Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

Tony, when I wrote I had only given the Stanier 2-6-0 a very brief test run but I have now had chance to examine it more closely. Whilst I think the loco and tender are from Kays, I do not think the chassis is by them, it has brake gear and it does not consist of the rectangular pieces of brass which were usually provided in their kits. Also it has Romford wheels and a Portescap motor. The locomotive is in LMS livery and it has been weathered. The only really bad feature of the model is that the tender has a Triang type coupling.

 

I must admit, personally, I do not care what the locomotives I build are worth. I enjoy building them and their value is in the pleasure gained from having transformed a collection of brass or white metal pieces into a working locomotive which can then be put to use on a model railway. I certainly think we should build locomotives because it is a pleasant and challenging thing to do, not because they may be worth a lot of money at some time in the future.

 

Sandra

Thanks Sandra,

 

You've certainly got a bargain there; I'm told Portescaps alone go for silly money on eBay. 

 

I entirely agree with you that the real 'value' in a working model railway locomotive is in the making of it. No amount of money can give you the 'buzz' of having done that. That's why I'm always banging the drum about making things for yourself. It's all well and good having masses of locos and trains, either RTR-based or built/modified for you (the generic 'you'), but they're really just possessions, nice to have though they might be. 

 

I suppose part of 'where I was coming from' is derived from my years as a professional loco-builder. Though I enjoyed making locos for customers (so that they could possess them!), there was no way I could do it just for the pleasure; mortgage, children, food bills, etc. 

 

By way of kicking my depression, at least in part, is to build locos again for friends (or those who soon become friends). Take the P2 for instance (I'll post a further picture later). The eventual owner of that will find his bank account lighter to the tune of not far off four figures, and that's at mates' rates. One would like to think that it will still have an intrinsic value when, for whatever reason, it goes to a new home. But, who knows?

 

Kindest regards,

 

Tony. 

[Andy R]

I have been involved in the subject of auto vs. manual couplings for many years now and I have layouts that have each. Buckingham (permanent) and Leighton Buzzard (currently just at shows) use 3 link couplings. All my own layouts use a fine wire home-made version of a "Spratt and Winkle". I am know these can be adapted to uncouple over a magnet and be pushed and left anywhere but that involves a highly unrealistic double shuffle to engage the "push and leave" mode.

 

The fact remains that until we can get a scale person with a shunting pole to uncouple and couple our stock, all couplings include an element of compromise. There really is no right or wrong answer. It is down to the individual to decide what compromises they are willing to accept to operate their layout the way that they want to.

 

It is no good me or anybody else telling folk that the "hand in the sky" is wrong for 3 links. It is no more or less "wrong" than a bit of wire under a bufferbeam and an unprototypical hook on a loco, carriage or wagon.

 

The best that anybody can do is to express a personal preference.

 

Most of my layouts involve a great deal more coupling and uncoupling than Little Bytham as they are terminus designs and pretty much everything needs to be shunted and uncoupled. I abandoned 3 links for my own stuff years ago but now have them back and I have to say that I enjoy working with them and they are the most realistic by far. The problem is that a number of my operators at home and at shows really struggle with them and they find that it detracts from their pleasure of operating. One or two have even suggested fitting auto couplings to Buckingham stock but that would be a step too far.

 

I have tried "Alex Jackson" and "Lincs" but couldn't get them to work as well as I would like. The home made ones do all I want so I have stopped looking for alternatives now.

 

Peter Denny clearly voiced is preference for 3 links in his articles and I am not that much of a rebel.

 

For my own layouts, I am happy with fixed magnets at stratigic positions, either permanent or electromagnets depending on how many there are down a siding and we get very reliable operation. There is a big side benefit, especially at exhibitions, in that it means you can take a nice tall bar stool and operate sitting down, whereas with 3 links mean constant getting up and down.

 

The exception is Leighton Buzzard, which is designed so that 90% of the uncoupling is done right under your nose and you can stay sitting most of the time.

 

Tony G 

 

Nice overview Tony- I for one value your views on this given your long experience in the hobby and at exhibitions.

Looking forward to trying my eyesight out again on Buckingham in early July- will PM you with further details when train ex London booked.

regards, Andy R

[Tony Wright]

As promised, pictures of the ACE P2 with the bodywork complete.

 

 

 

After the York Show she goes off to Ian Rathbone for painting in full LNER regalia. Before that's done (which will involve taking off all the rods and wheels - good old Markits!) there's no point in my making up and fitting the brake rodding, nor doing the same with the cylinders and motion (though I'll make all the valve gear while she's away).

