Wright writes.....

[45568]

9 hours ago, stewartingram said:

Tony,

         Sorry to be a pain, but did you get chance to check the axle spacing on that generic SEF chassis kit yet?

 

Stewart

 

Stewart, Did you miss my reply earlier?

        Looking at the Wills. sorry..S.E. Finecast online catalogue, the recommended etched chassis for the LMS Caley tank and SR E2 is code FC200. Since both of these were specified for the jinty 0.6.0 mechanism, I think this would suit. Interestingly the SR G6 and GWR U1 tank use FC201, this would be the replacement for the old H/Dub;o 0.6.0 chassis as originally recommended.

 It is probably worth a call to SEF to check, but it seems like this is the answer.

 I am pleased that mine and others efforts with the J17 have inspired you..now does anyone out there have a Bec LSWR D15 kit, built or unbuilt they would like to emigrate down-under??

Cheers from Oz,

Peter C.

[St Enodoc]

12 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

 

It rather depends on which version of 00 you use, as there are many 00 "standards" for track and wheels.

 

Handbuilt track with fine flange ways , carefully laid out and ballasted, would most certainly look better than the RTR products with, wide flange ways, large switch/stock rail gaps, plastic crossings, etc. With EM and P4, the track is invariably built to the standards defined to the relevant Societies, which are closer in appearance to the real thing and therefore look somewhat more realistic or "finescale". Similarly, wheels with narrower tyres and smaller flanges, such as supplied for kits, also look better than those with wide, shiny tyres and deep flanges.

 

So perhaps the answer is "sometimes", depending on the modellers desire to create a more realistic looking model, irrespective of scale or gauge.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there Jol.

[Jesse Sim]

18 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Debbie Wood, the new manager at BRM is keen to feature more 'how-to' articles, Jonathan,

 

I (obviously) think it's a good move (especially because she's asked me to provide some of the articles), and it's a definite move away from complete RTR-reliance in my book.

 

It's also a move into a larger scale for me (at least for this one).

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

That reminds me I need to get cracking on the article I need to write. 

[queensquare]

12 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Of course, Chris,

 

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll alter it.

 

Carelessness on my part. I 'rejoice' when others find faults in my English, and they should be pointed out. However, though not in my case, take care if doing so with the words of some others. They can take offence!  

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

I don't take offence when things I have written are corrected, I just find it a bit tedious knowing that anything posted will be marked for spelling and grammar as much as content, its the main reason I only make very occasional contributions. Threads like this rattle along at a fair pace, much like a conversation, and minor errors creep in. So long as what is being said is understood does it really matter?

 

Jerry  

[Tony Wright]

17 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

 

It rather depends on which version of 00 you use, as there are many 00 "standards" for track and wheels.

 

Handbuilt track with fine flange ways , carefully laid out and ballasted, would most certainly look better than the RTR products with, wide flange ways, large switch/stock rail gaps, plastic crossings, etc. With EM and P4, the track is invariably built to the standards defined to the relevant Societies, which are closer in appearance to the real thing and therefore look somewhat more realistic or "finescale". Similarly, wheels with narrower tyres and smaller flanges, such as supplied for kits, also look better than those with wide, shiny tyres and deep flanges.

 

So perhaps the answer is "sometimes", depending on the modellers desire to create a more realistic looking model, irrespective of scale or gauge.

Thanks Jol,

 

As John Nuttall has so wisely pointed out, your last statement is very apposite. 

 

Regarding OO, historically the number of different standards has been bewildering, many of which were completely incompatible. As a boy, I was told by the likes of Cyril Freezer that Trix, Tri-ang and Hornby-Dublo were all 'incompatible'. Since I had no idea what that meant, and by pooing resources with mates, if Trix Twin track were used (insulated three-rail), then all three systems could be run (not Trix AC) together, as long as a Tri-ang loco didn't pull a Hornby-Dublo (three-rail) train and any other trains with all-metal wheels were in an insulated siding if a two-rail loco were running. As for the couplings, we just bent and twisted them to suit. Incompatible? It was all great fun, so thanks to Evo (a contraction of Evans, who had the Trix track), we thoroughly enjoyed ourselves by just switching the feed wires around as appropriate. Hornby-Dublo two rail stock made life easier, though the different wheel standards all round did produce some lumps, bumps and derailments!  

