Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

The Wikipedia article on the N7 includes the following photo of a preserved N7 at Dereham.  The number is below centre, like the model.

 

N7_Dereham.jpg

Thanks Mike,

 

But not that low. I've looked through all my books and no BR N7 has its bunker-side numbers so low. Remember, as well, that your picture has the loco as-preserved. I'll try and find pictures of 60009 and 35028 I've taken in preservation in the '80s. The cabside numbers are all over the place, unlikely in BR days. 

 

May I suggest Yeadon 27, please? Pages 21, 25, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, 47, 49, 50, 53, 54, 73, 75, 78, 79/80/81 (the best views), 84, 86/87 (the loco before being preserved), 89 and 89 all show the bunker-side numbers being higher. In fact, pages 86 and 87 show the number to be half-way up the bunker-side (the top of the numbers being half way up the step), level with the BR crest. This is definitely different from the preserved condition. In fact, the preserved loco's numbers look to be too small, anyway.

 

Apologies, if necessary, for the pedantry.  

Edited January 23, 2015 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

Andy

 

That is a nice picture of a nice loco. Thanks for posting - do you have any more from the same era?

 

Sorry, Tony, it seems like your thread is just about to take a diversion through GER territory! :-)

 

Phil

Phil,

 

Why shouldn't it go wherever folk want it to? 

 

I'm delighted.

[Tony Wright]

Richard Wilson (Dickie W on here), my erstwhile colleague at BRM has taken up weathering commissions before beginning a new career as a signalman (or should that be signaller, now?). 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm very impressed with these results. If you're interested, try sending him a PM (or is that touting for work and, thus, not allowed on this site?). 

 

 

 

I've been carrying on with the M&GNR bit of my trainset, since Ian Wilson did the 'groundwork' with Styrofoam. In reality, of course, the embankment should carry straight on for 200+ yards, cross the Glen River and then go on a curve the opposite of that on the model. In a way, I regret making the MR/M&GNR bit a working railway, because I could have much-nearer represented it by its going dead straight offstage, both east and west. But, I was greedy, and visually it doesn't really 'work'. But, the main line does, which is more important.

[coachmann]

I thought this was the first model of a landslide Tony......

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

The Great Little Bytham Porridge Slide of '15

[Tony Wright]

The Great Little Bytham Porridge Slide of '15

I never thought of it like that, but I can see what you mean.

 

However, is your porridge made of plaster browning? If so, good eating!

[60027Merlin]

Tony,

 

Re post no. 3690.

 

May I take this opportunity to wish Richard Wilson good luck in his new career. He was usually at the BRM stand at exhibitions "flyng the flag" for the magazline and always pleasant to talk to no matter what the subject.

 

Eric

[ecgtheow]

Tony,

 

Please don't regret making the M & GN a "working" railway. It was sometimes called the "Muddle & Go Nowhere Railway" when it was supposed to be "working", so it's good to see it now working on your model.

 

William 

[New Haven Neil]

I have a strong dislike of bits of railway that don't work (which are so often part of US model railroads) so I'm pleased you did make the M&GN work, Tony!

[Mallard60022]

" In a way, I regret making the MR/M&GNR bit a working railway, because I could have much-nearer represented it by its going dead straight offstage, both east and west. But, I was greedy, and visually it doesn't really 'work'. "

I suspect we could work out a way of achieving that with some 'design clever' mods to 'the train shed' and no incursions onto the decking. (I'm not fooling around here either, although it would involve some drainpipe).

Phil

[Andy Reichert]

Richard Wilson (Dickie W on here), my erstwhile colleague at BRM has taken up weathering commissions before beginning a new career as a signalman (or should that be signaller, now?). 

 

Dsc_0532.jpg

 

DSC_0535.JPG

 

DSC_0537.JPG

 

DSC_0539.JPG

 

I'm very impressed with these results. If you're interested, try sending him a PM (or is that touting for work and, thus, not allowed on this site?). 

