Wright writes.....

[john new]

4 hours ago, polybear said:

 

The smaller, specialist suppliers appear to be disappearing (or have already) from the larger,  sponsored shows; I recall Dave Ellis (when he ran SEF) saying that he wouldn't be attending Ally Pally anymore simply because the costs of doing so made it a box-shifting exercise, with very little profit (if any) to show for it.

I usually attend the Model Engineering Exhibition at the same location - it's been "going downhill" for some time now, with less and less exhibitors attending.  Why?  Well as an example I overheard one seller of s/h tools saying that the (not very large) stand rent for the 3 days was the best part of a grand - and that's before fuel, accommodation, food etc. is added; he needs to sell an awful lot of s/h tools before he even breaks even.  The result of the reduced number of traders is (no surprises) less visitors - so the stand rents go up next year; at Ally Pally they've just started charging for car parking (£16 IIRC) which drives even more visitors away.  A vicious circle, sadly.

Costs of stand, travel and accommodation taken together as a package have led to the SLS cutting back on the shows we attend. If there is a local crew able to do it we will still go but the volunteers able to do so without significant cost is now the criteria. We want to go, we would like to supply you with our books and photographic prints, perhaps persuade a few of you to join, even just to have a natter about railways in general. The bottom line though is the BUT where forecasted costs exceed expected income a decision has to be taken on whether the subsidy of going is value for money as an advertising budget item.
 

Traders are in exactly the same situation, they are in it to generate income, they can’t sustain losses. 

 

Edited October 12, 2022 by john new
Minor edit for clarity/better English.

[micklner]

Ally pally want £16 to park a car !!! Nah  !! = Delusional🤑

[60526]

4 hours ago, Dragonboy said:

I was at GETS on Sunday as I usually am and while there were undoubtedly some fine layouts on display on the ground floor I yearn for a good pre grouping layout where shunting takes place rather than the block train roundy roundy layouts that are beginning to dominate with their toothpaste box liveries and where the same train appears 4 times in 3 minutes.

 

As with many things in life these days I know I’m probably well out of step with the masses here.

 

Because the lift was out of action I was unable to get to see the layouts on the balcony’s this year due to mobility issues which make stairs too much of a challenge now so there may well be some gems I was unable to get to which would have been more to my taste.

I was exhibiting up on balcony 1 with my friend Ian's Holly Bank Grove layout, lighting up there was no better than in the main hall and to boot we had a flickering light above us at times. To exhibit I believe that the majority of layouts at the show would have appeared in Hornby magazine and probably selected by Mike Wild, might be wrong but I only saw only one EM and one P4 layout, both very nice, but the latter was very small, might have been one of the minimum space competition layouts, but everything at snails pace and far too high. Just as well that most disabled visitors could not access this area (broken lift). Two traders interested me, no problem with Isinglass, but C&L sell track and he didn't have any EM track and not for the first time. I think that he was more at home there talking to his mates. Unfortunately on the circuit there are others just like that, even when your trying to buy something off of them.

Out of step with the masses, you're not alone. There are some RTR models that you can easily get hold of, a Kernow GW 1361, I've managed to buy an etched chassis so I'm rebuilding an old K's model. A RoS J36, I didn't realise that PDK also made this model, but Paul has supplied an etched chassis and this is going under an old GEM J36? A Heljan class 21, no, converting a Hornby class 29. As much as I would like say a Hornby A2/1, the light green and the company ethics has put me off, so if I want one it will be via the PDK route. Only 2 current models interest me, having seen at GETS how it runs without its matching truck for extra pick-up, the Hornby 48DS, the other is a Hattons 6W tool van, I've just ordered it. A comparison with the Hornby model is like chalk and cheese, I'm paying £33 from Hattons, a similar Hornby model on a stand at GETS was £44, but the latter is rubbish in comparison. If you get a chance, look at how the centre axle on this Hattons model slides across , perhaps somebody else might take a photo on here. This purchase is a quick fix, I'd prefer the black 6 wheeler that appears on LB.

