Wright writes.....

[SuperD]

10 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning SuperD,

 

sorting the chain out took quite a bit of research, partly because nobody in model railway land had any idea what sort of chain was used on the real thing. Suppliers and even the most sophisticated modeling was using what is called cable chain. This is completely the wrong sort, the links being rounded like the knit of a cable jumper. The real links were stretched to give them greater strength, in smaller scales this is called paper clip chain.

 

Fortunately, Naval modelers were far more knowledgeable on such stuff than their railway counterparts. With their assistance and by counting of links on many a photograph and drawings, I was able to work out that 1/350 scale anchor chain was a very good match for the heavy chain used on bogie bolsters. Not all  1/350 anchor chain is equal however, there are good products and not so good products. The pandemic made it impossible to eyeball various chains and supplies started to disappear around the world. I finally settled on Artwox 1/350 scale ship chain, it is the Bees knees for what I wanted. Eventually I tracked the product down to Australia. With the pandemic at last in protracted retreat, it may be now available closer to home, you would have to shop around. The chain is raw brass so it requires blackening, I used Birchwood Casey brass black but I also painted the links.

 

The stanchions are from Wizard models, the working 'D ring' shackles are just folded 4.5 mm brass rod, hooks, eyes and screw shackles are from the Roxey mouldings range. The screw shackles are not super detailed but they really don't need to be,  the products that are super detailed are so overscale they look comical.

Hi Headstock, you've obviously done a great deal of research on this, for which I thank you.  I had a project in mind and bought some bogie bolsters, but I was never happy with the chain that I bought  so shelved it.  If I can get some of this I'll resurrect it.  Once again, thank you.

[dibateg]

It's a bit easier in 7mm scale with a 9F, on this one I used Ragstone brake castings instead of the DJH ones as they were better. The brake hangers are tucked neatly against the frames. I hadn't realised that the 4mm scale ones were wrong, although it is a good few years now since they left my possession.. You can see the sand filler pipe leading from the running plate to the sand box between the frames. 

 

Regards

Tony

[Tony Wright]

58 minutes ago, dibateg said:

It's a bit easier in 7mm scale with a 9F, on this one I used Ragstone brake castings instead of the DJH ones as they were better. The brake hangers are tucked neatly against the frames. I hadn't realised that the 4mm scale ones were wrong, although it is a good few years now since they left my possession.. You can see the sand filler pipe leading from the running plate to the sand box between the frames. 

 

Regards

Tony

Brilliant work Tony,

 

You certainly produce a splendid 9F........

 

 

I believe you built this for Terry Yeend.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[LNER4479]

12 hours ago, EHertsGER said:

Finished! Turned out quite well…

Anyone wondering what a fellow claiming allegiance to the GER in East Herts is doing with a Coronation

No excuse whatsoever required to have a model of Stanier's finest.

Just another 37 to go ...

[Iain.d]

Towards the end of last year, I started rebuilding a heavily damaged DJH 7F that I bought from eBay in 2013. On stripping the whole thing down – it was glued together – I wondered if it had ever actually run; I think not as there were no pickups to the loco’s motor (a Portescap) nor did it look as though any had ever been fitted. But the tender has ‘run’ because there are significant wheel wear marks on the whitemetal on the inside of the chassis.

 

 

I decided to start rebuilding the tender so put together a Comet tender chassis and fit that. The chassis as supplied needed shortening by quite a few mm at each end to fit the whitemetal body. I had to relocate the guard irons (twice!), first as part of the shortening of the frames and then again to allow the fitting of the removable brake gear. At the moment the original wheels are being re-used but I think I’ll replace them with Gibson’s.

 

 

I made up a set of tender pick-ups, although I’m not sure if they’ll be required on an eight coupled loco but at least they’re done if the need arises. There’s not a lot of room between the frames and I removed quite a lot of whitemetal from the inside of the tender to avoid electrical shorts and allow the wheels some lateral movement. Also the front fixing for the sub chassis is raised to allow the pickups to have clearance below.

 

 

I need to think have a think about the coupling method to the loco and how I’m going to finish off the front end. I have to file a new rear coal plate from brass strip, fit a tool box and water filler.

 

 

I filled the two (massively oversize) holes for the brake handle and water scoop (not needed) on the footplate with some solder and whitemetal off cuts and smoothed off the excess. I will use a bit more filler around the old handrail holes and along the back of the tender to tidy things up. Brass steps will replace the original whitemetal ones -  the drag beam will likely be brass to help secure the front ones. So far, a very enjoyable few hours of modelling over the last couple of weeks.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

Edited April 1, 2022 by Iain.d
Spelling. Reload photos.