 

Thankfully, all modern OO locos/stock are now (or should be) compatible, and (also thankfully) the 'Universal' track of yore is a thing of the past. Some systems might still be described as such, but the flangeways are much closer to scale and will happily take RP25 profiles with complete satisfaction. Indeed, many RTR locos/stock have wheels to RP25 standards (finescale OO?), though not the bogie/pony wheels on locos, which continue to be very 'chunky', though they do run. 

 

Though a layout's 'ethos' might be 'finescale', I don't think any track made/laid in OO (even by the best) could ever be considered 'fine scale' (note the splitting) because, even if the flangeways might be fine, it's still 'narrow gauge'.

 

 

Viewed from the side, it's hard to tell whether fine OO trackwork is that or EM (even P4?). Perhaps the wheels tell us that it can't be P4.

 

 

However, when viewed from head-on (or even near head-on), then there's no doubting the narrow gauge.

 

 

Especially if the camera is placed directly on the track!

 

 

No such gauge 'restrictions' apply on your own London Road, and the width between the wheel-sets is spot-on. It helps if it's a very high standard of modelling all round, of course - as here. 

 

 

St. Merryn provides exactly that same 'finescale' look, and the overall modelling is to an equally-high standard 

 

I concede the narrow gauge on LB, though I still maintain it's more 'finescale' in its outlook than many layouts, P4 or otherwise? Why? Because it's a model of an actual prototype. That, to me, is the most important aspect of any finescale or fine scale model. The second most important aspect is good running, which I will not compromise on. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

25 minutes ago, queensquare said:

 

I don't take offence when things I have written are corrected, I just find it a bit tedious knowing that anything posted will be marked for spelling and grammar as much as content, its the main reason I only make very occasional contributions. Threads like this rattle along at a fair pace, much like a conversation, and minor errors creep in. So long as what is being said is understood does it really matter?

 

Jerry  

'So long as what is being said is understood does it really matter?'

 

Not at all, Jerry,

 

And, as long as what's written is understood, then that's fine. 

 

What I find surprising is that you might be dissuaded from posting on here because 'incorrect' bits of your postings might be picked-up and commented on. Your much-anticipated words of wisdom are far more important than the way in which they might be arranged! So, please, keep posting.

 

From my own perspective, if I write things wrongly on here, I deserve to have my clumsy grammatical errors pointed out. Why? As an ex-teacher and ex-professional journalist I should know better. In fact, any journalist should.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

There, I've edited this because of my own tautology! I'd used 'important' twice...................

Edited July 27, 2019 by Tony Wright
typo error

[Dave Hunt]

As a 'finescale' modeller, in my case S7, I am naturally inclined to take the stance that P4, 2mm finescale, S7 etc. are better than 00 for the appearance of individual models but when it comes to large, prototypically accurate, layouts with finer 00 standards the overall appearance can be such that the impression is of uniform accuracy and the narrowness of the gauge is not noticeable. This is typified by Little Bytham and those of us who have been fortunate enough to see it in the flesh will also know that although it is 00 the appearance of the track is excellent, with finer than normal flangeways, and the overall impression is enhanced by superb running with none of the 'clunking' that usually accompanies the transit of 00 pointwork. The latter, of course, is due mainly to Norman Solomons' superb tracklaying on the scenic section and is not the case in the fiddle yards where commercial track and points are used.

 

Although I am citing LB as an outstanding example of what can be achieved in 00, it is far from unique in that respect when it comes to 'finer scale' modelling but when one stands and watches scale length, accurately portrayed, beautifully weathered trains running smoothly on an historically accurate piece of railway with beautifully represented scenery and infrastructure, the effect is equally as pleasing, at least to me, as examining in detail a truly ' finescale' model.