 

I have to say I have a good deal of ambivalence towards this ACE kit. The fact that some bits were missing is probably down to it being a one-off, made for me. I'll report to ACE and the proprietor will then decide whether to introduce it as a kit for general sale (or, has he done already?). I'll also write the instructions (just like the old days!). 

 

Parts of the design are excellent - the footplate and cab, for instance, yet the smokebox/boiler/firebox being over-long does militate. The formers to make the multi-shaped boiler are also a good idea, yet the Carazzi design, though it might follow the real thing, is a hopeless piece of thinking for operating over anything less than 12' curves. 

 

I hope the kit is introduced. That a few hundreds' worth of loco kit-building experience might be necessary to undertake the task of making it might put some off, but as a means of getting a model of one of Britain's most visually-impressive steam locos, it certainly is a candidate. Is there an equivalent kit for 2002 as built, now? There was the old K's/Autocom one, which range Dave Ellis has taken over for SE Finecast. In recent conversation with Dave, it's not been mentioned. 

 

Might Hornby do it? They could well do a Bugatti-nosed P2, but the firm's not in the best fiscal position right now it would seem. There's always Graeme King with his innovative conversions. Can you post a picture, please, Graeme? In a rather selfish way, I hope an RTR version of 2002 never appears. Us kit-builders/modifiers still need something to do in our dotage. 

[jamie92208]

Having seen the part built model at Nottingham, you have made excellent progress Tony.  To my untutored eye it certainly seems to have captured the essence of the prototype.   I look forward to seeing the completed model in due course.  

 

Jamie

[micklner]

As promised, pictures of the ACE P2 with the bodywork complete.

 

P2 15 bodywork complete.jpg

 

P2 16 bodywork complete.jpg

 

After the York Show she goes off to Ian Rathbone for painting in full LNER regalia. Before that's done (which will involve taking off all the rods and wheels - good old Markits!) there's no point in my making up and fitting the brake rodding, nor doing the same with the cylinders and motion (though I'll make all the valve gear while she's away).

 

I have to say I have a good deal of ambivalence towards this ACE kit. The fact that some bits were missing is probably down to it being a one-off, made for me. I'll report to ACE and the proprietor will then decide whether to introduce it as a kit for general sale (or, has he done already?). I'll also write the instructions (just like the old days!). 

 

Parts of the design are excellent - the footplate and cab, for instance, yet the smokebox/boiler/firebox being over-long does militate. The formers to make the multi-shaped boiler are also a good idea, yet the Carazzi design, though it might follow the real thing, is a hopeless piece of thinking for operating over anything less than 12' curves. 

 

I hope the kit is introduced. That a few hundreds' worth of loco kit-building experience might be necessary to undertake the task of making it might put some off, but as a means of getting a model of one of Britain's most visually-impressive steam locos, it certainly is a candidate. Is there an equivalent kit for 2002 as built, now? There was the old K's/Autocom one, which range Dave Ellis has taken over for SE Finecast. In recent conversation with Dave, it's not been mentioned. 

 

Might Hornby do it? They could well do a Bugatti-nosed P2, but the firm's not in the best fiscal position right now it would seem. There's always Graeme King with his innovative conversions. Can you post a picture, please, Graeme? In a rather selfish way, I hope an RTR version of 2002 never appears. Us kit-builders/modifiers still need something to do in our dotage. 

 

       I am sure PDK were doing a P2 Cock o The North version, but on having checked their webpage the only one mentioned is a forthcoming Bugatti version. Perhaps they decided the Hornby version has covered the demand for that model?.

      Will Marischal have the extra Smoke deflectors which would make it much more attractive to potential buyers ? I bought a K's version via ebay it was so bad it went back on ebay the following day !!.

[Tony Wright]

       I am sure PDK were doing a P2 Cock o The North version, but on having checked their webpage the only one mentioned is a forthcoming Bugatti version. Perhaps they decided the Hornby version has covered the demand for that model?.

      Will Marischal have the extra Smoke deflectors which would make it much more attractive to potential buyers ? I bought a K's version via ebay it was so bad it went back on ebay the following day !!.

Thanks Mick,

 

The version I've made will not have the extra deflectors, nor were they provided in the kit. I've just spoken to the manufacturer and he does offer the kit in 4mm, but hasn't pushed it yet. 