I'm bonkers but not totally, the 1361 is for an EM BRW layout I'm building, the J36 and cl21 are for a club EM BRScr layout. Anyone remember Sutherland models, I've an untouched ex LMS Stanier 2P 2-6-2T kit with the original solid brass milled chassis, probably need a scratchbuilt chassis, but this could be next in line. So I'm totally out of step with the masses.

 

[D.Platt]

Since I first discovered high level gearbox’s I now have six locos running with them , and the two A3s I’m building now have them fitted , I don’t rush making them I take 30/40 minutes to assemble one into a free running gearbox , the critical point is to make sure the folds are 90 degrees, this is the part for me that takes the longest , before the folding I make sure the shafts are a sliding fit and once it’s correctly folded the shafts line up perfectly.

I limit the amount of movement when it’s fitted into the loco and what I really like is they are so quiet when running , with the latest Chinese motors I have a motor and gearbox for under twenty pounds.

[micklner]

1 hour ago, jrg1 said:

A major mistake assembling gearboxes is to enlarge holes by drilling them-almost guaranteed to stuff up the alignment.  This is usually the reason for grinding/noise/stiffness in a gearbox.

Holes should be broached or reamed to ensure all components line up correctly.  

This has been mentioned at great length on here already. High Level Boxes are easy to make up using the right tools,follow the instructions and take your time on the first one ( why is there a rush on any modelling ?,I have no idea) and a excellent price, he now sells  excellent motors as well. He now also does a full range of Gearbox spares if needed.

 

https://www.highlevelkits.co.uk/gearboxes

 

DJH for me no chance , the price alone makes them irrelevent to me. They are very limited where they can be used, they are only suitable for Pacifics and large Goods engines. None of my current models show the worm or even the gearbox sides under the Boiler and never will, those days are long gone.

 

https://www.djhmodelloco.co.uk/product-category/accessories/motor-gearboxes/

 

Do the maths and the price differences is very noticeable , especially to anybody on a limited budget .

 

My local total rip off Shell garage , has just stuck another 7 pence per litre onto their prices today. Sad times for many people at the moment.

Edited October 12, 2022 by micklner

[Dave John]

Agreed Mick, I have only used the djh box on one loco, since that was the only loco I have built in which it would fit. Also it was a good number of years ago before HL started, so the choice was limited. Since then I have used HL boxes with reasonable success. 

 

The Toms trains video was good. The one thing he didn't mention (though might have done) is once the frames are soldered up they need a good scrub to shift any flux residue. 

[Manxcat]

Tony,

 

I see the York show is on for Easter 2023 and that you will be manning your usual loco doctoring stand.

 

I really missed the show this year and I'm pleased to see they have solved the problems which scuppered the 2022 one. I have been to every York show since the 1970s and always enjoy it. 

 

Archie

[john new]

40 minutes ago, Manxcat said:

Tony,

 

I see the York show is on for Easter 2023 and that you will be manning your usual loco doctoring stand.

 

I really missed the show this year and I'm pleased to see they have solved the problems which scuppered the 2022 one. I have been to every York show since the 1970s and always enjoy it. 

 

Archie

Yes planning is well under way; the options for Advance Tickets are the current work in progress behind the scenes with an announcement not too far away now.

[Tony Wright]

5 hours ago, micklner said:

This has been mentioned at great length on here already. High Level Boxes are easy to make up using the right tools,follow the instructions and take your time on the first one ( why is there a rush on any modelling ?,I have no idea) and a excellent price, he now sells  excellent motors as well. He now also does a full range of Gearbox spares if needed.

 

https://www.highlevelkits.co.uk/gearboxes

 

DJH for me no chance , the price alone makes them irrelevent to me. They are very limited where they can be used, they are only suitable for Pacifics and large Goods engines. None of my current models show the worm or even the gearbox sides under the Boiler and never will, those days are long gone.

 

https://www.djhmodelloco.co.uk/product-category/accessories/motor-gearboxes/

 

Do the maths and the price differences is very noticeable , especially to anybody on a limited budget .