[juke]

 

Quote

....should find that wonderful song ‘December ‘63, oh, what a night!’ in their music collection

I'm intrigued what the connection could be, given the story contained in the lyrics'?

 

It is great song though!

 

Syd

[Tony Wright]

14 hours ago, great central said:

All the 9Fs shown look superb apart from one small thing missing I noticed when looking around an ex Barry hulk at Butterley many years ago.

I was building a DJH one at the time so made a good visual study.

There are sandbox fillers on the footplate and large diameter pipes, 6" perhaps, lead down to the sandboxes between the frames, none of the  models appear to have them and, to me, it emphasises the emptiness between the frames and boiler bottom.

I found a decent side view of Evening Star by Googling, if there any copyright issues I will remove.

 

https://alchetron.com/BR-Standard-Class-9F-92220-Evening-Star

Will these do?

 

 

Fitted to a modified/detailed/weathered Bachmann 9F by me.

 

 

Because the Bachmann chassis is a solid lump, from slightly higher up they're less effective.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

More done on the DJH 9F..........

 

 

As always, thorough layout testing is undertaken at several stages. I've just got to complete it now.

 

 

There's no doubt the Bachmann 9F is a lovely model, and I still retain this one (though I should replace its pony wheels).

 

What the forthcoming Hornby one will be like, I don't know. Very good, I'd imagine, but it leads to yet more duplication. 

[Tony Wright]

Mucking around with photography this morning, I've tried a few more panning shots; with mixed results................

 

 

MILES BEEVOR (SE Finecast/Wright/Rathbone) on the Scotch Goods.

 

 

GREAT NORTHERN (Crownline/Wright/Rathbone) on an Up York/Hull express.

 

Considering this was to have been the 'prototype' for the post-War A1s, it's fortunate that the production ones had little in common with this.

 

 

GREAT EASTERN (DJH/Wright/Haynes) on an Up Newcastle express presents are far better-balanced loco. 

 

 

England's solitary A2/1, DUKE OF ROTHESAY (Jamieson hand-cut kit/Wright) on a Down Newcastle fast. 

 

This type and the A1/1 are the only two remaining classes of ER/NER/ScR RA9 locos not available RTR. For how long? 

 

 

A real hybrid; St. PETER'S SCHOOL YORK (Nu-Cast/Crownline/DJH/Bachmann/Wright/Rathbone) hurtles down from Stoke on a Dringhouses-Kings Cross fitted freight. 

 

I think these shots convey what LB is really all about - speed! One has to possess really good eyes to check on details like brakes as these things flash past. 

[MJI]

I do like the Bachmann 9F, I think it is a lovely model.

 

Now a new question.

 

Couplings.

 

For a diversion layout, quite a few kits.

 

Normal tension locks are just too big.

 

Want something neater and nicer looking to go on about 8 coaches, 3 locos and 20 wagons.

 

Will need to be able to shunt.

[MJI]

[MJI]

Now fitted roof vents and some more brake gear. Then will go upstairs into the primer queue box

[Headstock]

44 minutes ago, MJI said:

 

Afternoon Martin,

 

Nice looking work, I like the buffers, Lanarkshire?

 

Onwards LMS vans..... and forwards.....and backwards too.

 

A couple of questions.

 

I thought you were using the BR clasp brake gear? The Dapol van is on the LMS J hanger chassis with the LMS clasp brake gear. Shouldn't the vac cylinder be visible on the clutch side, to the right of the V hanger?

 

I notice that you have changed the chassis on the Ratio van, I was wondering why, as BR just fitted the cheap as chips Morton vac brake to the existing chassis?

[t-b-g]

7 hours ago, dibateg said:

It's a bit easier in 7mm scale with a 9F, on this one I used Ragstone brake castings instead of the DJH ones as they were better. The brake hangers are tucked neatly against the frames. I hadn't realised that the 4mm scale ones were wrong, although it is a good few years now since they left my possession.. You can see the sand filler pipe leading from the running plate to the sand box between the frames. 

 

Regards

Tony

 

Lovely! As lovely as a big lump of black loco can be anyway.

 

The brakes look just right on that one, which allows the wheels to be nice and close together.

 

The brackets, rear drag beam, frame holes, pipes, brake gear brackets and operating rod all add up to create add interest and realism to that big void under the cab that just looks empty on the DJH/Model Loco versions. The fact that the tender footsteps are actually under the cab floor, instead of well behind it, just adds to the realistic appearance too. 

 

I have never been a fan of the idea that you don't need to get things right on a model as long as you run it past so fast that nobody can see what is wrong with it.

