Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

I regret that you are likely to be frustrated by any/all locomotive kits in that case because in my experience (and not unreasonably in my opinion) all kits have their compromises. 

 

As children we grew up building Kitmaster or Airfix kits which were the only kits that were 'complete' by your definition in that the only additional things needed to complete them were paints and a few basic tools.  The results were generic representations of a class of locomotive, lacking the fine details that uniquely differentiated one loco of a class from another.  Their simplicity was what made it possible to provide a complete kit and there was no need for the manufacturer to provide chapter and verse on detailed differences within a class of locomotive.  Such models were/are crude but can be used as the basis of working models perhaps, requiring the same skills and additional components to achieve a working model as those needed to convert (and super detail) a ready to run model in EM or P4.

 

I am of an age that I cut my metal kit building teeth on K's and Wills white metal kits.  In theory such white metal kits were only slightly harder to build than plastic kits given that the number of separate components were not dissimilar in the two materials.  The reality was that the quality of the castings was such that it was hard to achieve a reasonable fit and an ability to use car filler was as important as the ability to solder.  The first white metal kit I successfully built was a DJH 1366 pannier tank partly because I had by then developed my skills sufficiently, and partly because the quality of the kit was so much better than what had gone before. 

 

Even so, unless the builder is willing to research the prototype and identify the detailed additions (the so called 'wiggly bits' etc.) required to build a representation of a specific locomotive, the end result will still be a generic model of a class of locomotive.  If you want to build a model of a specific prototype you must expect to do the research yourself.

 

It goes without saying that all metal kits (other than K's) require motor, gears, wheels and couplings to complete.  Most kits will recommend a motor/gearbox combination but the builder has a free choice as to whether they follow that advice or not.  We have all read the many, sometimes contentious, debates surrounding choice of motors and gears, and most of us clearly have our own preferences. 

 

Wheels are particularly problematic.  The kit will likely advise the wheel size/s, number of spokes, etc. but will be unlikely to recommend manufacture (the 'other makes are also available' syndrome).  it should be clear to all regular readers of WW that none of the options are perfect, the modeller needs to have done their research to decide which compromises they are willing to either accept or be prepared to mitigate against.  The choices and compromises become more difficult the harder the model needs to work.  If your model is only going to chug up and down a shunting plank then plastic centred (friction fit) drivers will be absolutely fine.  If you are building models for Retford, Carlisle, Little Bytham, Pendon, etc. then plastic centred wheels are still okay but will need additional attention to mitigate against slipping on the axle, but their basic design ensures this issue at least is not a problem for Markit wheels.  You'd think therefore that all modellers would naturally use Markit wheels, but they are problematic for EM modellers because of their thickness, and are not suitable for P4 modellers.  Plastic centred wheels are therefore a more attractive choice for some but the modeller has to accept the additional skills needed to use them and the known problems associated with the products of the different manufacturers.  

 

Gibson's are best regarding cost and have the widest choice of prototype wheels.  Delivery is often within 7 days and Brian(?) always answers his phone or returns your call.  On the down side their tyres are an interference fit on the centres and are known to come loose on occasion.  They also have a reputation for running eccentrically, some types more than others and personally for this reason I would not use them in a rigid chassis although others do. 

 

Ultrascale are always of the highest quality (in my opinion), look superb, and run true.  The centres are injected and keyed into the tyres so they never separate.  They can be ordered on-line.  They are expensive (whilst still value for money), and delivery is around 8 months currently so need to be ordered well in advance.  The range is less extensive than Gibson's.

 

Sharman wheels have been out of manufacture for many years although there is still some availability apparently.  OO/EM wheels are narrower than the wheels of other manufacturers (a positive in my opinion) and the tyres are keyed onto their centres so can't come loose. I personally don't like the fact that the crankpins are captive to the wheels but otherwise I very much like Sharman wheels and would use them if I had a set available to me.   