 

My local total rip off Shell garage , has just stuck another 7 pence per litre onto their prices today. Sad times for many people at the moment.

Good evening Mick,

 

Without carrying on this protracted discussion still further, may I respectfully suggest you desist from making such sweeping generalisations?

 

Regarding DJH 'boxes -  'They are very limited where they can be used, they are only suitable for Pacifics and large Goods engines'.

 

Though I understand your sentiments and sympathise with your views on price, I don't think any of the following locos fit into the two categories you cite. Yet, all have DJH motor/gearboxes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're right, of course; if the gearbox frames are visible beneath (smaller) boilers, then, I agree, that is unacceptable (though running on a layout, this is often difficult to detect).

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

[micklner]

Good evening Tony,

              Yes an apology is required, and given.

             However out of interest, how many of the above models have a unaltered/chopped  Boiler backhead fitted, if any at all  ? Something I also avoid with my current models, and  I should have mentioned in my original post. I would imagine some 4-6-0's would manage a DJH combination as well if used.

 

cheers

 

Mick

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, micklner said:

Good evening Tony,

              Yes an apology is required, and given.

             However out of interest, how many of the above models have a unaltered/chopped  Boiler backhead fitted, if any at all  ? Something I also avoid with my current models, and  I should have mentioned in my original post. I would imagine some 4-6-0's would manage a DJH combination as well if used.

 

cheers

 

Mick

Good evening Mick,

 

No apology is required, I assure you. The way things are going (our universities appear to be dropping their debating societies!), robust discussion involving differences of opinion appear to be being phased out in case someone is upset or offended. What utter nonsense in my view. I've probably leaned far more from opposite points of view than I have from parallel ones.

 

Occasionally, I've had to nibble out bits from the bottom of boilers, but they're invisible, especially behind splashers, when the loco is complete. However, where a loco kit is of some age (designed for an XO4-type, open-framed motor), I've had to solder bits of bottom boiler in.

 

All the locos I've illustrated have full backheads (extended armatures being finally cut off to accommodate these). 

 

And yes, many of my 4-6-0s have DJH motor/gearboxes - all invisible with the bodies on.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited October 12, 2022 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Jol Wilkinson]

57 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Mick,

 

Without carrying on this protracted discussion still further, may I respectfully suggest you desist from making such sweeping generalisations?

 

Regarding DJH 'boxes -  'They are very limited where they can be used, they are only suitable for Pacifics and large Goods engines'.

 

Though I understand your sentiments and sympathise with your views on price, I don't think any of the following locos fit into the two categories you cite. Yet, all have DJH motor/gearboxes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're right, of course; if the gearbox frames are visible beneath (smaller) boilers, then, I agree, that is unacceptable (though running on a layout, this is often difficult to detect).

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Looking at the photos, one downside of the DJH motor/gearbox is that, while it can be fitted in some smaller locos, it appears to fill the boiler/firebox space leaving little room for ballast to increase the adhesive weight.

I prefer an "underslung" motor arrangement, which leaves some room above or in front of the motor or ballast. I have achieved that with LRM single and two stage 38:1and 50:1 gearboxes and a HL Roadrunner Compact+.

 

 

[Tony Wright]

10 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

Looking at the photos, one downside of the DJH motor/gearbox is that, while it can be fitted in some smaller locos, it appears to fill the boiler/firebox space leaving little room for ballast to increase the adhesive weight.

I prefer an "underslung" motor arrangement, which leaves some room above or in front of the motor or ballast. I have achieved that with LRM single and two stage 38:1and 50:1 gearboxes and a HL Roadrunner Compact+.

 

 

Good evening Jol,

 

I've used some underslung motor arranges in some of the LRM kits I've built, using John's gear mounts.

 

I don't find adding ballast too much of a problem - lining fireboxes with thin lead sheet and the underside of cab roofs, for instance. If it's a small, etched brass 4-4-0 tender loco, I arrange the front of the tender to rest on the loco's dragbeam/drawhook, and also pack any spaces left in the frames with lead. 

