like the above 'right' on an equivalent loco I made, it must be remembered that all the above are exceptional-value RTR locos, the like of which, only a few years ago, would have been impossible to contemplate.

 

I'm sure Dave would have chuckled about my 'hand-wringing', but I wonder how much enjoyment can be obtained from railway modelling when experience and knowledge get in the way of just having fun. But, that's what I have been having of late, in the company of some very good friends operating my trainset. Many, many thanks for your stimulating company and your favourable comments about the running. The latter, to me, especially as I've made the motive power, is the greatest reward.

 

Just some thoughts on a day for reflection. 

Edited August 26, 2014 by Tony Wright

[Andrew P]

Tony, knowledge can be a dangerous thing, hahaha, but the point that you made about my Locos is a very valid one, and, although I would not know which bits your talking about without some research, certainly Bachmann and Hornby should.

Kit built and to some extent scratch built Locos will and by definition be (or should be) more accurate as each is built with a final name and number in mind, and with the minor differences sometimes between Locos, from one Shed to another and changes in years, Model Manufactures will never have every one spot on.

The likes of Golden Age should and probably do produce more accurate models as their cost implies greater accuracy in both research and detail of each Loco.

 

Where would I be without RTR? well struggling to be able to afford to own more than one or two really nice Locos. Your stock is exemplary and that's the side of the hobby you truly excel at, (other than photography and writing of course), and the proof is in the running. But yesterday proved that out of the box Locos can run just as well as Kit built, but, as you quite rightly say; possibly without the haulage capability.

 

With rolling stock its a different matter. Manufactures do not consider that a modeller may want to use RTR stock on fine scale track, probably 90% or more would need the back to back sorting, and possibly a large proportion would also need wheels changing, again as we saw yesterday.

I feel its now about time that Manufactures turned some attention to wheels rather than some items of insignificance. At the end of the day we all want to run trains, not have to rebuild / buy new wheel sets for new out of the box items, or we might just as well all go back to kit building.

 

Come in Tony, this is your area of expertise.

 

Andy

[Horsetan]

Many years ago someone (possibly Dennis Allenden?) in the old Model Railway News built one in 4mm using - if I remember rightly - various US manufactured components for at least part of it (was it a US kit for something else, can anyone remember?).  Whatever its origins it looked very much the part but it was the only 4mm scale one I can ever recall seeing.

Model Railways, April 1977, apparently.

 

I've not yet read the article.

[Tony Wright]

Tony, knowledge can be a dangerous thing, hahaha, but the point that you made about my Locos is a very valid one, and, although I would not know which bits your talking about without some research, certainly Bachmann and Hornby should.

Kit built and to some extent scratch built Locos will and by definition be (or should be) more accurate as each is built with a final name and number in mind, and with the minor differences sometimes between Locos, from one Shed to another and changes in years, Model Manufactures will never have every one spot on.

The likes of Golden Age should and probably do produce more accurate models as their cost implies greater accuracy in both research and detail of each Loco.

 

Where would I be without RTR? well struggling to be able to afford to own more than one or two really nice Locos. Your stock is exemplary and that's the side of the hobby you truly excel at, (other than photography and writing of course), and the proof is in the running. But yesterday proved that out of the box Locos can run just as well as Kit built, but, as you quite rightly say; possibly without the haulage capability.

 

With rolling stock its a different matter. Manufactures do not consider that a modeller may want to use RTR stock on fine scale track, probably 90% or more would need the back to back sorting, and possibly a large proportion would also need wheels changing, again as we saw yesterday.

I feel its now about time that Manufactures turned some attention to wheels rather than some items of insignificance. At the end of the day we all want to run trains, not have to rebuild / buy new wheel sets for new out of the box items, or we might just as well all go back to kit building.

 

Come in Tony, this is your area of expertise.

 

Andy

Some very good points, Andy.

