Wright writes.....

[ArthurK]

All this talk of Night Hawk etc. It ended its daysin the scrap line at Blaydon. No doubt being towed away for cutting up soon afterwards. Note that it still had its nameplates and number plates intact as did other Pacifics awaiting their fate.

 

 

ArthurK

 

 

[Tony Wright]

Recent references to "stupidity" prompted me to post this, my current project of an ancient Nu-Cast O2/3. It's my first attempt at largely soldering a whitemetal kit. I "won" it on Ebay, and knew in advance that some parts were missing, but as I knew that any wheels, motor or gearbox I bought could be used elsewhere if I messed it up or the missing parts could not be replaced, I decided to chance £75. There is still work to do, but it looks like an O2/3....

 

Why stupidity? Well, there is a vastly superior model from Heljan......... But in my experience, I often found that folk who accused others of stupidity weren't always quite as clever as they thought they were.

 

. Details of the build are on my thread.

 

John

John, 

 

There might be a vastly superior model from Heljan, but it'll never be yours in the way that the one you've built is. 

 

I keep on going on about this, but there is nothing more personal than a model you've built yourself.  

 

 

Last year I sold some Bachmann A1s I'd modified - new bogie wheels, replacement deflectors, detailed, close-coupled loco/tender, renumbered, renamed, weathered, etc, etc. Though I have great admiration for those who modify/improve/personalise RTR locos for themselves, that's not my way, and never has been. 

 

In some ways, I could be accused of stupidity. I now have some dozen kit-built A1s. Nine have been all my own work (apart from some of them having been by Ian Rathbone). I probably 'need' about 15 A1s to run a potted representation of a day's activity through LB in the summer of 1958. I had that number, made up with the Bachmann A1s I once had. However, those RTR A1s (no matter how much I 'improved' them) were really only possessions. 

 

So, does it show stupidity on my part, to embark on building those extra ones I 'need'? Daft, perhaps, but the one above (which'll be PEREGRINE) will be 'mine' in a unique way. There must be thousands of Bachmann A1s out there, but they're all made in some far-away-factory. That they can be made to look good, there's no doubt, and there's even greater merit in improving them by oneself. It's just not 'my' way, though. 

 

Please, keep on doing what you do. You're a real modeller. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited March 28, 2017 by Tony Wright

[ArthurK]

250 gallons is just shy of a ton, hence 5,000 gallons is a little under 20 tons - or 5 tons per axle.

A gallon of water weighs precisely 10lb. Therefore 5000 gallons weigh 50,000lb or 22.3 tons

 

ArthurK

[Tony Wright]

Tony, if this is 'not on' then  I shall delete at your demand.

Your support of people doing modelling is admirable, especially the loco kits. Should anyone want to 'have a go' at converting coaches (Gresley for example) and you offer them the opportunity, as you so kindly did for myself, I have today 'discovered' some not so old Hornby Gresleys (proper jobs including Turnbuckle UF's but still with the 'turn-under flaws) and would be happy to move these on as I really do not think I shall be doing any more such conversions. Charity donation terms maybe, should an interested party want them? The MRW Buy and Sell function is defunct otherwise I'd have put them on there.

Phil

My apologies Phil,

 

I've only just picked up on this. 

 

I'm sure many folk would be interested in those Gresleys you mention for conversion projects. I have one or two more to do myself, and as projects assisting other modellers. 

 

If you wish (when I see you) I'll take them off you and ask those who'd like them to make donations to charity. You must have something, though. 

 

Last week, I had a very nice 'thank you' letter from Cancer Research UK. The work goes on....................

[Tony Wright]

A gallon of water weighs precisely 10lb. Therefore 5000 gallons weigh 50,000lb or 22.3 tons

 

ArthurK

Thanks Arthur,

 

Not having that weight on the springs should mean a tender rides higher, shouldn't it? 

[Iain Popplewell]

 You're right about building engines and loco's Tony, when you've built it yourself it becomes your loco in a way that no RTR could be. I've never scratchbuilt a loco but I'd imagine that's even more satisfying than building a kit. One of the things I've also noticed is that as you build a locomotive you gain so much more knowledge of the character and construction of the locomotive class and indeed the steam/diesel loco in general. Stuff you'd never have appreciated if you'd simply opened a box.

