Wright writes.....

[Chris Knight]

@Chris Knight

 

My son and I enjoyed seeing Horfield yesterday. I like the concept of the timeframe and the theatre of the sequence - particularly the 'closing of the curtains' of the warship and Blue Pullman crossing (I think that's the end?) A quick question if I may. How did the physical infrastructure change from GWR days? Would it be possible, stock permitting, to run a period of say 1930-40?

 

David

Thankyou for your kind comment, I am pleased that you both enjoyed our layout. Yes the finale of the sequence depicts the Blue Pullman (full 8 car rake) and the Warship headed

express crossing, we used to announce the start and finish of the sequence, but after some micky taking from the rest of the crew this was quietly abandoned.

 

Horfield was originally a 2 platform halt,subsequently rebuilt in 1934 when the track layout was quadrupled funded by the governments Loan Act to provide employment during

the 1930's depression. Apart from some minor changes in positioning of signals the scene remained unchanged until closure in 1964, so yes a full set of GWR trains would be very

fitting. We definitely won't be doing it however as other projects are in hand !

[number6]

For those of us that weren't there and/or don't care for the scale wars: what was the layout that suffered the derailments? Why be so coy?!

 

The layout I was pleased that never seemed to suffer many was the big gauge 1 live steam one with the electric branch that wrapped around and underneath I remember as a kid a Westminster central halls. Large, heavy, hot trains flying past with operators sprinting around after them. I assume these things sometimes end up in flower beds on garden lines?

[chris p bacon]

My comment about the poor running on one of the P4 layouts at Railex was in response to previous comments/observations/criticisms made by members of the group who built/operate it about my use of OO. I need to say that all of them are really quite splendid chaps and the observations they made were in the spirit of 'constructive criticism', which I accept; indeed, seek out. 

 

Just to clarify, although the layout is operated by a group it is the work of one modeller.

[Tony Wright]

Just to clarify, although the layout is operated by a group it is the work of one modeller.

Sorry Dave,

 

I called you Chris in one post. 

 

Thanks for clarifying that it's one man's work. That, in itself, is laudable. 

[Woodcock29]

Anyone else built this beasty - or have I asked that before?

 

Hi Tony

 

Thanks for the time we spent with you and Mo last week, we had a terrific time.

 

Below is the Lickey Banker I built about 20 years ago for a friend. Its not as brown as it appears in this photo!

 

Andrew Emmett

[Tony Wright]

Anyone else built this beasty - or have I asked that before?

 

Hi Tony

 

Thanks for the time we spent with you and Mo last week, we had a terrific time.

 

Below is the Lickey Banker I built about 20 years ago for a friend. Its not as brown as it appears in this photo!

 

Andrew Emmett

Thanks Andrew,

 

We thoroughly enjoyed having you, and thanks so much for the gift of the A1 kit.

 

Your BB looks superb. I'm still wrestling with the one I'm building, particularly with the tender. I assume yours is prior to the tender being cut-down? If so, then the parts for the tender cab fit. They don't if the tender is cut down. In fact, the tender cab is all the wrong shape. The cut-outs are way too small and incorrectly-sited, and it should be angular rather than curved in end-elevation. Not only that, between the steps, the soleplate should disappear completely. I'm afraid mine will be a bit of a 'fudge'. 

 

I'm glad you all had a safe journey home.

 

We look forward to your next visit. 

[Tony Wright]

 

May I crave assistance again, please? 

 

Where is this, please?

 

It has the 'feel' of a seaside terminus, but where? Running the risk of being a chump, my thoughts turn to Skegness or Lowestoft. I don't think it's King's Lynn. 

 

I could be miles out, of course (probably am), but I don't think it's the Yorkshire coast. Could it be somewhere in the NW? The sign on the roof of the building to the right seems to state ER Boase & Son. 

 

The date, I'd say, is the late '50s, with LMR, ER and Mk.1 stock on show. Dependent on the actual date, the loco is either at Heaton Mersey or Saltley. 

 

As always, thanks in anticipation. 

[Andy Kirkham]

 

 

Where is this, please?

 

 

Llandudno?

 

Looking at the rooftop on the right I googled "Boase and Son", and there was an EDWARD BOASE & SON ltd, builders merchants of  Llandudno and Colwyn bay

Edited May 30, 2017 by Andy Kirkham

[Enterprisingwestern]

With stock having electrification flashes on, I'd say a bit later.

 

Mike.

[Tony Wright]

With stock having electrification flashes on, I'd say a bit later.

 

Mike.

Thanks Mike,

 

That puts the loco at Saltley, but it doesn't have AWS.

[Tony Wright]

Llandudno?

 

Looking at the rooftop on the right I googled "Boase and Son", and there was an EDWARD BOASE & SON ltd, builders merchants of  Llandudno and Colwyn bay

Thanks Andy.

 

The power of the web!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[jacko]

Llandudno?