 

You might get away with all sorts of sins until somebody takes a still photo. Build the model properly and the loco looks correct both running past and in a still photo, surely the best of both worlds.

 

When a loco that looks that good, in a larger than life sized close up, it is a super example of excellent modelmaking.

[MJI]

44 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

Afternoon Martin,

 

Nice looking work, I like the buffers, Lanarkshire?

 

Onwards LMS vans..... and forwards.....and backwards too.

 

A couple of questions.

 

I thought you were using the BR clasp brake gear? The Dapol van is on the LMS J hanger chassis with the LMS clasp brake gear. Shouldn't the vac cylinder be visible on the clutch side, to the right of the V hanger?

 

I notice that you have changed the chassis on the Ratio van, I was wondering why, as BR just fitted the cheap as chips Morton vac brake to the existing chassis?

 

Yes Lanarkshire buffers

 

The Ratio van is per kit but in BR condition, only difference with my reference picture is axle boxes (only just noticed). Just added the rest of the brake bits and replaced the tie rods as they broke off.

 

Don Rowland book P62 plate 56 I see what you mean, different axle boxes and brake levers.

 

But I am not changing it, why?

 

Because I have found a photo of a BR van body with LMS J hangers like plate 56 BUT axle boxes like the photo I found of the one I want to model. So it is correct for that vehicle. Pretty sure BR body as no shadow on the verticals unlike the other one I can see.

 

In the same rake there is the 4 shoe brake LMS based one BUT the axle boxes are bigger. I will lop them off and use Parkside Tube axle boxes as mine all are STVs with roller bearings (as per real ones I saw).

 

I will be producing another Dapol based BR one, I will use the above piccie to get that one right.

 

It looks like everything else, model what is there.

 

Had this with my 16 ton minerals.

 

And all my Mark ones have the correct bogies and brake gear!

 

If my blue era trains are having the correct variants of air conditioned stock, my branch project can with its stock as well.

[MJI]

Brake cylinder is there, not finished the brake rigging that is all.

[Tony Wright]

13 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Lovely! As lovely as a big lump of black loco can be anyway.

 

The brakes look just right on that one, which allows the wheels to be nice and close together.

 

The brackets, rear drag beam, frame holes, pipes, brake gear brackets and operating rod all add up to create add interest and realism to that big void under the cab that just looks empty on the DJH/Model Loco versions. The fact that the tender footsteps are actually under the cab floor, instead of well behind it, just adds to the realistic appearance too. 

 

I have never been a fan of the idea that you don't need to get things right on a model as long as you run it past so fast that nobody can see what is wrong with it.

 

You might get away with all sorts of sins until somebody takes a still photo. Build the model properly and the loco looks correct both running past and in a still photo, surely the best of both worlds.

 

When a loco that looks that good, in a larger than life sized close up, it is a super example of excellent modelmaking.

As a model-maker of who clearly builds his models 'un-properly', might I suggest it's horses for courses?

 

With nigh-on 200 locos I've built which can run on Little Bytham, they are obviously 'layout locos'; complete with all the compromises which are endemic in the breed. My lack of skill, fortitude, patience, reluctance to alter things too much, indolence and zeal with regard to how my locos run all militate against the creation of 'perfection'.

 

To praise a (clearly superlative) model, is it necessary to qualify it with 'criticisms' of others?  

 

I know. I'll buy a really cheap camera, and that way, even in a still picture I'll take with it, nobody will be able to see all the mistakes.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited February 6, 2022 by Tony Wright
to add something

[MJI]

The next task I have is to learn CAD as I want to produce some unavailable wagons (kit or RTR)

 

BR 1/203 ply van based on GWR practise.

BR 1/032 6 plank open based on GWR practise.

 

Once I have them right I will print off at least 5 vans and 4 opens

 

One wagon rake is

 

BR Van (Ply pre VVV) (Parkside)

Planked GWR Van as per Ratio

BR Built LMS van (Dapol/Parkside)

Random van (still to ID)

2 x 6 planks

LMS Van with 4 shoe brakes

 

No others visible but NBL Type 2 and a VB Toad next to them.

[MJI]

And my David Larkin book, same again but different brake levers

[dibateg]

Oh dear  - I didn't mean to spark anything off! The reason I moved to 7mm scale is that I enjoy the detail and realism that can be achieved in that scale with the individual models. My models are no better than Tony's, they are just different. They are expected to perform properly of course and a spell running on any sizable layout will soon expose any weaknesses...

What Bytham achieves, is a convincing recreation of the ECML and I never tire of seeing pictures of it. I can immerse myself in to the atmosphere of it and it reminds me of Charwelton and Stoke Summit. It is unlikely that I'll ever be able to achieve that with my own layout.