 

The need for DCC (which is certainly not for me) does impinge on the space inside which can be ballasted, though this is often forward, which means, if unbalanced, a 4-4-0 will nod forwards. Springing the front bogie slightly, helps in this respect.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited October 12, 2022 by Tony Wright
typo error

[thegreenhowards]

11 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning,

 

I think many shows might well have gone forever, or are heading that way. 

 

My observations in more recent times suggest attendees are dropping off to the point where holding shows becomes non-viable. Couple that with the disappearance of 'specialist' traders at such events, and the proliferation of 'box-shifters' to take their places, and, to me, it's a recipe for doom for many exhibitions. 

 

It could be that the 'salvation' for exhibitions are the smaller, 'home-spun' events (Nottingham for one, next month), where costs are strictly-limited (no overnight accommodation needed) and the exhibits are local. That then leaves a few 'larger' shows, often sponsored.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Despite all the gloom about shows, GETS announced on Sunday afternoon that it was their best attended show ever, so not all shows are in retreat. 
 

 

[Jesse Sim]

11 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

The people who struggle with High Level Gearboxes are probably the same people who build locos badly.

 

The skills needed to build a gearbox are not as advanced as the ones you need to build a loco kit.

 

I wonder what exactly people find difficult about them. Is bending an etch at 90 degrees or putting bearings in holes really that difficult?

 

In the last few weeks I have fitted 4 High Level gearboxes to locos, all in cases where the DJH ones wouldn't fit (even if I wanted to pay that much for them). Each one is silky smooth and superb, especially with the new generation of coreless motors that Chris Gibbons now supplies.

 

The 30mm long coreless motor with a 120:1 reduction gearbox is a real beast!

 

Plus I can say that I made them up myself, which is a big part of the hobby for me.

I think where people get turned off by HL is the doubt of building one. 
 

That’s been the reason for me, I know I can build wagons and coaches, building a loco isn’t any different. I know I can build the loco to a good standard, the DJH motor made that even easier because I don’t have to fiddle with it now all my concentration and effort is put into the chassis to make sure that’s all straight and true, I’m not stressing about trying to build a motor and gearbox. 
 

However, now that I’m building more and more I’m finding myself out of reach for the cost of a DJH motor, so I’ve actually decided to try my hand at a HL gearbox. If I win the lottery I’ll still continue to use DJH, but I doubt I’ll win the lottery! 

[bbishop]

I could do with some help.  Many years ago I acquired a 7mm finished model in LNER  livery.  It is now surplus to requirements and I shall dispose of it.  But looking at it, the CCW (?) bogies had collapsed and a lot of the plasticard had warped.  The first was easy and it is now shod with a brace of Way-Ohs.  I could deal with the second by breaking it down into components and rebuilding; but I don't have the time and might make a codswallop.  So I'm giving it to someone prepared to spend some time and effort on it.

 

But I'm wondering what the model is and whether there is a prototype.  The number is 2388. Can anyone help?

 

Incidentally, my flux of choice is Powerflow; but use the absolute minimum and give the work a good scrub afterwards.  I used a 50w Antex but there is enough whitemetal in a Way-Oh side not to have any concerns about it melting.

 

Bill

[St Enodoc]

13 hours ago, polybear said:

the Great and the Good

That rules me out then.

[jwealleans]

5 hours ago, bbishop said:

I'm wondering what the model is and whether there is a prototype.

 

Its in the style of the last NER stock, which the LNER then built in small numbers just after the Grouping and sent to the GE Area.   I don't have a diagram book to hand so I can't say how accurate that it, but I do have a picture of the real 388 (LNER 2388) which was a bow ended TO so definitely not this vehicle. 

[Jon4470]

7 hours ago, bbishop said:

I could do with some help.  Many years ago I acquired a 7mm finished model in LNER  livery.  It is now surplus to requirements and I shall dispose of it.  But looking at it, the CCW (?) bogies had collapsed and a lot of the plasticard had warped.  The first was easy and it is now shod with a brace of Way-Ohs.  I could deal with the second by breaking it down into components and rebuilding; but I don't have the time and might make a codswallop.  So I'm giving it to someone prepared to spend some time and effort on it.