 

DSC_0523.JPG

 

DSC_0527.JPG

 

I've been carrying on with the M&GNR bit of my trainset, since Ian Wilson did the 'groundwork' with Styrofoam. In reality, of course, the embankment should carry straight on for 200+ yards, cross the Glen River and then go on a curve the opposite of that on the model. In a way, I regret making the MR/M&GNR bit a working railway, because I could have much-nearer represented it by its going dead straight offstage, both east and west. But, I was greedy, and visually it doesn't really 'work'. But, the main line does, which is more important.

 

I'm glad I only remember BR in it's better maintained days!  IMHO, my local 305's looked pretty spiffy in their original dark green, as compared to their later electric green and final thickly applied all over blue.

 

Andy

[MikeOxon]

Thanks Mike,

 

...................

 

Apologies, if necessary, for the pedantry.  

No need for apologies. I realised it was a preserved loco, so 'non-authentic', but I thought it was a nice pic, so took the excuse to post it 

 

Mike

[Barry O]

I have a strong dislike of bits of railway that don't work (which are so often part of US model railroads) so I'm pleased you did make the M&GN work, Tony!

good job it does work, gave me a bit of operating on my last visit!

[St Enodoc]

good job it does work, gave me a bit of operating on my last visit!

So Tony makes you work up through the links before you're allowed on the main line then - a bit like Cwmafon loco shed eh Baz?

[Jock67B]

Good morning Tony,

Only just come to your thread from mentions on others, and I have to confess that I already spend far too much time browsing those that I follow. That said, an e-mail from BRM yesterday, all about signing up to the digital edition, carried your article on the Hornby P2 from 2013. I was most impressed by your trackwork in that both the eight coupled loco and all the stock passed the camera at different speeds without the semblance of a wobble - great craftsmanship over such a length.

I hope to have time to search back on your thread over the weekend so apologies in advance for the appearance of ratings on older posts!

Thank you for the inspiration,

Kind regards,

Jock.

PS, I was lucky enough to receive an e-mail from your friend Richard which solved a technical query I'd put to BRM. Most helpful and clearly written. I wish him luck in his new career choice.

[Tony Wright]

Good morning Tony,

Only just come to your thread from mentions on others, and I have to confess that I already spend far too much time browsing those that I follow. That said, an e-mail from BRM yesterday, all about signing up to the digital edition, carried your article on the Hornby P2 from 2013. I was most impressed by your trackwork in that both the eight coupled loco and all the stock passed the camera at different speeds without the semblance of a wobble - great craftsmanship over such a length.

I hope to have time to search back on your thread over the weekend so apologies in advance for the appearance of ratings on older posts!

Thank you for the inspiration,

Kind regards,

Jock.

PS, I was lucky enough to receive an e-mail from your friend Richard which solved a technical query I'd put to BRM. Most helpful and clearly written. I wish him luck in his new career choice.

Thanks Jock,

 

Though the trackwork on display is my property, it was actually made and laid by the incomparable Norman Solomon. All I did was wire it, and make the other locos/stock you saw on the presentation. Though I've mentioned names before where due credit should be given, it's often way back on the thread. 

[CUTLER2579]

So Tony makes you work up through the links before you're allowed on the main line then - a bit like Cwmafon loco shed eh Baz?

 

No its nothing of the Sort, the Man is a self confessed LMS man and it's as close to his territory that is possible on a real railway like Little Bytham.

Regards,Derek.

[Tony Wright]

 

 

With the various Gresley conversions described in the BRM Annual complete, I've turned my attention to making more; in the case of this pair an RF and an Open Third/Second (Dia 27A/B). Catering cars of this paring were common in ECML sets of the late '50s, often in a train composed otherwise of Mk.1s, such was the poor riding of the original BR catering vehicles and the fact that many were only just being introduced. 

 

These have MJT sides and in the case of the RF MJT heavy-duty bogies. These will be on my stand at the Doncaster Show, along with some of the completed ones. Apart from the slightly tricky bits of forming the sides and mutilating the donor, anyone with a little ability and determination should be able to do these conversions - as I hope to show at Donny. 