[LNER4479]

A gallon of water weighs precisely 10lb. Therefore 5000 gallons weigh 50,000lb or 22.3 tons

 

ArthurK

Oops - wrong type of (US) gallon.

 

Thanks Arthur,

 

Not having that weight on the springs should mean a tender rides higher, shouldn't it? 

Yes. Vehicle will ride higher with less weight. Key factor is to ensure compatible buffer heights of adjacent vehicles. Standard buffer height is 3' 6" (42"). In my day, about 1" of travel was permitted to allow for different ride heights. On that basis, spring rates on an A3 tender should be set such that a 5 ton variation would allow for no more than that amount of travel. Can't comment on whether it was quite that scientific back in the day though!

[Tony Wright]

Oops - wrong type of (US) gallon.

 

Yes. Vehicle will ride higher with less weight. Key factor is to ensure compatible buffer heights of adjacent vehicles. Standard buffer height is 3' 6" (42"). In my day, about 1" of travel was permitted to allow for different ride heights. On that basis, spring rates on an A3 tender should be set such that a 5 ton variation would allow for no more than that amount of travel. Can't comment on whether it was quite that scientific back in the day though!

Thanks Graham,

 

One inch of travel? Is that both up and down, or just half an inch each each way? 

 

Though I haven't got time to find it right now, I must dig out a slide I have of a Class 33 I took at Salisbury, connected to some four-wheeled wagons (long, long, ago). The bottom of the Oleo buffers (did 33s have those?) was only just in contact with the top of the first wagon's buffer head. I thought large-head buffers were to prevent that kind of thing. But then, perhaps they did. 

Edited March 28, 2017 by Tony Wright

[St Enodoc]

A gallon of water weighs precisely 10lb. Therefore 5000 gallons weigh 50,000lb or 22.3 tons

 

ArthurK

"A pint of pure water

Weighs a pound and a quarter".

 

Funny how some things stick in the brain after more than fifty years.

Edited March 28, 2017 by St Enodoc

[MJI]

Or if you are younger convert to SI

 

4.54l per gallon

 

5000 x 4.54

 

22,700l

22,700kg

22.7 ton

 

I do this all the time!

[Clive Mortimore]

One liter of water weighs one kilogram, funny what us "young ones" remember after being at school 45 years ago.

 

Not that helps Tony with his quest for how heavy was the water in a Gresely 8 wheeled tender. I think I might have the answer with this formula.

 

2L x A - H x O       = Hell Of A Lot

T + L - O x E - F

[BR(W)]

We were taught that the volumetric descriptor 'imperial gallon' was originally determined by the volume of ten pounds of pure water, at sixty degrees Fahrenheit, at mean sea level. I think.

 

Cheers,

 

BR(W).

[LNER4479]

Thanks Graham,

 

One inch of travel? Is that both up and down, or just half an inch each each way? 

 

Though I haven't got time to find it right now, I must dig out a slide I have of a Class 33 I took at Salisbury, connected to some four-wheeled wagons (long, long, ago). The bottom of the Oleo buffers (did 33s have those?) was only just in contact with the top of the first wagon's buffer head. I thought large-head buffers were to prevent that kind of thing. But then, perhaps they did. 

I can only quote what I am used to, which was BR coaching stock maintenance:

check height from centre of buffer to rail level is between 1048 - 1067mm.

 

1067mm is 42"; 1048mm is 41.25 so allowance was 3/4" (not a great deal!). The idea was to set the vehicles up post works attention so that they were 42" then the suspension could settle over time by 3/4". At that point, if vehicle wasn't due works attention any time soon then packers would be needed under the primary springs to bring it back up to the right height.

 

Thinking on, logically more travel than that would be required in the rough and tumble of every day operation and to allow for full to empty condition. More of an issue for freight wagons as the tare-to-laden ratio is much greater...

 

Better stop now before everyone drifts off to sleep.

