Wright writes.....

[46256]

On the subject of accuracy, the latest film about Dunkirk. The director Wanted it as authentic as possible, even requiring the actors portraying the tommies to tie their bootlaces a certain way. All this authenticity ...and then apparently ....I have yet to see the film so relying on the newspapers...never a good thing...on arrival back in Blighty all aboard mk 1 coaches....

 

The foresight of British railways, building these a decade before published building dates, in anticipation of this evacuation.

[31A]

To be pedantic, the wagon visible in the picture of 61921 isn't a Private Owner (or an ex-Private Owner), but an ex LNER standard 12T Open High.

[Tony Wright]

To be pedantic, the wagon visible in the picture of 61921 isn't a Private Owner (or an ex-Private Owner), but an ex LNER standard 12T Open High.

I knew that, Steve, because of its 'E' prefix.

 

Then, why didn't I mention it? The faculties crumble even more!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I included it to show how the planking had been replaced.

 

Many thanks,

 

Tony. 

[Dr Al]

during our running, a coach came off. I investigated and the plastic bogie's axle bearings were so worn as to have the floor pan resting on the wheels' flanges. It's an original Bachmann Mk. 1, and has done many miles (with replacement wheels). Is this a common problem? If so, it's a white metal bogie replacement programme. I'll need a lot!

 

 

Hello Tony,

 

This raises an interesting question, which you are perhaps very well placed to answer with many years of experience - namely the longevity more generally in terms of wear of rolling stock (including locos) that have been run for long periods.

 

How do you find your kitbuilt models wear in terms of things like brass axle bearings, whitemetal parts, crank pins, etc? Have you ever had locos that have come to the point of needing significant parts renewed because of wear (real mechanical wear rather than consumable like motor brushes)?

 

How much do you think some of your oldest models have run?

 

Given that to pull together rolling stock for a large layout takes so long (both in time and monetarily, whether it be for kits or RTR), I find this an interesting topic to explore - perhaps one that's not been covered here before?

 

Interested to hear people's viewpoints.

 

Thanks,

Alan

[APOLLO]

My oldest loco in regular & reliable use is an early 60's 2 rail Hornby Dublo "City of London".  Although she is now a bit tatty she still runs like a swiss watch and will pull anything I care to put behind her. 

 

As to my new stuff, it's fingers crossed into the future !!

 

Brit15

[allan downes]

I'v just started reading this thread, not because I understand it, but because of the way that only Tony Wright  can write it - with great enthusiasm for locos, bits of locos, bits that shouldn't fall, bits that were always falling off, bits that I've never even heard off and always willing to praise others and admit, with great wit, his own mistakes.

 

However, ploughing through it right from page one, well..... Anyway, keep the ink flowing Tony, you've just found a new fan !

 

Allan

[glo41f]

Thank you for the wagon pictures. As you point out, the steel 16 ton types stand out in their newness which is how I remember them. I recall being very attracted to the Hornby Dublo model released in the 1950s as it looked so real (not being printed tin as the other wagons were). In one of the Meccano Magazines of the time, there was a picture of a train of these hauled by the then ubiquitous not quite and N2. I so wanted to have a train like that! It would have taken all my pocket money for the next 15 years!  How lucky we were not to have credit cards then!

 

The picture of the K2 shows how most locos looked in those days. The monochrome image conveys more about the state of the weathering than a colour one does. 

 

On the subject of "real" miles run by model locos, my friend Mr Walls reckons his A3 "Pretty Polly" has run several hundred miles. It has also worn out various parts in the process,He finds now that on the older models it is the motors that are giving up the ghost. I guess some of Roy Jackson Locos can attest to a similar mileage. I do not give much for the chances of modern models with plastic underframes lasting long without major wear but then I guess many hardly turn a wheel in anger these days as they sit in their boxes awaiting a return on the owners "investment!"

 

I love the diversity of this topic. What lovely chaps you all are!

 

Martin Long

[Tony Wright]

I'v just started reading this thread, not because I understand it, but because of the way that only Tony Wright  can write it - with great enthusiasm for locos, bits of locos, bits that shouldn't fall, bits that were always falling off, bits that I've never even heard off and always willing to praise others and admit, with great wit, his own mistakes.

 

However, ploughing through it right from page one, well..... Anyway, keep the ink flowing Tony, you've just found a new fan !

 

Allan

Thanks Allan,

 

May I suggest that readers of this thread (if they haven't already done so) take a look at your thread in 'Scenery, Structures and Transport'? Anything you can do I can do better? Not in my case when it comes to your standards in architectural modelling. 