 

I do recall the 4mm DJH 9Fs being a bit empty under the cab, I think I used Chaplin injectors and feed valves . On the 7mm ones I ditched the DJH  castings and used lost wax Ragstone ones in their place. Those 4mm models look right in their environment, no one ever called out my DJH 9Fs for having the wrong wheel base! When the trains are running by, as long as they look convincing, you don't want to get too hung up on the details. Photographs will pick stuff ( or the lack of it ) out, so work to the level of detail you are comfortable with. Conversely when my 7mm scale models are on a display stand I know they will be highly scrutinised!

 

It's nice to share our model making and I'm always interested in what others are up to. Anything creative is good....

 

Tony

 

 

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, MJI said:

 

Yes Lanarkshire buffers

 

The Ratio van is per kit but in BR condition, only difference with my reference picture is axle boxes (only just noticed). Just added the rest of the brake bits and replaced the tie rods as they broke off.

 

Don Rowland book P62 plate 56 I see what you mean, different axle boxes and brake levers.

 

But I am not changing it, why?

 

Because I have found a photo of a BR van body with LMS J hangers like plate 56 BUT axle boxes like the photo I found of the one I want to model. So it is correct for that vehicle. Pretty sure BR body as no shadow on the verticals unlike the other one I can see.

 

In the same rake there is the 4 shoe brake LMS based one BUT the axle boxes are bigger. I will lop them off and use Parkside Tube axle boxes as mine all are STVs with roller bearings (as per real ones I saw).

 

I will be producing another Dapol based BR one, I will use the above piccie to get that one right.

 

It looks like everything else, model what is there.

 

Had this with my 16 ton minerals.

 

And all my Mark ones have the correct bogies and brake gear!

 

If my blue era trains are having the correct variants of air conditioned stock, my branch project can with its stock as well.

 

Good evening Martin,

 

No need to change anything. When you said BR clasp brakes up thread, I thought that you would mean this.

 

https://website.rumneymodels.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/12T-BR-Ply-Shocvan-1-1024x640.jpg

 

You could also try the BR built LMS Ply van built with LNER clasp brakes. They were still active in your time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 6, 2022 by Headstock
Unmentionable.

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, MJI said:

 

Yes Lanarkshire buffers

 

The Ratio van is per kit but in BR condition, only difference with my reference picture is axle boxes (only just noticed). Just added the rest of the brake bits and replaced the tie rods as they broke off.

 

Don Rowland book P62 plate 56 I see what you mean, different axle boxes and brake levers.

 

But I am not changing it, why?

 

Because I have found a photo of a BR van body with LMS J hangers like plate 56 BUT axle boxes like the photo I found of the one I want to model. So it is correct for that vehicle. Pretty sure BR body as no shadow on the verticals unlike the other one I can see.

 

In the same rake there is the 4 shoe brake LMS based one BUT the axle boxes are bigger. I will lop them off and use Parkside Tube axle boxes as mine all are STVs with roller bearings (as per real ones I saw).

 

I will be producing another Dapol based BR one, I will use the above piccie to get that one right.

 

It looks like everything else, model what is there.

 

Had this with my 16 ton minerals.

 

And all my Mark ones have the correct bogies and brake gear!

 

If my blue era trains are having the correct variants of air conditioned stock, my branch project can with its stock as well.

 

Evening Martin,

 

I don't no what happened to my last post it just disappeared! Par for the course I suppose.

 

Here we go again.

 

Now it has appeared. Don't mention the War or the Website.

Edited February 6, 2022 by Headstock
Unmentionable.

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

As a model-maker of who clearly builds his models 'un-properly', might I suggest it's horses for courses?

 

With nigh-on 200 locos I've built which can run on Little Bytham, they are obviously 'layout locos'; complete with all the compromises which are endemic in the breed. My lack of skill, fortitude, patience, reluctance to alter things too much, indolence and zeal with regard to how my locos run all militate against the creation of 'perfection'.

 

To praise a (clearly superlative) model, is it necessary to qualify it with 'criticisms' of others?  

 

I know. I'll buy a really cheap camera, and that way, even in a still picture I'll take with it, nobody will be able to see all the mistakes.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

We all have our own views on what we will or will not accept on our models but you do sometimes confuse me a bit Tony.

 

You will pass off some things as "You can't see it when it is running by" but then you will worry about the number of spokes in a bogie or pony truck wheel, which you certainly can't see when it is running by.  