 

Dave

[CF MRC]

Like Tony, I always try to write posts in good, entertaining English. It comes from trying to correct a couple of dozen PhDs and many more joint author papers over the years.  However, when reading material that I wrote many years ago, there was a ‘free’ style that has now diminished. 

 

Tim

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, CF MRC said:

Like Tony, I always try to write posts in good, entertaining English. It comes from trying to correct a couple of dozen PhDs and many more joint author papers over the years.  However, when reading material that I wrote many years ago, there was a ‘free’ style that has now diminished. 

 

Tim

Thanks Tim,

 

I think on a forum like this, whether written English is 'correct' or not is largely irrelevant, as long, as Jerry has stated, what's written is clearly understood. It's the content which is far more important, and nobody should be dissuaded from posting pictures of their work on here because they think that their written accompaniment might be inaccurate. Nor should they be dissuaded from posting comments on here for the same reasons. 

 

Where I do take issue (and I've mentioned this before) is where mistakes in English appear all over the 'professional' media; in print, on the radio, on television and online.

 

As an example, I've now given up watching women's cricket on TV. Not because I think that the England team isn't much good (though they're being stuffed by the Aussies), but because of the appalling annunciation/pronunciation of some of the female commentators. I cringe at their lack of understanding that many associated cricketing words such as playing, batting, bowling, fielding and so on end in a consonant - in this case a 'g'. There's no doubt I can understand what they're saying, but I refuse to listen to such a dreadful example of verbal sloppiness and idleness, because, in my opinion, that's what it is. 

 

And, it's not just in sports' commentary. To me, I just seem to be listening more and more to a growing erosion in the standards of speech across both radio and television. Expertise in a subject is not enough to be a professional commentator in my view. One should also be able to speak 'correctly'. 

 

Ah, the delights of growing old!

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[t-b-g]

I am with Jerry on this one. I like to think that I can string a few words together in a reasonable fashion but on this thread, the slightest error in spelling or grammar will be highlighted and mentioned.

 

I know what I should type but as a self taught keyboard basher, my brain and fingers don't always work in perfect harmony and the dreaded auto correct function and the size of my keyboard on the tablet device will lead to the odd slip up.

 

So I end up proof reading my own posts before I hit the post button, just in case. Even with my reading glasses the text is so small that the difference between, say, I and i is almost impossible to see.

 

To anybody thinking of contributing, it might be a bit offputting.

 

I am not advocating sloppy spelling or grammar. Just that every little mistake doesn't need drawing attention to it.

 

 

[Barry Ten]

Last night I cracked on with the SE&CR D1/E1  loco, adding the boiler and front bogie:

 

 

Still much to be done but the bit I was expecting to be tricky, the bogie springing, works perfectly. I had to be a bit creative with the bogie mounting as the supplied M2 screws are all the wrong length (3x15mm instead of 2x12 and 1x21mm respectively as specified) so the intended mounting method doesn't work, but after some head scratching I came up with a workaround.

 

Now time to solder the rods on, and make a decision about which class of Maunsell-rebuilt formerly Wainwright 4-4-0 it shall be!

 

I'm just back from my usual Saturday morning Parkrun, by the way. Do any other Wright Writes regulars take part? I know there are a few RMwebbers from elsewhere in the forum.

 

Al

[Tony Wright]

34 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I am with Jerry on this one. I like to think that I can string a few words together in a reasonable fashion but on this thread, the slightest error in spelling or grammar will be highlighted and mentioned.

 

I know what I should type but as a self taught keyboard basher, my brain and fingers don't always work in perfect harmony and the dreaded auto correct function and the size of my keyboard on the tablet device will lead to the odd slip up.

 

So I end up proof reading my own posts before I hit the post button, just in case. Even with my reading glasses the text is so small that the difference between, say, I and i is almost impossible to see.