 

Looking at the rooftop on the right I googled "Boase and Son", and there was an EDWARD BOASE & SON ltd, builders merchants of  Llandudno and Colwyn bay

incredibly busy looking station....

http://threetownsforum.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=media;sa=media;in=2441

[Tony Wright]

incredibly busy looking station....

http://threetownsforum.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=media;sa=media;in=2441

Thanks Jacko,

 

That clinches it. 

[Compound2632]

Why, given these vagaries do some folk choose to model in the least-tolerant-of-problems gauge?

 

From the point of view of a lineside observer, I'd say the answer is straightforward: because it looks so good. Given that most of the time on most exhibition layouts there's nothing going past (that's realism for you), permanent way that looks like the real thing will always be the deciding factor.

[mark54]

With stock having electrification flashes on, I'd say a bit later.

 

Mike.

The painting of gangway doors buff or cream was approved by the Chief Operating Officer on 31/10/1962 according to the Carriage Standards Committee minutes in the Parkin Supplement. So in theory, later than that date.

[Barry Ten]

Can any of the regular loco builders help with this one? I managed to cock-up an order for crankpins and ended up with a pack of six of the threaded variety, which I hadn't encountered before. They include a retaining bush/nut which can be screwed onto the thread using the standard Romford screwdriver, removing the need to solder on a washer. Now that I have them I feel that I might as well put them to good use, so are there any tips or pitfalls I should consider? It looks to me as if the coupling rod holes need to be reamed out a little wider than normally, to accept the diameter of the retaining bush, so there'd be no going back once I did that.

 

Alastair

Edited May 30, 2017 by Barry Ten

[Guest Brighton_JunctionLNER]

Morning all,

Tony i just uploaded a few pictures of my layout on my thread (FINALLY).

 

Thought i would share this picture of the Raven A2 with you. 

Jesse 

 

Still only using my GOPRO for pictures, hence the horrible quality.

Edited May 31, 2017 by Brighton_JunctionLNER

[Daddyman]

Can any of the regular loco builders help with this one? I managed to cock-up an order for crankpins and ended up with a pack of six of the threaded variety, which I hadn't encountered before. They include a retaining bush/nut which can be screwed onto the thread using the standard Romford screwdriver, removing the need to solder on a washer. Now that I have them I feel that I might as well put them to good use, so are there any tips or pitfalls I should consider? It looks to me as if the coupling rod holes need to be reamed out a little wider than normally, to accept the diameter of the retaining bush, so there'd be no going back once I did that.

 

Alastair

I notice I have inadvertently picked up a set of these too, somewhere along the way. But given that they measure 1.0mm over threads, the same as unthreaded ones, I think I'd be tempted to use them as normal - that is, use short lengths of 1.0mm ID capillary tube as retaining nuts, a trick that Mike Edge taught me. The result is much better looking than Romford's retaining washers. Mike advised soldering them on but I've always carefully superglued them - makes them easier to remove if ever necessary, and there's less risk of melting the plastic-centered Gibsons (yes, the other part of Mike's trick was to use Romford crankpins in Gibson wheels). 

[Arthur]

The advantage of the threaded crankpins is that the threaded retaining bush has a thin head and so will be almost flush with the rod's face when screwed in. You don't have that heavy retaining bush as with standard Romfords.

 

Yes, you may need to ream the rods to accept the bush and, from memory, also reduce it's length by filing back the rear of the bush so that it is just a little deeper than the thickness of the rods. When screwed in it needs to hold the coupling rod without trapping it yet not allow too much play 'in and out'. The lightest smear of superglue on the face will fix them if you want that reassurance.

 

I've only used them for Judith Edge Janus kits where there is an etched 'roller bearing' cap that needs to be fitted over the ends of the crank pins and the standard Romford crankpin/bush arrangement would not allow that. On that, I countersunk the face of the rods so that the entire retaining bush was countersunk allowing the etched cap to be fitted to the rods, over the screwed in retaining bush.

 

They work well, are neater when fitted, but require a little more work than standard Romfords.

Edited May 31, 2017 by Arthur

[Barry Ten]

Thanks, gentleman. As it happens, these crankpins might turn out to be a good choice for the project at hand, as I'm using some Romford wheels that were previously adapted to fit a Triang chassis. At the time I opened out the crankpin holes in two pairs of wheels to allow the original coupling rods to be used, so now the crankpins are a loose fit in the wheels and would need to be retained with epoxy, rather than being screwed in. I'd be a bit worried about them loosening when heated so perhaps using the screwed ones is a good dodge on this chassis.

 

Useful advice, anyway - thanks.

[Barry Ten]

Morning all,

 

Tony i just uploaded a few pictures of my layout on my thread (FINALLY).

 

Thought i would share this picture of the Raven A2 with you. 

 

Jesse 

 

Still only using my GOPRO for pictures, hence the horrible quality.

 

The loco looks beautiful (I know the Ravens aren't everyone's cup of tea!) but I also really like the look of that double diamond crossing in the distance.