 

With most modellers I can get a good idea as to where they "draw a line" at what they will or will not accept but sometimes I find that difficult with you. You go to great lengths to get some things as accurate as you can and then you don't worry about other things that appear to be just as visible to me.

 

It just goes to show how different modellers have different approaches to things but I wouldn't say that either approach was right or wrong. I just happen to think that accepting errors because you can't see them if a loco is going fast enough is not an approach that fits my philosophy.

 

Yet you have produced far more than I ever will, so I can't say that my approach is any better.

 

You see your techniques as being "proper" and I see mine as the same. Both approaches suit us as individuals so we could well both be right!  

 

 

Edited February 6, 2022 by t-b-g
delete repeated word

[t-b-g]

43 minutes ago, dibateg said:

Oh dear  - I didn't mean to spark anything off! The reason I moved to 7mm scale is that I enjoy the detail and realism that can be achieved in that scale with the individual models. My models are no better than Tony's, they are just different. They are expected to perform properly of course and a spell running on any sizable layout will soon expose any weaknesses...

What Bytham achieves, is a convincing recreation of the ECML and I never tire of seeing pictures of it. I can immerse myself in to the atmosphere of it and it reminds me of Charwelton and Stoke Summit. It is unlikely that I'll ever be able to achieve that with my own layout.

 

I do recall the 4mm DJH 9Fs being a bit empty under the cab, I think I used Chaplin injectors and feed valves . On the 7mm ones I ditched the DJH  castings and used lost wax Ragstone ones in their place. Those 4mm models look right in their environment, no one ever called out my DJH 9Fs for having the wrong wheel base! When the trains are running by, as long as they look convincing, you don't want to get too hung up on the details. Photographs will pick stuff ( or the lack of it ) out, so work to the level of detail you are comfortable with. Conversely when my 7mm scale models are on a display stand I know they will be highly scrutinised!

 

It's nice to share our model making and I'm always interested in what others are up to. Anything creative is good....

 

Tony

 

 

 

Hello Tony,

 

I wasn't intending to create any unpleasantness.

 

The phrase "proper modelling" is just a term that I use to describe real top drawer stuff that I see. You do tend to go "the extra mile" to add detail, or to correct any faults, in what you build. It shows in things like the 9F.

 

I think some of us accept that we will not build many hundreds of locos and are willing to perhaps spend more time on the ones that we do produce.

 

Others, like Tony Wright, turn locos out at a rate that I find astonishing but there is a trade off in terms of the amount of time taken to add detail or correct faults. Many such omissions only show in still photos and often only photos from certain angles and having seen Little Bytham several times, they certainly don't show when you are standing by the layout watching them go by.

 

Assuming that was Tony's intention, he has succeeded admirably!

 

Regards

 

Tony Gee (too many Tonys around!!)

 

  

[Tony Wright]

Thanks to both Tonys (obviously, a popular name).

 

Tony (Gee) is correct in being puzzled by the dichotomy of what I'll accept (or not) in my model-making.

 

My phrase 'horses for courses' is really relevant here. As all know, I'm an unashamed trainspotter, born just post-War (14 crucial years before Tony Geary, though Alan Gibson thought he was my son - Tony is very youthful in appearance and I look older than I am!), and I make models of what I remember. Did I notice the style of brakes on the near 200 9Fs I saw? I don't think so. That said, detail should be correct as much as possible; but, to replace all the brakes on my 9Fs? And, lose just under 2mm fore and aft of the drivers? 

 

Speaking of what I saw, while I stand in awe of a wonderful 7mm 9F, how many of them are on Tony's layout? One? Two? More? By 1958, New England and Doncaster had dozens of 9Fs between them, not to mention those which were ex-GC allocated. Thus, many of the freights passing through Little Bytham in '58 were 9F-hauled, as they were when I saw them at Retford. So, how many 9Fs does a layout like Little Bytham need to be 'representative'? At the moment there are seven, and what I'm building will make eight. Even if I had the skill (which I certainly don't possess), eight (and probably more) 4mm equivalent's of Tony Geary's 9F? I'd like to outlive Methuselah, but I don't think so. 

 

Thus, I settle for this (much lesser) standard...........

 

 

 

A Model Loco 9F (painted/weathered by Geoff Haynes). 

 

Plenty of replacement pipework/detail underneath the cab (Comet), and the tender steps are underneath the footplate (if the two units were closer, the thing wouldn't go round Bytham's curves). 

 

In fairness, this was not built to stand such scrutiny, but I think it stands-up well enough. 

 

Happy with my 'standards', I'm bashing on with the next one.

 

 

Number eight, and it'll be finished soon. 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 6, 2022 by Tony Wright
to add something