 

But I'm wondering what the model is and whether there is a prototype.  The number is 2388. Can anyone help?

 

Incidentally, my flux of choice is Powerflow; but use the absolute minimum and give the work a good scrub afterwards.  I used a 50w Antex but there is enough whitemetal in a Way-Oh side not to have any concerns about it melting.

 

Bill

Hi Bill

 

That looks like an exNER diagram 174 van composite to me. ( It seems to match the NER diagram book drawing anyway). 
 

The build date is given as June 1909. Unfortunately there are no running numbers noted on the diagram though.

 

I found a photo in North Eastern Record vol2 which shows a D174 carrying number 406 in North Eastern Railway days.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Jon

Edited October 13, 2022 by Jon4470
To add a running number

[grahame]

As a break from loco gearboxes and a change of scale (to N/2mm), here's a scratch-built project I've just almost finished that might be of interest. It's based roughly on a recent Metcalfe kit of a ramshackle workshop that I quite liked the look of and some photos I found online of small factories/workshops.

 

I didn't actually convert a Metcalfe kit as I'm not keen on them, finding them to exude a distinctive corporate style of flat, slightly shiny surfaces, open corners, heavily outlined printed roofing and missing relief details. Consequently, I wondered whether it would be possible to knock up a more convincing model based on one of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Despite all the gloom about shows, GETS announced on Sunday afternoon that it was their best attended show ever, so not all shows are in retreat. 
 

 

That's excellent news, Andy.

 

Thank you.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[thegreenhowards]

2 hours ago, Jon4470 said:

Hi Bill

 

That looks like an exNER diagram 174 van composite to me. ( It seems to match the NER diagram book drawing anyway). 
 

The build date is given as June 1909. Unfortunately there are no running numbers noted on the diagram though.

 

I found a photo in North Eastern Record vol2 which shows a D174 carrying number 406 in North Eastern Railway days.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Jon

Bill,

 

I assume this is the vehicle coming my way? It looks rather good in the photos - certainly worth spending some time on. 
 

I agree with Jon’s verdict of a D.174 NER BCK. The Longworth book gives the running numbers which survived into BR days including numbers either side of 2388 (2341 and 2406), so is it possible that this is the correct number post the LNER renumbering?

 

Now, the important question; given the identity, can anyone opine on what this would have been used on in LNER days? (Assuming this is the vehicle you promised me), I’d like to run it with my rake of ex GER Holden 50’ vestibuled stock (as below), two of which I also acquired from Bill as this rake needs another brake. Is this in any way credible?

 

Andy

 

[jwealleans]

A great many NER vehicles (mainly non-vestibuled) were cascaded to the GE Area in the 1930s (and some were built for them shortly after Grouping).   There's an edition of British Railway Journal which has much of the detail.   Even if this vehicle wasn't part of those transfers, there were enough of them about for it to look plausible unless you happen to be spotted by an expert.

Edited October 13, 2022 by jwealleans

[Dragonboy]

12 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Despite all the gloom about shows, GETS announced on Sunday afternoon that it was their best attended show ever, so not all shows are in retreat. 
 

 

Yes I can believe that and well done to them. It was certainly the busiest I can remember a Sunday morning. I went to the Hornby stand a few minutes after I arrived to enquire about their usual brochure to be told that their entire stock had gone on Saturday so even they had underestimated on attendance this year. 

[Bucoops]

2 hours ago, jwealleans said:

A great many NER vehicles (mainly non-vestibuled) were cascaded to the GE Area in the 1930s (and some were built for them shortly after Grouping).   There's an edition of British Railway Journal which has much of the detail.   Even if this vehicle wasn't part of those transfers, there were enough of them about for it to look plausible unless you happen to be spotted by an expert.

 

Volume 12 has an article on cascaded coaches, and volume 34 has an article on NER Gangwayed coaches including a bit on those that went to the GE.