 

I've suggested to him some alterations might be necessary, and the extra deflectors could well be an option. A problem there, though, is a different inner smokebox surround will be needed because, when the extra deflectors were fitted, the original surround was cut-back. 

 

I've photographed the original lumpen K's EARL MARISCHAL and don't think much of it either.

 

A build-feature on this ACE P2 will be appearing later in the year/early next year in BRM. I'll also be writing the kit's instructions. 

[gr.king]

I see it as either a brave decision or the result of careful prior checking, planning and vast experience, to make up the valve gear while the loco is away for painting. I daren't make up full sets of motion and then try to add them to a loco as I never have confidence that any of it will fit and have the necessary clearances. It generally all goes on one piece at a time, with careful checking of alignment, clearances and freedom of movement.

 

Going back to the crank setting squabble which I do not wish to re-ignite, Bill mentioned hexagonal axle ends and wheel centres as a possibility, acknowledging that this would involve costly duplication of many wheel designs if the requirements of the majority of modellers were not to be ignored. Unless somebody has already suggested this and I've missed it, wouldn't a simpler option, if technically possible at reasonably low cost, merely be an alternative axle with squared ends offset by 30 degrees? My greatly limited knowledge of machining tells me nothing on the question of whether such an angular offset could be readily and consistently produced.

[polybear]

Unless somebody has already suggested this and I've missed it, wouldn't a simpler option, if technically possible at reasonably low cost, merely be an alternative axle with squared ends offset by 30 degrees? My greatly limited knowledge of machining tells me nothing on the question of whether such an angular offset could be readily and consistently produced.

Hi Grahame (hope I've spelt your name correctly, apologies if not),

Such an axle would be extremely easy to manufacture for any competent machinist; there has also been recent articles (Mick Nicholson?) on making split axles using Markits axles - no doubt the method could be adapted to alter the axle-end relationship to attain the required configuration.

HTH

Brian

[Blue Max]

       I am sure PDK were doing a P2 Cock o The North version, but on having checked their webpage the only one mentioned is a forthcoming Bugatti version. Perhaps they decided the Hornby version has covered the demand for that model?.

      Will Marischal have the extra Smoke deflectors which would make it much more attractive to potential buyers ? I bought a K's version via ebay it was so bad it went back on ebay the following day !!.

PDK do advertise 2002 in its range as PDK63 along with 2001 as PDK64 all on page 5 of their price list presumably indicating they are in production, they also show PDK66 for the Bugatti Nose versions as a future model. 

[t-b-g]

Hi Grahame (hope I've spelt your name correctly, apologies if not),

Such an axle would be extremely easy to manufacture for any competent machinist; there has also been recent articles (Mick Nicholson?) on making split axles using Markits axles - no doubt the method could be adapted to alter the axle-end relationship to attain the required configuration.

HTH

Brian

 

There is no doubt that a 4mm loco can be made to work with cranks set at 120 degrees. I have seen it done. Is it less efficient? Yes but not enough to cause any difficulty.

 

Is it worth the bother? Not unless you stand a loco in front of a mirror to show off what you have accomplished.

 

The loco I saw it done on, which was a P1 with an inside working crank axle built by Malcolm Crawley, had push on wheels. Much easier than making new axles for Markits wheels.

 

How many modellers nowadays have the skills and equipment necessary to machine new axles to match Markits/Romfords? Then deduct those who don't model three cylinder locos and the number who will be machining their own axles becomes even smaller. In my view, the types of people who will be bothered about their locos having 120 degree cranks are also the types of people who will be using push on wheels because of their better appearance.

[jrg1]

I see it as either a brave decision or the result of careful prior checking, planning and vast experience, to make up the valve gear while the loco is away for painting. I daren't make up full sets of motion and then try to add them to a loco as I never have confidence that any of it will fit and have the necessary clearances. It generally all goes on one piece at a time, with careful checking of alignment, clearances and freedom of movement.

 

Going back to the crank setting squabble which I do not wish to re-ignite, Bill mentioned hexagonal axle ends and wheel centres as a possibility, acknowledging that this would involve costly duplication of many wheel designs if the requirements of the majority of modellers were not to be ignored. Unless somebody has already suggested this and I've missed it, wouldn't a simpler option, if technically possible at reasonably low cost, merely be an alternative axle with squared ends offset by 30 degrees? My greatly limited knowledge of machining tells me nothing on the question of whether such an angular offset could be readily and consistently produced.