 

Keep up the good work my old mate.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[t-b-g]

There is a big difference between the mileages run up by locos that work on a regular basis and those that get run less frequently.

 

On Buckingham, there are locos that have worked week in, week out, for (in some cases) 70 years. The total length of run is around 40ft each way, so in round numbers, a trip to the fiddle yard and back is roughly a scale mile.

 

Locos do this maybe once or twice in an operating session, which takes place twice a week. So that is 4 scale miles a week, or around 200 a year. A loco doing a 200 ft circuit on something like Retford but doing it perhaps 30 times a year does around 90 scale miles a year.

 

If I was guessing which layout has the locos with the highest mileages on I would nominate Pendon. It is a biggish circuit and the locos run frequently and go back a lot of years. In 7mm, perhaps the Gainsborough layout would put even Pendon to shame as some of those must have clocked up many, many miles due to the distance, age and regular operation of the layout.

[Tony Wright]

Hello Tony,

 

This raises an interesting question, which you are perhaps very well placed to answer with many years of experience - namely the longevity more generally in terms of wear of rolling stock (including locos) that have been run for long periods.

 

How do you find your kitbuilt models wear in terms of things like brass axle bearings, whitemetal parts, crank pins, etc? Have you ever had locos that have come to the point of needing significant parts renewed because of wear (real mechanical wear rather than consumable like motor brushes)?

 

How much do you think some of your oldest models have run?

 

Given that to pull together rolling stock for a large layout takes so long (both in time and monetarily, whether it be for kits or RTR), I find this an interesting topic to explore - perhaps one that's not been covered here before?

 

Interested to hear people's viewpoints.

 

Thanks,

Alan

Alan,

 

I can only speak from personal experience, but I've never had to (yet) replace parts in the locomotives I've made, other than motor brushes and complete motors (after years and years of hard work).

 

The oldest locos I still have, I built over 40 years ago and cannot begin to work out the miles they've run over the decades on my own first layouts (hopeless), Fordley Park, Leighford, my own Stoke Summit, the exhibition Stoke Summit, Charwelton and, now, Little Bytham; not to mention guesting on the likes of Biggleswade, Gamston Bank and (one or two, even) on Borchester. There are also other friends' layouts where I've taken them and given them a spin.

 

In almost every case, what they've been asked to do is pull heavy trains and run (if necessary) fast - very fast on LB!

 

It could well be that crankpins and motion parts are wearing, but until bits break in service then I'll follow the maxim of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. Obviously, down the years, I've attended to routine maintenance such as cleaning, adjusting pick-ups (were they might have got knocked in transit) and oiling.

 

Martin Long has mentioned the great Roy Jackson, and his magnificent Retford is a 'loco-killer', such are the weight of trains and the fiddle yard gradients. None of his locos have ever been killed by Retford, but I've seen many (some built by well-known modellers) expire after less than a circuit in some cases. I count it a feather in my cap that everything I've built a chassis for and the locos I've built in EM for friends run round and round, and round.................. without fuss or failure. In this respect I think Roy and I share a similar approach to our loco construction (he is, after all, one of my mentors) in that we make them 'right' at source. This is not arrogance I assure you, just the following of good practice; that is frames straight and true, motor/gearboxes made to mesh perfectly and up to the job, all the rods with minimum clearances and no binding in the coupling rods or motion of any kind. That way they'll run; for ages without any trouble. It's all well and good my blathering on about this kind of thing, but where is the physical evidence? I hope in the experience of those I've made locos for, those who've I've helped with their loco constructions and those who've driven trains on LB or seen them at exhibitions.

 

I suppose what it comes down to (and this applies to all who make their own motive power in whatever scale or gauge) is that how locos run, how reliable they are and how long they'll last is up to us; not some far-away factory or locos built on commission (I've gone on for too long in the past about some so called 'professionally-built' locos).

 

As for rolling stock, I can't imagine anything with brass bearings ever wearing out in years and years of service. As intimated, this is not the case with plastic RTR bogies with the pin-point steel axles running in nothing more than the depressions in the inner frames. Since establishing the cause of a coach's derailment the other day, I've noted several (modified) RTR vehicles displaying 'upwards' wear; mainly carriages, but a few wagons as well. The tip about heating-in top-hat bearings is a good one and I'll give it a try.