 

 

 

Another item on my stand will be the Brassmasters 0-8-4T, in EM. I'm writing this up for BRM, but it's not going totally to the prescribed path. I made the chassis rigid (my preference), but the three-section rods needed so much taking out of their bearings that, despite careful running-in, the thing just lurched and jerked along. So, I made rigid replacement rods, plotting the centres from the middle of the axles with spring dividers, then transferring these to two strips of bullhead rail soldered together. Dot marks were made, drilled through, the 'fluting' removed with a file and the bosses (recovered from the dud rods) soldered on. The result - super-smooth running, especially with a fly-wheel fitted now.

 

Edited to include the following; my apologies for not mentioning the following in the paragraph above.

 

One of the problems I've found with kits supplied with articulated rods is that the 'overlapping' journals end up as one thickness of etch in most cases - far too thin in my opinion. The real things were jointed not at the crank pin but to the right or left of it, still giving a great big bearing. This is the first complete Brassmasters kit I've built (I've done the firm's conversions), and the basic design is sound, but not the flimsy centre bearings in my view. I've found this with other etched kits and have made new rods for two of the London Road models I've built. I've also done the same (in part) on an Ace kit I've made, and an old Crownline chassis, plus others in the distant past. All of these had jointed rods. Give me rigid any time, especially with a non-sprung, non-compensated chassis. But, it could be my bodgy-building.  

Edited January 25, 2015 by Tony Wright

[Jol Wilkinson]

One of the problems I've found with kits supplied with articulated rods is that the 'overlapping' journals end up as one thickness of etch in most cases - far too thin in my opinion. The real things were jointed not at the crank pin but to the right or left of it, still giving a great big bearing. This is the first complete Brassmasters kit I've built (I've done the firm's conversions), and the basic design is sound, but not the flimsy centre bearings in my view. I've found this with other etched kits and have made new rods for two of the London Road models I've built. I've also done the same (in part) on an Ace kit I've made, and an old Crownline chassis, plus others in the distant past. All of these had jointed rods. Give me rigid any time, especially with a non-sprung, non-compensated chassis. But, it could be my bodgy-building.  

Tony,

 

if you build one of the kits I have designed for LRM you'll find plenty of meat on the coupling rod journals. Then again, they are all LNWR prototypes so you probably won't want to.

 

Jol

 

Edit!

 

How could I have forgotten that I also designed the kit for the NER G1/LNER D23, so there is no excuse.

 

My forgetfulness really must be a sign of a failing mind, I'm part way through building one for myself, although it has been on hold for many weeks while I concentrate on completing more of the extension to London Road.

Edited January 25, 2015 by LNWRmodeller

[Andy Reichert]

Off the current direction for a moment. I managed to acquire some N7 Kits from "Stelfox" and "Connoisseur Models". I Understand the latter may be scale reduced O scale kits. It will be some years before I get round to assembling any of them, but PM comments of any prior experiences of either would be welcomed.

 

I'm especially noting Tony's comments about coupling rods above, as I assumed I would build equalized chassis for all. I'll be using P4 wheels, even though my track gauge is "00" and my flange way is 0.026".

Edited January 26, 2015 by Andy Reichert

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

 

if you build one of the kits I have designed for LRM you'll find plenty of meat on the coupling rod journals. Then again, they are all LNWR prototypes so you probably won't want to.

 

Jol

 

Edit!

 

How could I have forgotten that I also designed the kit for the NER G1/LNER D23, so there is no excuse.

 

My forgetfulness really must be a sign of a failing mind, I'm part way through building one for myself, although it has been on hold for many weeks while I concentrate on completing more of the extension to London Road.

Thanks Jol,

 

The only L&NWR locos I've built were those made by Gem; years ago. I built a 2-4-0 in EM, and had to split the footplate on both sides and solder in two strips of 1mm brass bar, just to get clearances. I'm sure yours will be in a different league.

 

I'm generally a great fan of the 'better' etched-brass kits (of which London Road constitutes a large number), but the designs of several seem over-complicated to my simple mind. Take the London Road Models K2 for instance. Designed, I believe, by the late (great) Malcolm Crawley, and, as designed, it required all the cylinders/motion/valve gear to be made up and fixed onto the frames as the leading drivers were dropped into their horns. There was no way of testing it as an 0-6-0 beforehand (which I always make my six-coupled locos into to start with). Naturally, I altered the thing to suit and was promptly told off by him at the Nottingham show one year! Oddly enough, mine is the only one I've seen running at a show since. Please, all those out there with running-as-designed LMR K2s, please post on this thread. Other than that, the kit is brilliant.