 

Markit's are generally of a high quality, run true, and there is no risk of their slipping on their axle.  There is a good range and delivery is generally within a week or two if they are in stock.  They are approx double the price of Gibson wheels.  On the down side ordering the wheels by phone can be a hit and miss affair.  Different people on WW have reported very different experiences from very good to almost impossible to get through.  And when you do get through it is a very Marmite experience (personally I like Marmite).  As previously mentioned the thickness of the Markit wheels can be problematic.  For models with outside cylinders the crank pins may hit the back of the crosshead or slide bar and in EM their extra thickness may mean the wheels don't fit between the splashers.  It may therefore be necessary to push out the cylinders, the slide bars or the splashers.

 

If you choose to use plastic centred wheels then quartering, setting the back to back, and (sometimes) securing the wheel to the axle are all skills you will need.  To some this may sound particularly daunting but the reality is that these are all skills that are easily acquired (with patience).  Whilst it might take a while the first time you try it, it gets easier each time you do it and you are unlikely to damage the wheels whilst you adjust them no matter how long it takes.

 

If you truly desire to build your own model locomotives then you are going to have to put in the effort to develop your skills and your knowledge.  Model locomotive kits are about as far removed as they can be from the Ikea approach to construction.  The higher the quality you want to achieve the more skills and knowledge you will need to acquire, and the more effort you will have to put in to developing them.  To some it comes naturally but to other like me it takes nothing less than grit and determination.  I have been modelling all my life but it took me into my 50's before I was happy with what I could achieve.  Has the effort been worth it?  Abso-bloomin'-lutely! 

 

Frank

 

  

Good morning Frank,

 

Your post is the most-lucid and comprehensive regarding driving wheels I think I've ever read. Thank you. 

 

Regarding the 'thickness' of Markits' wheels tyres and their potentially being a problem in EM; where an outside cylinder/valve gear loco is concerned, especially where the front crankpins revolve behind the slidebars (Thompson Pacific/V2/K3/etc), what I do is plug the centre of the cylinder with low-melt and then re-drill a hole for the piston rod 1mm outboard, setting the slidebars appropriately. It does mean clearances between the likes of the expansion link and connecting rod are tight (just like the real thing), but it does give that necessary clearance where it matters. 

 

I've seen EM examples where the slidebars describe an 'arrow head' in plan view, and, in extreme circumstances, where the little end of the connecting rod has been pivoted outside the crosshead. 

 

There really is no need........

 

 

 

The subterfuge is invisible.

 

I'm still inclined to re-drill the cylinders even where there is no crankpin immediately behind the slidebars..............

 

 

 

 

The 'dodge' cannot be seen.

 

It might just be necessary to shave off a bit of the inside of the splashers on a loco so-fitted............

 

 

Though I don't think I had to here.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[t-b-g]

10 hours ago, john new said:

Agree we all need to learn, quite happy with that view but when you read things as were stated in some recent posts about boilers too short, boilers the wrong diameter, IIRC the wrong chimney, wrong design of smokebox door, etc., and that is before the debate about gearboxes and the like, and the dearth of wheels currently it is off-putting to a person wanting to step up from r-t-r  to something different. Like Tony W I like making things, I don't have his skills in metal, but fully 'get' his viewpoint. Probably time to move the debate back to  looking at what people have made/adapted, and the models on here are stunning. Inspiring, yet frightening at the same time.

 

 

Building things can be a bit daunting but the only way to get over it is to have a try and see how you get on.

 

We all started as novices and those of us who have been doing it for a while still get things wrong, make mistakes and have problems. At least I do, after 45 years of making models.

 

To develop metal working skills, I would recommend either a cast or an etched wagon kit or two, which is less complicated, less expensive but will help develop your skills.

 

When it comes to locos, I would suggest an inside cylinder type to start with, perhaps with Markits wheels, which are the easiest to fit.

 

The biggest barrier to anybody making anything in this hobby is fear of making a mess of it. There are a tiny number of people who don't have good enough eyesight, or whose hands don't work well enough and genuinely struggle to make decent models. For the rest, it is all about having a go. If you can get some support from friends, club members or from RMWeb, so much the better. A modelling course like the ones at Missenden can get you started nicely too. I have had quite a few people there who arrived full of trepidation and left feeling that they could go home and make a job of building a loco.