 

To anybody thinking of contributing, it might be a bit offputting.

 

I am not advocating sloppy spelling or grammar. Just that every little mistake doesn't need drawing attention to it.

 

 

'I am not advocating sloppy spelling or grammar. Just that every little mistake doesn't need drawing attention to it.'

 

A good idea, Tony,

 

Let's all apply it, except in the situations where I make a spelling/grammatical error. Those DO need pointing out.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

37 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

Last night I cracked on with the SE&CR D1/E1  loco, adding the boiler and front bogie:

 

 

Still much to be done but the bit I was expecting to be tricky, the bogie springing, works perfectly. I had to be a bit creative with the bogie mounting as the supplied M2 screws are all the wrong length (3x15mm instead of 2x12 and 1x21mm respectively as specified) so the intended mounting method doesn't work, but after some head scratching I came up with a workaround.

 

Now time to solder the rods on, and make a decision about which class of Maunsell-rebuilt formerly Wainwright 4-4-0 it shall be!

 

I'm just back from my usual Saturday morning Parkrun, by the way. Do any other Wright Writes regulars take part? I know there are a few RMwebbers from elsewhere in the forum.

 

Al

Lovely work Al,

 

Thanks for posting. 

 

One point, do count the number of spokes in an SR 4-4-0's bogie wheels. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Barry Ten]

3 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Lovely work Al,

 

Thanks for posting. 

 

One point, do count the number of spokes in an SR 4-4-0's bogie wheels. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I would have thought DJH supplied the correct wheelsets? I just ticked the "add wheels" option when I bought the kit from their website.

[t-b-g]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Jol,

 

As John Nuttall has so wisely pointed out, your last statement is very apposite. 

 

Regarding OO, historically the number of different standards has been bewildering, many of which were completely incompatible. As a boy, I was told by the likes of Cyril Freezer that Trix, Tri-ang and Hornby-Dublo were all 'incompatible'. Since I had no idea what that meant, and by pooing resources with mates, if Trix Twin track were used (insulated three-rail), then all three systems could be run (not Trix AC) together, as long as a Tri-ang loco didn't pull a Hornby-Dublo (three-rail) train and any other trains with all-metal wheels were in an insulated siding if a two-rail loco were running. As for the couplings, we just bent and twisted them to suit. Incompatible? It was all great fun, so thanks to Evo (a contraction of Evans, who had the Trix track), we thoroughly enjoyed ourselves by just switching the feed wires around as appropriate. Hornby-Dublo two rail stock made life easier, though the different wheel standards all round did produce some lumps, bumps and derailments!  

 

Thankfully, all modern OO locos/stock are now (or should be) compatible, and (also thankfully) the 'Universal' track of yore is a thing of the past. Some systems might still be described as such, but the flangeways are much closer to scale and will happily take RP25 profiles with complete satisfaction. Indeed, many RTR locos/stock have wheels to RP25 standards (finescale OO?), though not the bogie/pony wheels on locos, which continue to be very 'chunky', though they do run. 

 

Though a layout's 'ethos' might be 'finescale', I don't think any track made/laid in OO (even by the best) could ever be considered 'fine scale' (note the splitting) because, even if the flangeways might be fine, it's still 'narrow gauge'.

 

 

Viewed from the side, it's hard to tell whether fine OO trackwork is that or EM (even P4?). Perhaps the wheels tell us that it can't be P4.

 

 

However, when viewed from head-on (or even near head-on), then there's no doubting the narrow gauge.

 

 

Especially if the camera is placed directly on the track!

 

 

No such gauge 'restrictions' apply on your own London Road, and the width between the wheel-sets is spot-on. It helps if it's a very high standard of modelling all round, of course - as here. 