 

Other irritants include frames which end up too wide for OO once the bearings are in (several etched kits I've made, including LRM). Do designers assume only Gibson, Sharman or Ultrascale drivers will be employed? Or, in the case of the 0-8-4T, frames which are too wide for EM (Markits wheels). The outside faces of the bearings have had to be filed right down. Not only that, I've had to take the splasher fronts off and move them out about .5mm to accommodate the wider Markits wheels. I know Gibson drivers are recommended, but many prefer the easier-to-use and more-robust Markits, even in EM. Another thing is the prescriptive path recommended for construction. Allan Sibley suggests fixing on the footplate valances AFTER most of the body construction has taken place. They're supplied as flimsy 'L' sections. Scale they might be, but a rigid footplate is a must for any subsequent superstructure construction in my view, so I soldered on strips of 1 mm brass bar BEFORE the upper-works were contemplated. Yes, I have to drill small holes for handrails through them but it makes a most rigid structure to start with, and it's impossible to tell that the valances are not an 'L' section.

 

In my view, loco kits should be designed with the simplest procedure as a start-point. The 0-8-4T is designed to be sprung-compensated. It has to be modified to be made rigid. Thus, articulated rods and sprung hornblocks are all supplied at source. This, in my view is the wrong way round. For those who like complications, let them do the modifications - aren't they the more competent to do this, anyway? Comet chassis allow for this - rigid at source, but capable of modification if so desired. SE Finecast frames allow the same. Thus, you can have rigid or jointed rods as you wish, or fixed or sprung/compensated bearings to your heart's content. PDK also allow rigid or compensated procedures, but the chassis are rigid at source. DJH give you rigid everything, of course.

 

I'm not suggesting a dumbing-down approach to loco-building. Mine have to work; reliably, powerfully, sweetly, quietly, slowly or quickly without fuss, failure or derailment. And, they do, as I hope visitors will testify.  

Edited January 26, 2015 by Tony Wright

[buffalo]

...For those who like complications, let them do the modifications - aren't they the more competent to do this, anyway?...

 

Ah, you mean us weirdos who work in P4   Seriously, though, you make some good points here. Yes, most of us are prpbably happy to modify as needed but often kits intended to be built with compensation or springing still need to be modified because we prefer a different approach to suspension. Sometimes a rigid approach might be a better starting point.

 

As to frames being too wide for 00, I wonder if some manufacturers take a dismissive approach to 00 and don't believe many would build kits for this gauge? I wonder what the relative proportions of kit builders are between 00, EM and P4?

 

Nick

[t-b-g]

Thanks Jol,

 

The only L&NWR locos I've built were those made by Gem; years ago. I built a 2-4-0 in EM, and had to split the footplate on both sides and solder in two strips of 1mm brass bar, just to get clearances. I'm sure yours will be in a different league.

 

I'm generally a great fan of the 'better' etched-brass kits (of which London Road constitutes a large number), but the designs of several seem over-complicated to my simple mind. Take the London Road Models K2 for instance. Designed, I believe, by the late (great) Malcolm Crawley, and, as designed, it required all the cylinders/motion/valve gear to be made up and fixed onto the frames as the leading drivers were dropped into their horns. There was no way of testing it as an 0-6-0 beforehand (which I always make my six-coupled locos into to start with). Naturally, I altered the thing to suit and was promptly told off by him at the Nottingham show one year! Oddly enough, mine is the only one I've seen running at a show since. Please, all those out there with running-as-designed LMR K2s, please post on this thread. Other than that, the kit is brilliant.