 

As for current RTR locos and their longevity? Please forgive my innate conservatism (with a small 'c') but, having looked at some more recent ones (steam-outline), I can't see them lasting very long when confronted with heavy loads. There's so much slop in some of their chassis that they appear to be 'half-worn-out' already - too much side-to-side play, too much play in the rods, very flimsy valve gear (some have already fallen apart in service), motors which seem a bit puny and a kind of 'fineness (which the RTR market now demands) which makes them just a bit flimsy to me. This is the complete opposite to the locos of my youth - those from Tri-ang or Hornby-Dublo. Those, of course, were very well-made toys, and would be wholly unacceptable to the purchasers of today.  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

There is a big difference between the mileages run up by locos that work on a regular basis and those that get run less frequently.

 

On Buckingham, there are locos that have worked week in, week out, for (in some cases) 70 years. The total length of run is around 40ft each way, so in round numbers, a trip to the fiddle yard and back is roughly a scale mile.

 

Locos do this maybe once or twice in an operating session, which takes place twice a week. So that is 4 scale miles a week, or around 200 a year. A loco doing a 200 ft circuit on something like Retford but doing it perhaps 30 times a year does around 90 scale miles a year.

 

If I was guessing which layout has the locos with the highest mileages on I would nominate Pendon. It is a biggish circuit and the locos run frequently and go back a lot of years. In 7mm, perhaps the Gainsborough layout would put even Pendon to shame as some of those must have clocked up many, many miles due to the distance, age and regular operation of the layout.

Tony,

 

There's also a big difference in the work locos are expected to do.

 

It's a testament to Peter's diligence and considerable skill that his locos are still going strong after all this time. That said, there's a huge difference between what's expected of locos 'trundling' round a relatively small layout, at low speeds and with light loads than those asked to haul up to 15 heavy cars, climb steep gradients and run at up to (and more) a scale 70 mph. I'm not a physicist, but I reckon there's far more potential wear on locos on a layout like Retford than any other I know, including Pendon. That they still keep on running perfectly (after 50 years in some cases?) is a testament to Roy's diligence and considerable skill. 

 

Little Bytham is nowhere near the size of Retford and, though the loads are identical in some cases, it doesn't have gradients. However, the potential for loco wear is considerably more than on a layout a quarter of its size, even though the smaller layout's locos might travel four times as much in a given period. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[allan downes]

I learn't very early in my modelling career that nobody was ever going to buy a loco built by Allan Downes and expect it to work so instead I stuck to cutting up lumps of cardboard with anything that would stick it and thank the likes of Triang and Hornby to do the rest  no matter how inaccurate  or how badly they ran where even the worst offerings were far better than anything I could produce and an inadequacy that I swiftly developed after building the entire range of Wills loco kits and not  managing to get even one to run without a magnificent explosion of sparks and parts.

 

Allan

[The Johnster]

On the subject of accuracy, the latest film about Dunkirk. The director Wanted it as authentic as possible, even requiring the actors portraying the tommies to tie their bootlaces a certain way. All this authenticity ...and then apparently ....I have yet to see the film so relying on the newspapers...never a good thing...on arrival back in Blighty all aboard mk 1 coaches....

 

The foresight of British railways, building these a decade before published building dates, in anticipation of this evacuation.

 

And all too common in films and TV; it's only a train, they're all the same, aren't they?  Inexcusable, plenty of correct and correctly liveried stock about for a decent production.  Troop trains for the Dunkirk relief operation from the South Coast ports do not even have to be Southen stock.

Edited July 26, 2017 by The Johnster

[ScRSG]

And all too common in films and TV; it's only a train, they're all the same, aren't they?  Inexcusable, plenty of correct and correctly liveried stock about for a decent production.  

 

And I've got to ask, do the suppliers of these trains, presumably Heritage lines etc. not ask what period the film is set and provide accordingly?

[t-b-g]

Tony,

 

There's also a big difference in the work locos are expected to do.

 

It's a testament to Peter's diligence and considerable skill that his locos are still going strong after all this time. That said, there's a huge difference between what's expected of locos 'trundling' round a relatively small layout, at low speeds and with light loads than those asked to haul up to 15 heavy cars, climb steep gradients and run at up to (and more) a scale 70 mph. I'm not a physicist, but I reckon there's far more potential wear on locos on a layout like Retford than any other I know, including Pendon. That they still keep on running perfectly (after 50 years in some cases?) is a testament to Roy's diligence and considerable skill.

 

Little Bytham is nowhere near the size of Retford and, though the loads are identical in some cases, it doesn't have gradients. However, the potential for loco wear is considerably more than on a layout a quarter of its size, even though the smaller layout's locos might travel four times as much in a given period.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

I have had some of the Buckingham locos on Retford and to see the little 2-4-0T tearing round with the 40 wagon fish train at a scale 70mph was quite something. It has axle holes so worn that the only thing holding the gears in mesh is the weight of the loco. If you lift the body up the gears slip.