 

Good Mad Max poster too.

 

Alastair

[Barry Ten]

Absolutely, positively, the last picture of the Patriot I'll post here - but I couldn't resist one more shot of the loco, in its nearly finished state.

 

It just needs some very light weathering, and the boiler band lining needs to be encouraged to shrink down a little tighter with some more Micro-Set.

 

 

It is what it is, a Hornby body on an 00 chassis, but I'm dead pleased with it and very grateful to Tony and others who are keeping the kitbuilding mindset

alive and well in the hobby.

 

Other than the on-going Schools project, and the Cambrian 2-4-0T which needs decals and number plates, the other kitbuilding things in my immediate

future (touch wood!) are:

 

A Comet Britannia chassis, to go under a Tri-ang era body (bought from Hamleys in 1975, I think, during a birthday treat trip to London).

 

A Comet 57XX chassis, the one I'm working on at the moment, to go under a Hornby 27xx class Pannier

 

A Comet 56XX chassis, to go under a Gem body that my Dad built for me in the 70s, which needs renovation. It's the wheels

from the original Tri-ang chassis that are being donated to the 57xx chassis.

 

A Perseverance 14XX chassis, to go under an Airfix body - again from the 70s.

 

A Wills 61XX Prairie.

 

A DJH SECR D1 4-4-0.

 

A part-assembled Models and Leisure Dean Single, obtained via ebay - needs stripping and a near total re-build, but I think it should come good.

 

A part-assembled Wills Castle, needs a new etched chassis to replace the chunky one supplied.

 

These are all in the to-do pile, but I'd also like to tackle at least one "big" pacific and I've got an eye on a DJH Duchess at some point.

 

None of the above intended as boasting, I hope, just hoping to share my anticipation of lots of fun (and challenges!) ahead.

 

Alastair

Edited May 31, 2017 by Barry Ten

[Michael Edge]

I notice I have inadvertently picked up a set of these too, somewhere along the way. But given that they measure 1.0mm over threads, the same as unthreaded ones, I think I'd be tempted to use them as normal - that is, use short lengths of 1.0mm ID capillary tube as retaining nuts, a trick that Mike Edge taught me. The result is much better looking than Romford's retaining washers. Mike advised soldering them on but I've always carefully superglued them - makes them easier to remove if ever necessary, and there's less risk of melting the plastic-centered Gibsons (yes, the other part of Mike's trick was to use Romford crankpins in Gibson wheels). 

 

I don't like loose crankpin bushes on principle, in 7mm Slater's wheels they are a nightmare since they are so loose on the screws tat tightening the nuts moves them all off centre. This is random of course and can result in a formerly free running loco locking up. When I say solder the thin slices of tube on the crankpins this is only very lightly (especially when using them in Gibson wheels), if you need to take them off side cutters gently squeezed underneath them flips them off. Superglue might just run in too far and lock everything up. This slice of tube can be very thin, I slice them off with a piercing saw and always thoroughly grease the coupling rod before soldering them on. The roller bearing covers in some of our kits which Arthur mentions will fit over the top of these retainers and be lightly soldered to the coupling rods.

[Tony Wright]

Carrying on with the spirit of personally making/modifying things, friends Brian and Karen Torrance have been staying with us for a few says. 

 

As I've said before, I'm really interested in what others are doing for themselves, and Brian brought the following to run on LB. They're all his own work, including the subtle weathering and run beautifully.

 

 

A DJH 'starter' kit.

 

 

An old Nu-Cast F4, Caledonianised. The wagons are modified RTR.

 

 

A Bachmann Peak.

 

 

A Hornby Royal Scot.

 

 

And a Judith Edge Thomas Hill shunter.

 

Lovely stuff! Thanks Brian. 

 

 

[Daddyman]

I don't like loose crankpin bushes on principle, in 7mm Slater's wheels they are a nightmare since they are so loose on the screws tat tightening the nuts moves them all off centre. This is random of course and can result in a formerly free running loco locking up. When I say solder the thin slices of tube on the crankpins this is only very lightly (especially when using them in Gibson wheels), if you need to take them off side cutters gently squeezed underneath them flips them off. Superglue might just run in too far and lock everything up. This slice of tube can be very thin, I slice them off with a piercing saw and always thoroughly grease the coupling rod before soldering them on. The roller bearing covers in some of our kits which Arthur mentions will fit over the top of these retainers and be lightly soldered to the coupling rods.

Thanks, Mike. Glad to see - on the evidence of your post - that you got back from Aylesbury intact. I might have some questions for you re the Consett A tank. 

 

Re slicing the tube, I tend to cut it off long (easier to handle), then file both crankpin and retaining tube at the same time, then smear some glue over the face I've just filed - that way there's no danger of the glue entering the workings. But often the glue isn't even necessary - filing the two faces together creates a cusp on one or both, meaning the sliver of tube is less likely to come off.