 

 

St. Merryn provides exactly that same 'finescale' look, and the overall modelling is to an equally-high standard 

 

I concede the narrow gauge on LB, though I still maintain it's more 'finescale' in its outlook than many layouts, P4 or otherwise? Why? Because it's a model of an actual prototype. That, to me, is the most important aspect of any finescale or fine scale model. The second most important aspect is good running, which I will not compromise on. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

The biggest "give away" for the gauge of a model on the bigger LNER Classes is the amount of frame visible at the rear, where the rear frame for the trailing wheel comes away from the main frame behind the rear driving wheel. That and the relationship of the rear driving wheel to the front edge of the firebox.

 

To me, they give away the gauge more than the track itself.

 

I really can't think of any way of disguising it but the frame shows in a sideways view almost as much as in a front on view.

 

Finescale is nothing about modelling a real place to me. We will always differ on that point. There have been too many very good finescale layouts of fictitious places for that to come into it. I have built EM gauge layouts based on real places and on fictional places. Both built using the same materials and to the same standards. How can one be "finescale" and the other not? 

 

With the running, I am with you 100%. A P4 or EM  layout that doesn't run well is certainly no more "finescale" than a good 00 layout that does run. If you can't build your track, baseboards and stock well enough to make them work well, you have tried to go "finescale" but failed. 

Edited July 27, 2019 by t-b-g

[nerron]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Tim,

 

I think on a forum like this, whether written English is 'correct' or not is largely irrelevant, as long, as Jerry has stated, what's written is clearly understood. It's the content which is far more important, and nobody should be dissuaded from posting pictures of their work on here because they think that their written accompaniment might be inaccurate. Nor should they be dissuaded from posting comments on here for the same reasons. 

 

Where I do take issue (and I've mentioned this before) is where mistakes in English appear all over the 'professional' media; in print, on the radio, on television and online.

 

As an example, I've now given up watching women's cricket on TV. Not because I think that the England team isn't much good (though they're being stuffed by the Aussies), but because of the appalling annunciation/pronunciation of some of the female commentators. I cringe at their lack of understanding that many associated cricketing words such as playing, batting, bowling, fielding and so on end in a consonant - in this case a 'g'. There's no doubt I can understand what they're saying, but I refuse to listen to such a dreadful example of verbal sloppiness and idleness, because, in my opinion, that's what it is. 

 

And, it's not just in sports' commentary. To me, I just seem to be listening more and more to a growing erosion in the standards of speech across both radio and television. Expertise in a subject is not enough to be a professional commentator in my view. One should also be able to speak 'correctly'. 

 

Ah, the delights of growing old!

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

They are clearly not from Birmingham, for as my good Brummy friend says "no accent pays more homage to the G than the Birmingham".

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

'I am not advocating sloppy spelling or grammar. Just that every little mistake doesn't need drawing attention to it.'

 

A good idea, Tony,

 

Let's all apply it, except in the situations where I make a spelling/grammatical error. Those DO need pointing out.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I think that the point has been well-made. Unless there is a problem with the meaning, there's no need to point out the mistakes of others, although sometimes with people who know each other it can lead to the opportunity for a bit of good-natured joshing. Embarrassing folk whose writing skills are, for good reasons, not as good as those of others is not fair though.

 

For me, the biggest problem is that I often don't spot the wiggly red line under a mis-spelled word until after I've clicked on the "Submit" button...

[grahame]

6 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

 

For me, the biggest problem is that I often don't spot the wiggly red line under a mis-spelled word until after I've clicked on the "Submit" button...

 

Worse is when the auto-speller/corrector, predictive text interpreter or whatever changes what you have mistyped in to a correctly spelt word but one that is not what you meant and has a completely different meaning. Plus, of course, there's no red wiggly underline to help spot it.

 

G

[Dave John]

Personally I prefer to use a simple text editor such as textedit on a mac to prepare a post before copying it onto a site. This enables me to type in a large readable font and makes the spotting and correction of errors far simpler.

 

Back to track. Not the best of photos but I do think that using scale sized components makes a difference if you are trying to model pre grouping practice. The dimensions specified by the CR are known and have been published in “The True Line” so I just made jigs and spacers from those figures and then laid the track. The CR used crushed limestone ballast and so did I.