 

The trains on Buckingham have mostly inside bearings and a huge amount of drag plus they have to negotiate 2ft radius curves and some quite dodgy track. I have pulled some of the trains along by hand and I can assure you that the locos have to work hard compared to pulling something with pin point bearings.

 

I would back something like the 4-6-0 to out pull most kit or scratch built locos, let alone any RTR ones.

 

There is no doubt that a loco hauling 15 cars round Retford has to work really hard but the query raised was about mileage and I would maintain that the Buckingham locos will be some way ahead of most others simply because of the number of hours (usually around 6) the layout is run every week.

 

As for Pendon, what about the 2-8-0 that pulled 100 wagons round week after week for years?

 

 

Tony

Edited July 26, 2017 by t-b-g

[Tony Teague]

May I pose a question to the assembled mass railway brains that follow this thread?

 

My layout is not based upon a prototype location but I certainly want it to look right and to follow correct practice etc; at one point I have a road that is descending a hill and which will cross a double track main line across a bridge.

 

My question is, would the bridge deck above the railway always have been level, with the road surface above descending at an angle across it, or would the deck itself have been set at an angle to match the descent of the road?

 

I suppose a third option might be that the descent would have to level out at the point it crossed the railway, but I would appreciate understanding which of these configurations would most likely look "right"!

 

Thanks in advance for your assistance.

 

Tony

 

(Oh, and congratulations Tony on passing 18,000 posts!)

[Rail-Online]

If I was guessing which layout has the locos with the highest mileages on I would nominate Pendon. It is a biggish circuit and the locos run frequently and go back a lot of years.

I too would go with Pendon.

The Vale scene has not been running for that long but it is an awfully big circuit with inclines to cross over from the Oxford and Bristol lines into the fiddle yards.  However the Dartmoor scene has been running for many many years and currently with 3 operating days a week (4 throughout August) plus all the testing that is an awful lot of regular operating days per annum. What visitors do not realise is that trains on the 'Sea Wall' and main line through the station have to travel all the way to the other end of the Dartmoor scene in order to get back to their fiddle yard. Some of the curves are pretty tight too! Every loco on the Dartmoor scene is either scratch built or a modified kit. Most date from the late 1970s, many before.

 

Incidentally visitor numbers appear to be steadily declining - has everyone already visited and do not want a refresher or a fresh dose of inspiration?  It is not just cottage modelling!

 

Tony

[Tony Wright]

I have had some of the Buckingham locos on Retford and to see the little 2-4-0T tearing round with the 40 wagon fish train at a scale 70mph was quite something. It has axle holes so worn that the only thing holding the gears in mesh is the weight of the loco. If you lift the body up the gears slip.

 

The trains on Buckingham have mostly inside bearings and a huge amount of drag plus they have to negotiate 2ft radius curves and some quite dodgy track. I have pulled some of the trains along by hand and I can assure you that the locos have to work hard compared to pulling something with pin point bearings.

 

I would back something like the 4-6-0 to out pull most kit or scratch built locos, let alone any RTR ones.

 

There is no doubt that a loco hauling 15 cars round Retford has to work really hard but the query raised was about mileage and I would maintain that the Buckingham locos will be some way ahead of most others simply because of the number of hours (usually around 6) the layout is run every week.

 

As for Pendon, what about the 2-8-0 that pulled 100 wagons round week after week for years?

 

 

Tony

Thanks Tony,

 

I'm not denying the mileage that Buckingham's locos run, but the original query (if I'm right, by implication) was also about potential wear. As you've so correctly pointed out, Peter's locos are so worn now, but they still run - very well.  

 

As for the 2-8-0 you mention, when I was photographing Pendon several years ago, a GWR 2-8-0 28XX (the one described?), was being moved into position for me to take a picture. It waddled along the track in a most ungainly fashion making a serious grinding noise, promptly derailed and failed! I am not in any way being disparaging about the work of the peerless Guy Williams, but it looked to me as if it were worn out. 

 

Whatever the opinions, I think it's fair to say that (well-built) locos, whether they be from scratch or kit, will out-perform and out-last the current RTR offerings. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[t-b-g]

One of the things that strikes me is that the Buckingham locos, with ages from 71 through to the babies at around 40 years old, have a lot of play and slop in them now but not quite as much as you get in a brand new RTR loco.

 

I often think of them as being nicely "run in". Several have been rebuilt with new motors over the years but at least a couple have wheels, motors and gears from when they were new.

[allan downes]

May I pose a question to the assembled mass railway brains that follow this thread?