 

Other irritants include frames which end up too wide for OO once the bearings are in (several etched kits I've made, including LMR). Do designers assume only Gibson, Sharman or Ultrascale drivers will be employed? Or, in the case of the 0-8-4T, frames which are too wide for EM (Markits wheels). The outside faces of the bearings have had to be filed right down. Another thing is the prescriptive path recommended for construction. Allan Sibley suggests fixing on the footplate valances AFTER most of the body construction has taken place. They're supplied as flimsy 'L' sections. Scale they might be, but a rigid footplate is a must for any subsequent superstructure construction in my view, so I soldered on strips of 1 mm brass bar BEFORE the upper-works were contemplated. Yes, I have to drill small holes for handrails through them but it makes a most rigid structure to start with, and it's impossible to tell that the valances are not an 'L' section.

 

In my view, loco kits should be designed with the simplest procedure as a start-point. The 0-8-4T is designed to be sprung-compensated. It has to be modified to be made rigid. Thus, articulated rods and sprung hornblocks are all supplied at source. This, in my view is the wrong way round. For those who like complications, let them do the modifications - aren't they the more competent to do this, anyway? Comet chassis allow for this - rigid at source, but capable of modification if so desired. SE Finecast frames allow the same. Thus, you can have rigid or jointed rods as you wish, or fixed or sprung/compensated bearings to your heart's content. PDK also allow rigid or compensated procedures, but the chassis are rigid at source. DJH give you rigid everything, of course.

 

I'm not suggesting a dumbing-down approach to loco-building. Mine have to work; reliably, powerfully, sweetly, quietly, slowly or quickly without fuss, failure or derailment. And, they do, as I hope visitors will testify.  

 

I remember sitting opposite Malcolm as he designed the K2 artwork and I raised similar concerns as the design developed.

 

Every once in a while he would listen to my ideas and alter things but not this time!

 

In his words, it was designed to have the wheels removable using compensated or sprung axleboxes in hornguides and if anybody wanted to build it rigid that was their problem!

 

I have one stashed away and when I get around to building it, mine will be modified as Tony (W) has done. Malcolm didn't really approve of the idea that somebody might actually want to modify and even, dare I say it, improve one of his kits! He was good at many things and a great friend for over 30 years but admitting that he might have made an error never came easily to him!

 

I think I have seen one running in GNR livery on a layout and I have run Malcolm's model but there are not as many about as there would have been if it had been a bit more straightforward in design.

 

Tony (Gee)

[Tony Wright]

Ah, you mean us weirdos who work in P4   Seriously, though, you make some good points here. Yes, most of us are prpbably happy to modify as needed but often kits intended to be built with compensation or springing still need to be modified because we prefer a different approach to suspension. Sometimes a rigid approach might be a better starting point.

 

As to frames being too wide for 00, I wonder if some manufacturers take a dismissive approach to 00 and don't believe many would build kits for this gauge? I wonder what the relative proportions of kit builders are between 00, EM and P4?

 

Nick

Thanks Nick,

 

Your last point about the relative proportions of kit builders amongst the three principal 4mm gauges is most interesting. Who knows, though?

 

I'd have thought, almost by definition, more folk 'build' in the wider gauges out of necessity, there being no RTR EM or P4 chassis, be they for locos or rolling stock. Might it be true that many of those who model the steam-era in EM and P4 tend to go for the more 'obscure' prototypes, where there isn't much RTR support? They, thus, have to build things. That said, several of those who model in EM I know say that if the current RTR offerings had been available 30-odd years ago, they would have not gone down the EM path. But they did, and strength to their elbows for doing so. Each one to a man (and woman) is a modeller. 

[davidw]

DSC_1773.JPG

 

DSC_1779.JPG

 

With the various Gresley conversions described in the BRM Annual complete, I've turned my attention to making more; in the case of this pair an RF and an Open Third/Second (Dia 27A/B). Catering cars of this paring were common in ECML sets of the late '50s, often in a train composed otherwise of Mk.1s, such was the poor riding of the original BR catering vehicles and the fact that many were only just being introduced. 

 

These have MJT sides and in the case of the RF MJT heavy-duty bogies. These will be on my stand at the Doncaster Show, along with some of the completed ones. Apart from the slightly tricky bits of forming the sides and mutilating the donor, anyone with a little ability and determination should be able to do these conversions - as I hope to show at Donny. 

 

 

 

The Gresley's look really good Tony. When I did mine I couldn't find any decent photo's of the RF's roof. I just wondered what your source you used?

 

Thanks