 

[Evertonian]

2 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

I think that the point has been well-made. Unless there is a problem with the meaning, there's no need to point out the mistakes of others, although sometimes with people who know each other it can lead to the opportunity for a bit of good-natured joshing. Embarrassing folk whose writing skills are, for good reasons, not as good as those of others is not fair though.

 

For me, the biggest problem is that I often don't spot the wiggly red line under a mis-spelled word until after I've clicked on the "Submit" button...

 

My post when "correcting" Tony was meant in a spirit of fun, knowing his fastidious use of English and in view of his own post when picking up the

wrong spelling of definite recently. I have not in the past, or intend in the future, to embarrass anybody regarding their spelling or use of English

on this or any other thread.

 

Chris K

[Buhar]

2 hours ago, Dave John said:

The CR used crushed limestone ballast and so did I.

When and where did the red ballast start to be used in Scotland?  Anyone know?

[Clive Mortimore]

22 minutes ago, Evertonian said:

 

My post when "correcting" Tony was meant in a spirit of fun, knowing his fastidious use of English and in view of his own post when picking up the

wrong spelling of definite recently. I have not in the past, or intend in the future, to embarrass anybody regarding their spelling or use of English

on this or any other thread.

 

Chris K

Hi Chris and all

 

I understand were you are coming from and Tony has acknowledged it.

 

This is not aimed at you Chris but hopefully for everyone else to think before posting "You are wrong".  I am one of those whose written English (and spoken) ain't perfect, I have dyslexia and to be honest it has made my life quite hard at times. I have been past by in promotion, not allowed to sit exams because of my poor English despite being top of the class in the subject. It is embarrassing and hurtful when someone on something like this forum points out a spelling mistake....they will not be the first or last to do so. I think I might have upset people when I have asked them not to point out my errors as I normally do so because I am upset myself so my PM is not always the nicest. 

 

So a little request if you do see a spelling mistake, think does the person who wrote the post have a problem with written English? It is much kinder to send a polite PM to help the person. 

 

There is an exception, some geezer who says he was a teacher and a journo.  Is he open sport? 

[Bucoops]

I consider my English to be reasonable, my spelling ability good, and my grammar I know to be not particularly good. I'm fortunate to have had a good education, and foolish enough to have wasted quite of a lot of it.

 

This kind of discussion always reminds me of the phrase "Why use a big word when a diminutive one will suffice".

 

I'm always happy to be corrected - be it my spelling, grammar, or factual content (I seem to be good at getting that completely wrong!).

[ScRSG]

8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Jol,

 

As John Nuttall has so wisely pointed out, your last statement is very apposite. 

 

Regarding OO, historically the number of different standards has been bewildering, many of which were completely incompatible. As a boy, I was told by the likes of Cyril Freezer that Trix, Tri-ang and Hornby-Dublo were all 'incompatible'. Since I had no idea what that meant, and by pooing resources with mates, if Trix Twin track were used (insulated three-rail), then all three systems could be run (not Trix AC) together, as long as a Tri-ang loco didn't pull a Hornby-Dublo (three-rail) train and any other trains with all-metal wheels were in an insulated siding if a two-rail loco were running. As for the couplings, we just bent and twisted them to suit. Incompatible? It was all great fun, so thanks to Evo (a contraction of Evans, who had the Trix track), we thoroughly enjoyed ourselves by just switching the feed wires around as appropriate. Hornby-Dublo two rail stock made life easier, though the different wheel standards all round did produce some lumps, bumps and derailments!  

 

 

In light of recent comments, I trust this was not a Freudian slip?

 

Chas

[grahame]

9 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

This kind of discussion always reminds me of the phrase "Why use a big word when a diminutive one will suffice".

 

 

There are plenty on RMweb (not just this thread) who are inebriated by the exuberance of their own verbosity.

 

G