[gr.king]

Or if you are younger convert to SI

 

4.54l per gallon

 

5000 x 4.54

 

22,700l

22,700kg

22.7 ton

No. That's 22.7 "tonnes", a contrived metric unit, short of the true imperial ton by around 36lbs I believe.

Edited March 28, 2017 by gr.king

[St Enodoc]

I can only quote what I am used to, which was BR coaching stock maintenance:

check height from centre of buffer to rail level is between 1048 - 1067mm.

 

1067mm is 42"; 1048mm is 41.25 so allowance was 3/4" (not a great deal!). The idea was to set the vehicles up post works attention so that they were 42" then the suspension could settle over time by 3/4". At that point, if vehicle wasn't due works attention any time soon then packers would be needed under the primary springs to bring it back up to the right height.

 

Thinking on, logically more travel than that would be required in the rough and tumble of every day operation and to allow for full to empty condition. More of an issue for freight wagons as the tare-to-laden ratio is much greater...

 

Better stop now before everyone drifts off to sleep.

Graham, I was "agreeing" with the first three paragraphs, not the final sentence...

[Clive Mortimore]

I can only quote what I am used to, which was BR coaching stock maintenance:

check height from centre of buffer to rail level is between 1048 - 1067mm.

 

1067mm is 42"; 1048mm is 41.25 so allowance was 3/4" (not a great deal!). The idea was to set the vehicles up post works attention so that they were 42" then the suspension could settle over time by 3/4". At that point, if vehicle wasn't due works attention any time soon then packers would be needed under the primary springs to bring it back up to the right height.

 

Thinking on, logically more travel than that would be required in the rough and tumble of every day operation and to allow for full to empty condition. More of an issue for freight wagons as the tare-to-laden ratio is much greater...

 

Better stop now before everyone drifts off to sleep.

Hi Grahame

 

What about tyre wear? Doesn't that also lower the axle centre and therefore the height the vehicle rides.

[LNER4479]

Hi Grahame

 

What about tyre wear? Doesn't that also lower the axle centre and therefore the height the vehicle rides.

Yep, indeed it does. That's one of the things that the 3/4" allowance is for. Once a vehicle had been to a wheel lathe to restore tyre profiles back to shape then a height check would be required and quite likely some packings added. If replacement wheelsets were fitted outside a works visit (not unknown), with all new tyres then quite likely that the old packings would be removed and you'd start all over again.

 

Well, at least 2 folks are still awake!

[westerner]

All this talk of "ownership" if one builds or buys a loco etc reminds me of a line in a story I used to read to my pupils when I was a junior school teacher.  It came from a short story by Bill Naughton ( the author of Alfie) called Skip Nolan, in his book of short stories called "The Goalkeepers Revenge" which involved trolley/go kart racing down a steep hill. Skip the champion on his home made trolley was challenged by the local pub owners son who had his trolley made for him by a local engineering company and paid for by his dad. Skip said to him, "It's not yours unless you've built it yourself OR you have earned the money yourself to pay for it" Not sure which side of the discussion that puts me, but I thought I'd throw it in as food for thought.

[92220]

My favourite is the portrait of 46244 at Camden. There's been some lovely photos published of Stanier's red-liveried magnum opus over the years but that's up there with the best of them. A regal sight in every sense of the word.

Interesting to note the subtle weathering. It looks immaculate at first sight but note the dirt already accumulating atop the boiler barrel and the characteristic swirl of coal dust starting to build up at the bottom of the tender front.

I'm with you on that, perhaps unsurprisingly! I enjoyed the whole page - thank you for sharing the link - but that shot of 46244 stood out. A good exemplar photo for weathering a very recently painted top link pacific. What I need first is to match that shade of red - is that really Rover damask red?

 

Iain

[Woodcock29]

"Anyway, that business of A3 coal-rail tenders. As I said last night, I've never seen the filled-in extensions on some tenders ever mentioned. I did think it was a feature of those tenders built by the NBLC at one time, but this doesn't appear to be the case."