 

As for kit-built locos being 'better' than RTR equivalents, it's entirely dependent on how they're made. To cite Gilbert Barnatt again, he can list many examples he's commissioned which don't run properly and/or have detail discrepancies/inaccuracies. In this respect, one can be a hostage to fortune, and he tells of the number of kit-built locos he's returned to suppliers/retailers because of their inadequacies, frequently to be informed he was the only one who complained. One imagines such locos went from a display case in a shop to a display case in a home, and, as 'layout locos', were duds. I've managed to 'fix' a few he's retained, which shouldn't be necessary, but one continues to defeat me.

 

As I've recently reported, several locos built by others have recently passed through my hands and not all performed to the minimum standard I expect, though they do now. The word 'professional' when applied to some kit-built locos does not automatically imply excellence, though a Paul Hill-built loco I've recently examined was beautifully made, mechanically and cosmetically. As previously reported, it was the DCC-installation in it which was poor (which had nothing to do with Paul), but since that's gone, the loco now runs perfectly. 

 

As for high-cost manufacturers automatically being 'right', don't assume that to be so. For instance, if I were shelling out hundreds (or thousands) of pounds for complete trains, I'd expect the bogies to be the right sort, have appropriate footboards, have corridor connections and run without derailing, not to mention the correct painting, lining, lettering and numbering. Had Hornby or Bachmann committed such 'errors', they'd have copped some criticism indeed.

 

As for RTR coach/wagon wheels, those on John's twelve-wheeled Pullmans were way under gauge for 'scale' track. Because they're live to one side, my adjustment to the correct BtB resulted in some little distortion, though they did run better. More recently, I've found RTR wheels to be adequate, particularly in terms of their being concentric, though the BtB issues have not been resolved entirely. 

 

Finally, with regard to kit-built locos, I'm aware that over 90% of those started are never completed to satisfaction. It could be, particularly in the past, that the design and manufacture of them was inadequate, but, in my opinion, it's more down to aspiration over ability. Either learn how to build locos properly for oneself, commission them from builders of a deserved reputation or rely on RTR stuff. The first is possible, the second requires plenty of dosh and the third (which requires less dosh) is, to some extent, limiting because not every type is ever going to be available RTR. As for the 'satisfaction' element. The first gives (or can) the greatest satisfaction and the second and third are dependent on your attitude to possessions. 

[Guest 2750]

Finally, with regard to kit-built locos, I'm aware that over 90% of those started are never completed to satisfaction. It could be, particularly in the past, that the design and manufacture of them was inadequate, but, in my opinion, it's more down to aspiration over ability. Either learn how to build locos properly for oneself, commission them from builders of a deserved reputation or rely on RTR stuff. The first is possible, the second requires plenty of dosh and the third (which requires less dosh) is, to some extent, limiting because not every type is ever going to be available RTR. As for the 'satisfaction' element. The first gives (or can) the greatest satisfaction and the second and third are dependent on your attitude to possessions. 

 

I very much agree with the above. I requested my weathering workbench thread be moved into kit building/scratch building area of the forum and I've rebranded it to fit. My first post since it's moved, sums up my reasons for deciding I must build kits. Some may find it interesting, if you survive my ramblings! Post is here.

 

Something I didn't mention, but I think is valid. If I don't learn to do things myself, who is going to do it? Come 30 years time (when hopefully I'll be approaching 60 years old), will there be professional builders and painters to commission?

[coachmann]

Andy Peters has posted some splendid images above of some locos he no longer owns. Instead of enjoying them for what they are (excellent RTR products), I couldn't help but be 'disappointed' that GREAT EASTERN has two mechanical lubricators, rectangular covers to the Cartazzi and tender axlebox keeps, a rear footplate and tender soleplate which don't line up and a return crank which leans the wrong way (the last two 'faults' appertaining to HAPPY KNIGHT as well). And why, as a Carlisle Canal-allocated A3, has CORONACH got an AWS bang-plate? And why has MERLIN in double-chimney guise got no badge on its cladding, yet still retains the long guard-irons? These are not criticisms by the way, just observations. Though I would try to get details like the above 'right' on an equivalent loco I made, it must be remembered that all the above are exceptional-value RTR locos, the like of which, only a few years ago, would have been impossible to contemplate.