 

My layout is not based upon a prototype location but I certainly want it to look right and to follow correct practice etc; at one point I have a road that is descending a hill and which will cross a double track main line across a bridge.

 

My question is, would the bridge deck above the railway always have been level, with the road surface above descending at an angle across it, or would the deck itself have been set at an angle to match the descent of the road?

 

I suppose a third option might be that the descent would have to level out at the point it crossed the railway, but I would appreciate understanding which of these configurations would most likely look "right"!

 

Thanks in advance for your assistance.

 

Tony

 

(Oh, and congratulations Tony on passing 18,000 posts!)

 

Does this help, Tony ?

 

Allan

 

[allan downes]

Talking about the life expectancy of locos I can remember when Graham Farish locos never had any life expectancy in them at all right from the start. It was as if the box they came in was a coffin.

 

I had two Prairies I think they were and couldn't even make a good one out of the two. Mind you, when it came to making locos I couldn't make a good one out of anything...

 

Allan.

[The Johnster]

I too would go with Pendon.

The Vale scene has not been running for that long but it is an awfully big circuit with inclines to cross over from the Oxford and Bristol lines into the fiddle yards.  However the Dartmoor scene has been running for many many years and currently with 3 operating days a week (4 throughout August) plus all the testing that is an awful lot of regular operating days per annum. What visitors do not realise is that trains on the 'Sea Wall' and main line through the station have to travel all the way to the other end of the Dartmoor scene in order to get back to their fiddle yard. Some of the curves are pretty tight too! Every loco on the Dartmoor scene is either scratch built or a modified kit. Most date from the late 1970s, many before.

 

Incidentally visitor numbers appear to be steadily declining - has everyone already visited and do not want a refresher or a fresh dose of inspiration?  It is not just cottage modelling!

 

Tony

 

Though they do model some very good cottages...

[Tony Teague]

Does this help, Tony ?

 

Allan

 

th (30).jpg

Allan

Thanks - and yes, and no - because this looks like an inclined railway over a flat road, whereas I am talking the other way around, but what it clearly shows is that some bridges were built where the two elements were not both horizontal.

So thank you.

Tony

[Northroader]

May I pose a question to the assembled mass railway brains that follow this thread?

 

My layout is not based upon a prototype location but I certainly want it to look right and to follow correct practice etc; at one point I have a road that is descending a hill and which will cross a double track main line across a bridge.

 

My question is, would the bridge deck above the railway always have been level, with the road surface above descending at an angle across it, or would the deck itself have been set at an angle to match the descent of the road?

 

I suppose a third option might be that the descent would have to level out at the point it crossed the railway, but I would appreciate understanding which of these configurations would most likely look "right"!

 

Thanks in advance for your assistance.

 

Tony

 

(Oh, and congratulations Tony on passing 18,000 posts!)

Here's an extreme case of this:https://www.flickr.com/photos/cibulukutu/6944059824/in/photostream/

[The Johnster]

May I pose a question to the assembled mass railway brains that follow this thread?

 

My layout is not based upon a prototype location but I certainly want it to look right and to follow correct practice etc; at one point I have a road that is descending a hill and which will cross a double track main line across a bridge.

 

My question is, would the bridge deck above the railway always have been level, with the road surface above descending at an angle across it, or would the deck itself have been set at an angle to match the descent of the road?

 

I suppose a third option might be that the descent would have to level out at the point it crossed the railway, but I would appreciate understanding which of these configurations would most likely look "right"!

 

Thanks in advance for your assistance.

 

Tony

 

(Oh, and congratulations Tony on passing 18,000 posts!)

 

It depends.  If you are talking about bridges over the railway, then it would really depend on the angle and gradient of approach; bridges could be skewed (in fact most were, it is rare for a road to happen to cross a railway at exactly 90 degrees), and any gradient would mostly be simply continued across the bridge.  In the case of a bridge with approach ramps on each side, the road deck is likely to be level, but I can think of one near where I live, Pengam in eastern Cardiff, which is certainly not since it's rebuilding some years ago.  Then there are instances where roads cross railways which are on differing levels, and a very common feature which is rarely modelled is a road passing underneath a railway with a bit of a dip to provide headroom.  These sometimes featured pavements which were considerably raised above the road surface, only about 6 feet below the underside of the bridge, with railings to stop people falling into the road; these were often notorious flood spots in heavy rain.

 

Where the bridge is railway over road, of course, then any gradient on the railway is continued over the bridge, but they have to be pretty steep to be noticeable and in most cases are catered for in the ballasting.  In this instance the road may also be on a gradient; Okehampton comes to mind as a quite steep one, or even a bend, though that is rarer.