 

Hello Tony

 

I had always rightly or wrongly assumed the filled in bits had been added to prevent any small coal overfilled onto the rear of the tender from falling off. But as you say the tenders with this section seem to be in the minority. I have fitted all my 5 GN 8 wheeled tenders with this piece - some I clearly got wrong! Eg my BR blue Prince Palatine which I now see from a 1949 photo has fully open rear coal rails yet in 1956 she had a tender with the filled in sections. Reference to Yeadon Vol 1 indicates a tender change for Prince Palatine in 1953 - so all is revealed. I must say I enjoy these aspects of modelling LNER locos - I doubt any of the other Big 4 created so many challenges for us modellers?

 

Looking forward to catching up later in May. Its not long now until we depart on our trip on Easter Monday.

 

Andrew Emmett

[Iain Popplewell]

 

As Skip Nolan said, " It's not yours unless you built it yourself or you earned the money yourself to buy it." Very true.

 

Personally I feel that the satisfaction and joy of building your own loco's is sufficient to establish that feeling of ownership, so I'm willing to take the risk and let someone else fund my kit buying habit which is getting out of hand. One kit built, second almost finished, (Judith Edge consett A class. Very nice kit.) and three of Arthur Kimbers North Eastern kits in what I think Horsetan calls the maturing cabinet. NER class T next in line.

 

So if there's a philanthropic enthusiast out there with deep pockets who doesn't mind funding a keen young mans growing obsession, (I'm only 58) send me a PM and I'll send you the bills.

 

With three kits in the cabinet you might think that I've enough kits to be going on with, but I've discovered that Hi-level do a very nice line in industrials. So if you can PM me before Scalefour North on Saturday it'll be much appreciated.

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                              Yours in anticipation.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                Iain.

[MJI]

No. That's 22.7 "tonnes", a contrived metric unit, short of the true imperial ton by around 36lbs I believe.

 

About 16kg out of 1000kg

 

1.6% difference

[gr.king]

That can be a highly significant discrepancy in some situations, such as having the difference between the exact 22.3 tons and the inaccurate 22.7 "tons" (i.e. almost 800lbs or over 56 stone) dropped on your toes.....

[MJI]

That can be a highly significant discrepancy in some situations, such as having the difference between the exact 22.3 tons and the inaccurate 22.7 "tons" (i.e. almost 800lbs or over 56 stone) dropped on your toes.....

 

But good enough when no internet to look up the imperial conversion things.

 

Everyone knows the rough conversion of 4.54, 1.76, 2.2 and the more accurate 25.4.

 

So swapping unit to SI and back is easier.

 

I have NO idea what the weight of any vehicle I have owned has been in pounds. But kg, yes.

[Tony Wright]

All this talk of "ownership" if one builds or buys a loco etc reminds me of a line in a story I used to read to my pupils when I was a junior school teacher.  It came from a short story by Bill Naughton ( the author of Alfie) called Skip Nolan, in his book of short stories called "The Goalkeepers Revenge" which involved trolley/go kart racing down a steep hill. Skip the champion on his home made trolley was challenged by the local pub owners son who had his trolley made for him by a local engineering company and paid for by his dad. Skip said to him, "It's not yours unless you've built it yourself OR you have earned the money yourself to pay for it" Not sure which side of the discussion that puts me, but I thought I'd throw it in as food for thought.

Alan,

 

I read that same story to my first-year pupils when I taught in a secondary modern school and had a first year class. It has a high moral value for those growing up and I think it's a great example to apply to railway modelling in many ways. Though it's over 40 years since I last read the story, wasn't Skip's go-kart called EGDAM? It was supposed he'd once fallen in love with a girl called MADGE, and just reversed her name.

 

You ask which side of the discussion you're in - definitely the true modelling side in my book. You've clearly earned enough money to buy what you want but you're definitely in the Skip camp because you improve/modify/detail your RTR models yourself. Not only that, you do all the other work on your railway yourself.  

 

Since this thread (to me) is all about encouraging modellers to have a go themselves, you fit perfectly into it. I agree with the second part of Skip's statement, but I'd take it further (at least with regard to railway modelling). Even if one has earned enough money to buy what one likes, it still only remains a possession - desirable nonetheless. However, once one has bought something for a model railway it becomes something else when one personally improves/details/alters/weathers, etc. It becomes a personal creation. Surely there is much greater merit in that?