I have mentioned that I would be delighted to see simple push on axles.  Machining centres set up for mass production of 90 and also 120 degree cranks can produce them cheaply, and I am sure there si a market for them.  Supplying wheelsets as a split axle option to eliminate pickups would really be progress in the right direction.

[Horsetan]

I am sure PDK were doing a P2 Cock o The North version, but on having checked their webpage the only one mentioned is a forthcoming Bugatti version. Perhaps they decided the Hornby version has covered the demand for that model?.

      Will Marischal have the extra Smoke deflectors which would make it much more attractive to potential buyers ? I bought a K's version via ebay it was so bad it went back on ebay the following day !!.

There's also the Wessex ProScale kit, but I think Springside have shut down that particular range after they took it over. No longer any links to it on their fairly ancient website.

[gr.king]

There is no doubt that a 4mm loco can be made to work with cranks set at 120 degrees. I have seen it done. Is it less efficient? Yes but not enough to cause any difficulty.

 

Is it worth the bother? Not unless you stand a loco in front of a mirror to show off what you have accomplished.

 

The loco I saw it done on, which was a P1 with an inside working crank axle built by Malcolm Crawley, had push on wheels. Much easier than making new axles for Markits wheels.

 

How many modellers nowadays have the skills and equipment necessary to machine new axles to match Markits/Romfords? Then deduct those who don't model three cylinder locos and the number who will be machining their own axles becomes even smaller. In my view, the types of people who will be bothered about their locos having 120 degree cranks are also the types of people who will be using push on wheels because of their better appearance.

Malcolm's P1 was inspirational. It was part of the inspiration for building my own. He "thanked" me enormously when I spotted that his cylinder wrappers weren't quite the right shape - I promptly made sure that I lavished praise on its many other fine features.

 

I wasn't suggesting that individual modellers ought to machine up their own offset axles, although one or two would no doubt do so. I was simply making an observation that if such machining were possible then it might be the least trouble / lowest cost option for Markits or a rival manufacturer wishing to cater for more accurate modelling of three cylinder locomotives. I doubt it will happen, even though Markits already offer axles of several different diameters and lengths, some of which I imagine to have fairly restricted applications.

[Pebbles]

I also pointed out the P1 flat sided cylinders to Malcolm. I seem to remember that there was also an issue with the cab sides for the period he was modelling (he used surplus parts from a Martin Finney A1/3). Turning to the 120 degree issue; for the adventurous split the Romford axle drill and ream 2mm holes in the two halves and use 2mm silver steel to re-unite and lock at the desired angle. You would of course need a jig of some kind.

[Horsetan]

Perhaps a plywood coffin trimmed with track? 

Can't beat a bit of recycling.

You should be able to fit a decent shunting puzzle layout on the inside of the lid....

[johnarcher]

You should be able to fit a decent shunting puzzle layout on the inside of the lid....

But once the lid's closed you'd either need magnahesion, or to be buried upside down.

[Bernard Lamb]

But once the lid's closed you'd either need magnahesion, or to be buried upside down.

Plus rack and pinion.

There are some folks that like to be buried standing upright.

Bernard

[polybear]

There are some folks that like to be buried standing upright.

 

Could I claim a discount on the burial plot?

[mullie]

Could I claim a discount on the burial plot?

You know what modellers are like, they'll be tunnelling out for more space, just a few more feet to lengthen that siding!

 

Martyn

[edward66]

Good to talk with you at York Tony, I'm sure you gave Robin Smith a lot of encouragement, we need a lot more young modellers.

 

Edward [fellow g.o.m.]

Edited March 28, 2016 by edward66

[Horsetan]

But once the lid's closed you'd either need magnadhesion, or to be buried upside down.

Now that rare earth magnets are available easily and cheaply on eBay, magnadhesion becomes possible!

[t-b-g]

I have told the story before but Loughborough University did have a working 4mm scale MAGLEV which would work well the wrong way up. The liquid coolant was put in an open wagon and they tipped it over to show how soon the wagon would fall to earth once the coolant fell out all over the desk. It stayed hanging in the air upside down for a few seconds.

 

So a coffin fitted with a few bits of scientific equipment should do the trick. Jut a power supply and a very cold fridge......

 

Not a lot of use for those who will end up going where it is supposedly a bit warmer.

[Horsetan]

....Not a lot of use for those who will end up going where it is supposedly a bit warmer.

That would be most of us, then.

[t-b-g]

That would be most of us, then.

 

Fair point!

[Horsetan]

Fair point!

See you there.