I think those who have built locos and rolling stock in the past had an instinct for research, which was vital in order to complete each model as it should be for a specific period in time. It becomes good-practice throughout ones modelling life.  Although many folk, me included, buy RTR locos these days rather than build them, I consider Tony W. has valid points here regarding accurately finished models. RTR gives us a head start but it is still only the beginning. Research and photographic evidence is the next move and that to me is where the 'railway modelling' instinct comes in whether one has bought RTR or built a kit. 

Edited August 27, 2014 by coachmann

[Andrew P]

I think those who have built locos and rolling stock in the past had an instinct for research, which was vital in order to complete each model as it should be for a specific period in time. It becomes good-practice throughout ones modelling life.  Although many folk, me included, buy RTR locos these days rather than build them, I consider Tony W. has valid points here regarding accurately finished models. RTR gives us a head start but it is still only the beginning. Research and photographic evidence is the next move and that to me is where 'railway modelling' comes in whether one has bought RTR or built a kit. 

Morning Larry, your right about adding the extra / correct details to RTR. Once I have my Potting Shed up and running, and I have a work bench and spray bench set up again, and all my bit out of storage, I will gradually be working through my fleet and adding, subtracting, modifying etc to the Locos and eventually the stock.

Having seen RTR Hornby coaches on LB I am now more aware than ever of the amount of work I need to do once the fine scale track is laid.

Most of my Parcels stock is Ex Mainline, Lima, Replica etc so all will need work and I would imagine wheel sets changing, and this, although costly will will be a whole new part of the hobby for me.

I have never built a Layout based on a Prototype so again Bitton will be a challange and although the track plan will be accurate in geometry, it will not be scale as I only have 16ft, so compromises will need to be made, such as the Station will be on more of a curve that the prototype, and the sidings shorter. 

Again all my stock has only ever run on my Code 100 Shunting Layouts, so never at high speed as per LB, so I have never experienced the problems we saw with the Hornby coaches.

The RM Web is such a great source of information that when I need info I'm sure my Bitton thread will be swarming with people more than happy to help and advise.

One thing my late Father taught me was that you never stop learning, and that is true in all walks of life.

 

Andy.

[Andrew P]

Some very good points, Andy.

 

As for kit-built locos being 'better' than RTR equivalents, it's entirely dependent on how they're made. To cite Gilbert Barnatt again, he can list many examples he's commissioned which don't run properly and/or have detail discrepancies/inaccuracies. In this respect, one can be a hostage to fortune, and he tells of the number of kit-built locos he's returned to suppliers/retailers because of their inadequacies, frequently to be informed he was the only one who complained. One imagines such locos went from a display case in a shop to a display case in a home, and, as 'layout locos', were duds. I've managed to 'fix' a few he's retained, which shouldn't be necessary, but one continues to defeat me.

 

As I've recently reported, several locos built by others have recently passed through my hands and not all performed to the minimum standard I expect, though they do now. The word 'professional' when applied to some kit-built locos does not automatically imply excellence, though a Paul Hill-built loco I've recently examined was beautifully made, mechanically and cosmetically. As previously reported, it was the DCC-installation in it which was poor (which had nothing to do with Paul), but since that's gone, the loco now runs perfectly. 

 

As for high-cost manufacturers automatically being 'right', don't assume that to be so. For instance, if I were shelling out hundreds (or thousands) of pounds for complete trains, I'd expect the bogies to be the right sort, have appropriate footboards, have corridor connections and run without derailing, not to mention the correct painting, lining, lettering and numbering. Had Hornby or Bachmann committed such 'errors', they'd have copped some criticism indeed.

 

As for RTR coach/wagon wheels, those on John's twelve-wheeled Pullmans were way under gauge for 'scale' track. Because they're live to one side, my adjustment to the correct BtB resulted in some little distortion, though they did run better. More recently, I've found RTR wheels to be adequate, particularly in terms of their being concentric, though the BtB issues have not been resolved entirely. 

 

Finally, with regard to kit-built locos, I'm aware that over 90% of those started are never completed to satisfaction. It could be, particularly in the past, that the design and manufacture of them was inadequate, but, in my opinion, it's more down to aspiration over ability. Either learn how to build locos properly for oneself, commission them from builders of a deserved reputation or rely on RTR stuff. The first is possible, the second requires plenty of dosh and the third (which requires less dosh) is, to some extent, limiting because not every type is ever going to be available RTR. As for the 'satisfaction' element. The first gives (or can) the greatest satisfaction and the second and third are dependent on your attitude to possessions. 

Your so right about the quality of the Kit Builders work, the number of times our members have come back from Guildex, or similar O Gauge shows with a new pride and joy and it wont go around the Clubs Layout.

Normally its a quick shout across the room to Charlie King, he takes it home and sorts it out.

 

Andy.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

I'm intrigued by all this talk of return cranks.  Tony, would you be able to set up a direct comparison say side on shots of a Bachmann A1 and a kit built A1?

 

Are return cranks always fixed in relation to the axle?  Is the angle dependent on the reverser?

 

I've looked at the Wikipedia entry but it's not making it any clearer - for example, it makes no mention of a return crank... is it what they labelled a 'fly-crank'?

 

This image is about the most appropriate I can find, seeing as it's actually British and uses British Railways terminology for the dangly twirly bits.  At least, as far as I can tell.

 

 

Also no mention of a 'return crank'.

 

signed,

 

Col. Confused of Aldershot

Edited August 27, 2014 by Dr Gerbil-Fritters

[Andrew P]

I'm intrigued by all this talk of return cranks.  Tony, would you be able to set up a direct comparison say side on shots of a Bachmann A1 and a kit built A1?

 

Are return cranks always fixed in relation to the axle?  Is the angle dependent on the reverser?

 

I've looked at the Wikipedia entry but it's not making it any clearer - for example, it makes no mention of a return crank... is it what they labelled a 'fly-crank'?

 

This image is about the most appropriate I can find, seeing as it's actually British and uses British Railways terminology for the dangly twirly bits.  At least, as far as I can tell.

 

DRAWINGmono.jpg

 

Also no mention of a 'return crank'.

 

signed,

 

Col. Confused of Aldershot

I'm glad you asked that, I meant to and forgot.

 

Andy.

[jwealleans]

On that diagram it's labelled 'slotted link'.

 

Edit - see Tony's correction lower down (to save you all telling me I'm wrong).

Edited August 27, 2014 by jwealleans

[Allegheny1600]

Hi Tony, all,

Just a few of my 'snaps' from Andy P and mine grand day out at LB.

 

My little S160 in H0 scale! I felt it wouldn't be too outrageous to put this on LB as these locos, as noted, did work in Britain "during the war" as uncle Albert would have said!

 

An absolutely delightful Great Northern scene with the 'M&GN' in the background. I used to have one of these locos many years ago, I do regret getting rid of it.

 

The spirit of the lovely 'M&GN' lives on.

 

Andy P's lovely K3, pity my camera was on the wrong settings.

 

Tony kindly had a look at this bumbling amateurs camera settings and took this much better shot of Andy's B17 - looks a whole lot better, Thanks Tony!

 

I learned a lot on Monday! I think my main lesson is that 00 fine works, and really well too and to me, looks virtually as good as P4 - as long as you're looking across at it (3' rule and all that!). I'm quite familiar with P4 having attempted it for a good while now and I'm not 'bashing' it, far from it but, just saying that Tony's exquisite track (Norman Soloman's actual work!) is as good as any I've ever seen and most importantly, it works (perfectly)!

My other lesson is that you get out of a railway what you put in.

Sound obvious?

Maybe but as one who in the past and who has seen it in others, became seduced by the "gotta have it" brigade, well I can now see even more clearly that when you build 'stuff' for your railway - it becomes not only 'yours' but truly unique and original, a 'proper' model!

So! from now on, I shall be doing more to my stock, adding crew, weathering, detailing and so forth.

Again, many, many thanks for such a smashing day, Tony.

Cheers,

John E.

[buffalo]

On that diagram it's labelled 'slotted link'.

 

Funny, I'd always called that the expansion link. I thought the crank in question was the eccentric crank which is attached to the crankpin of the driven axle. So named because it provides the same motion as the alternative eccentrics used with some early forms of outside Walschaert's and the eccentrics on the driven axle used with inside Walschaert's and several other types of inside gear.

 

The issue was, I thought, which way these lean relative to the wheel centre.

 

Nick

[Arthur]

It's not the slotted link, it's the Eccentric Crank, which is fixed in relation to the axle. In the diagram it has a four bolt fixing, other applications see it with a split end and fitted over a square boss with a clamping bolt. With the crank pins at bottom dead centre, the eccentric will be fixed with either a forwards or backwards lean. That is the aspect RTR often gets wrong.

 

Edit; post crossed with Nick's.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Arthur

[Tony Wright]

I'm intrigued by all this talk of return cranks.  Tony, would you be able to set up a direct comparison say side on shots of a Bachmann A1 and a kit built A1?

 

Are return cranks always fixed in relation to the axle?  Is the angle dependent on the reverser?

 

I've looked at the Wikipedia entry but it's not making it any clearer - for example, it makes no mention of a return crank... is it what they labelled a 'fly-crank'?

 

This image is about the most appropriate I can find, seeing as it's actually British and uses British Railways terminology for the dangly twirly bits.  At least, as far as I can tell.

 

DRAWINGmono.jpg

 

Also no mention of a 'return crank'.

 

signed,

 

Col. Confused of Aldershot

I'll take a picture or two for you later today.

 

As for what is what, it's a question of different nomenclature with regard to the naming of valve gear parts. The 'return' crank I refer to is called the eccentric crank on your diagram and on all Gresley/Thompson/Peppercorn locos with outside Walschaerts valve gear it should lean forward at bottom dead centre, both sides. On the nearside of Bachmann A1s/A2s it leans backwards and on Hornby's A1s/A3s/A4s it leans backwards on the offside. 

[Andrew P]

So what your saying is dispite possibly thousands of Pounds spent on R & D neither company get it right, BUT between them they can.

 

Andy

[St Enodoc]

Hi Tony, all,

Just a few of my 'snaps' from Andy P and mine grand day out at LB.

 

P1120415.JPG

My little S160 in H0 scale! I felt it wouldn't be too outrageous to put this on LB as these locos, as noted, did work in Britain "during the war" as uncle Albert would have said!

 

P1120422.JPG

An absolutely delightful Great Northern scene with the 'M&GN' in the background. I used to have one of these locos many years ago, I do regret getting rid of it.

 

P1120427.JPG

The spirit of the lovely 'M&GN' lives on.

 

P1120445.JPG

Andy P's lovely K3, pity my camera was on the wrong settings.

 

P1120453.JPG

Tony kindly had a look at this bumbling amateurs camera settings and took this much better shot of Andy's B17 - looks a whole lot better, Thanks Tony!

 

I learned a lot on Monday! I think my main lesson is that 00 fine works, and really well too and to me, looks virtually as good as P4 - as long as you're looking across at it (3' rule and all that!). I'm quite familiar with P4 having attempted it for a good while now and I'm not 'bashing' it, far from it but, just saying that Tony's exquisite track (Norman Soloman's actual work!) is as good as any I've ever seen and most importantly, it works (perfectly)!

My other lesson is that you get out of a railway what you put in.

Sound obvious?

Maybe but as one who in the past and who has seen it in others, became seduced by the "gotta have it" brigade, well I can now see even more clearly that when you build 'stuff' for your railway - it becomes not only 'yours' but truly unique and original, a 'proper' model!

So! from now on, I shall be doing more to my stock, adding crew, weathering, detailing and so forth.

Again, many, many thanks for such a smashing day, Tony.

Cheers,

John E.

There's a lot of sound sense in this particular discussion (as always). As I have said before, my philosophy is quite simple. I buy what I can and make what I can't. This gives (for me) the optimum balance between money and time.

[great northern]

Well, since Tony has cited me as an example, I suppose I should respond. I did make the point during our discussion yesterday that RTR manufacturers are always, if they have any sense and want to remain in business, going to aim their models at the majority of their customer base. There are very few of us who have the good fortune to have sufficiently large layouts to even consider scale length main line expresses. Even with 25ft, the "best" I can do is 11 coach rakes, and most people will have to make do with far less. And yes, it is also true that I have disposed of some of my kit built locos and replaced them with RTR. Why? Because, apart from the cherished locos that Tony built for me, none of my kit built stuff runs as well or as reliably as RTR. Back in the '70's, when I returned to railway modelling, I built things myself, or tried to, because the needs of a young family came first. It was years before I discovered that some of the things I attempted were impossible to build anyway, but much quicker that that I discovered that even when built a lot of them didn't run well. Remember K's motors? So, as circumstances altered, I decided to commission others to do a "professional" job. I'm convinced that most of them thought they were building models that were to go into a display case, as when I complained about such things as that they wouldn't go round curves I was met with polite bafflement.

 

I know there are a lot of people out there who can build very well indeed, but only have the time or the inclination to do so for themselves or for a select few friends, and the top professional builders in my experience all have full order books for at least a couple of years, so new enquiries tend to get turned away. For that reason, but not that reason alone, the huge improvement in RTR has been a godsend to me. The other reason? One RTR A1 costs about an eighth of the price of a good professional job, and I need lots of them. My layout could not have been realised without RTR, it is as simple as that.

 

Next, the vexed subject of what should be expected of a professional builder. I'm in full agreement with Larry (Coachmann) on this point. The word "professional" is in my opinion grossly overused these days. I was a member of a profession, and I gave my clients professional advice. They expected me to do the necessary research, and they were perfectly right so to do. Had I suggested that the client should get out the appropriate books and find the relevant case law, I would not have had many clients. Actually, I wouldn't have had any, as the Law Society would have struck me off the roll of Solicitors. If I'm going to pay someone a considerable sum to build a model I have the right to expect that it will be correctly reproduced. "as  running in August 1958" should suffice. A "professional" should then investigate what needs to be done to meet that specification, and do it.

 

Tony gives three possibilities:-

 

1. Learn how to build locos properly for oneself.  Well, first find a good teacher! Then consider whether you have the ability. I've said many times that I was issued ten thumbs at birth- it is a fact I have to accept, and even with Tony's patient expert help a lot of things are just beyond my capabilities. And then there is the cost, £260 just to buy the parts to build an A1.

 

2. Commission them from builders of deserved reputation. I've already said that isn't as easy as it sounds, and the cost implications are even more severe.

 

3. Rely on RTR.  That is I think an over simplification. Tony rightly lauds Dave Shakespeare's work, and the amount he did for himself. We talked of this many times. He had to build things himself for many years, as his financial situation left him with no choice, but circumstances alter. Like me, he found that funds were less of a problem in later life, while failing eyesight and other such inconveniences became much more of one. He also acknowledged that some of the things he had done himself were not to a very high standard. So, for the new layout, he intended to employ others to do the things he didn't want to tackle himself, or which he felt he couldn't do to a sufficiently high standard. He would concenrate on what he was so good at - buildings and scenery, but built his way, and to his satisfaction. So, I suggest that we all tailor our requirements to our own situation and our own abilities. There can be much more to "rely on RTR" than just buying what one fancies, opening the box, and sticking it on the layout. Here is where the individual can indeed do his or her own research, make the models individual, and do something that looks like , and as importantly runs like, the real thing. I'm convinced that for the majority that is the way forward. They may not have the time, the space, the funds, the ability, or even the inclination to do it all themselves, but they can nevertheless do something that transcends the tired media rubbish about playing with toy trains. Having said that, if that is what they want to do, that is entirely a matter for them.

[St Enodoc]

I'm intrigued by all this talk of return cranks.  Tony, would you be able to set up a direct comparison say side on shots of a Bachmann A1 and a kit built A1?

 

Are return cranks always fixed in relation to the axle?  Is the angle dependent on the reverser?

 

I've looked at the Wikipedia entry but it's not making it any clearer - for example, it makes no mention of a return crank... is it what they labelled a 'fly-crank'?

 

This image is about the most appropriate I can find, seeing as it's actually British and uses British Railways terminology for the dangly twirly bits.  At least, as far as I can tell.

 

DRAWINGmono.jpg

 

Also no mention of a 'return crank'.

 

signed,

 

Col. Confused of Aldershot

Figure 44 on page 102 of my copy of the British Transport Commission "Handbook for Steam Locomotive Enginemen" (BR33014, 1957 edition) refers to the Return Crank and the Expansion Link. This book also has some excellent isometric diagrams of the specific valve gear arrangements on GWR 4-cylinder locos, LMS 4-cylinder locos (the parts in question are described as the return crank and expansion link), Gresley 3-cylinder locos (eccentric crank and radius link), and Bulleid Pacifics. As I believe the book is still in copyright I haven't posted the images here, but if you come across a copy it is well worth having.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

The Handbook for Steam Locomotive Enginemen  is available as a PDF to read online.from the Internet Archive.

 

Superb illustrations!

[Boatman]

Great Northern,

could you expand on your figure of £260 for parts to scratchbuild an A1, please?

 

I just did a quick search around for wheels, gears and a motor and it comes to about £100-£120 dependant on motor, although I have so many motors that I wouldn't need to buy any new.

 

I am considering building a loco and must admit I have been shocked by the price of 7mm scale wheels, compared to OO!

 

I find n/s and brass sheet can be picked up for a reasonable price from stands at shows.

 

On the subject of professionalism, as a professional modelmaker I take on all research, but happily accept any specialised items of research that my clients might have through particular contacts of their own.  This happens particularly where a client wants a rally car modelled and can call upon photos that his own contacts may have. However, in the case of, say, a particular canal boat required and where the client offers to pay for a day out, I will go and measure and photograph the real thing.  Obviously it can be a different matter with a loco, due to age affecting its likelihood of still being around.

But as an example where, say an old F1 car is concerned, I have old Motor Sports on CD and magazines and will ONLY work from them, not from flashy colour shots of a modern and probably badly done restoration.

 

Regards,

Boatman

[45609]

On the nearside of Bachmann A1s/A2s it leans backwards and on Hornby's A1s/A3s/A4s it leans backwards on the offside.

 

That is the aspect RTR often gets wrong.

 

 

I believe the reason why this is prevalent on RTR models is probably down to production expediency; foolproofing the assembly process and cost.  To correctly represent the eccentric crank leaning forward on both sides would require left and right hand components.

 

I have successfully corrected it on the Hornby chassis that was used to convert one of David West's A3s into Great Northern.  The crankpin needed to be pushed out of the back of the wheel and have two extra "half flats" filed onto the flange that locates in the wheel hub.  Just replacing it doesn't fully guarantee that it would stay in this position so some Araldite was used to fill the gaps and lock it in place.  It's a small improvement but worth the effort IMHO.

 

 

I haven't had the opportunity to try correcting a Bachmann loco yet.

 

Cheers....Morgan

Edited August 27, 2014 by mlgilbert30

[Arthur]

 

I think that £260:00 is for a kit built A1 so you need to add in the cost of the kit.

[45609]

I think that £260:00 is for a kit built A1 so you need to add in the cost of the kit.

 

You have misread Gilbert's posting.  With respect to commissioning a professional builder to put a kit together he said,

 

One RTR A1 costs about an eighth of the price of a good professional job......

 

But if you decided to self build,

 

And then there is the cost, £260 just to buy the parts to build an A1.

Edited August 27, 2014 by mlgilbert30

[Boatman]

Precisely and I can't find that total on a quick look, unless you're including a lot of extras that help the scratchbuild along until it's effectively a semi-scratchbuild.

No criticism, just curious.

 

Regards,

Boatman