 

I had a few great mentors along the way. The first was a chap called Tony Johnson, whose favourite words when I was dithering about whether I could tackle something were "Don't be "frit". What is the worst that can happen?".

 

For those that need a translation, "frit" is a Yorkshire abbreviation of frightened!

 

Then I spent two evenings a week with Malcolm Crawley for a couple of decades. After learning from him, there wasn't much that worried me any more.

 

So I would just say that if you choose what you want to build, with some guidance, then have a go, you will soon be on your way.

Edited December 20, 2022 by t-b-g
Spelling error

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Frank,

 

Your post is the most-lucid and comprehensive regarding driving wheels I think I've ever read. Thank you. 

 

Regarding the 'thickness' of Markits' wheels tyres and their potentially being a problem in EM; where an outside cylinder/valve gear loco is concerned, especially where the front crankpins revolve behind the slidebars (Thompson Pacific/V2/K3/etc), what I do is plug the centre of the cylinder with low-melt and then re-drill a hole for the piston rod 1mm outboard, setting the slidebars appropriately. It does mean clearances between the likes of the expansion link and connecting rod are tight (just like the real thing), but it does give that necessary clearance where it matters. 

 

I've seen EM examples where the slidebars describe an 'arrow head' in plan view, and, in extreme circumstances, where the little end of the connecting rod has been pivoted outside the crosshead. 

 

There really is no need........

 

 

 

The subterfuge is invisible.

 

I'm still inclined to re-drill the cylinders even where there is no crankpin immediately behind the slidebars..............

 

 

 

 

The 'dodge' cannot be seen.

 

It might just be necessary to shave off a bit of the inside of the splashers on a loco so-fitted............

 

 

Though I don't think I had to here.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

I have a few locos in EM with Romford/Markits wheels and outside cylinders and valve gear. Not many as there isn't a lot of call for in in my usual interests.

 

I have found that I don't need to alter the cylinders if I recess the leading crankpin retainer. If the coupling rods are a double layer, as they usually are, I remove the outside boss at the front, which allows a washer to be soldered to the crankpin and be flush with the outside face of the rod.

 

I have done that on K2 and Royal Scot and it made enough room. On the K2, the rods were a single layer of quite thick material, so I filed a bit off the boss and made a new retainer out of thin material.

 

Redrilling cylinders an altering slidebar mountings works well enough but might be a bit more difficult to get right for the less experienced modeller.

 

Edit to add that I had forgotten that I have just done an LMS "Coronation" streamliner mechanism, so that makes 3!

Edited December 20, 2022 by t-b-g

[gr.king]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Frank,

 

Your post is the most-lucid and comprehensive regarding driving wheels I think I've ever read. Thank you. 

 

Regarding the 'thickness' of Markits' wheels tyres and their potentially being a problem in EM; where an outside cylinder/valve gear loco is concerned, especially where the front crankpins revolve behind the slidebars (Thompson Pacific/V2/K3/etc), what I do is plug the centre of the cylinder with low-melt and then re-drill a hole for the piston rod 1mm outboard, setting the slidebars appropriately. It does mean clearances between the likes of the expansion link and connecting rod are tight (just like the real thing), but it does give that necessary clearance where it matters. 

 

I've seen EM examples where the slidebars describe an 'arrow head' in plan view, and, in extreme circumstances, where the little end of the connecting rod has been pivoted outside the crosshead. 

 

There really is no need........

 

Of more relevance these days than the long-discontinued Sharman wheels and the exotica of Ultrascale, especially for a relatively inexperienced builder who may not be seeking ultimate fidelity, the Scalelink option should not be overlooked. Plastic centred but self-quartering, direct fit on Romford / Markits axles, less tolerant of repeated rough removal and refitting than a Markits wheel would be, and not liked by some because they are generic with no flare to the ends of the spokes where they meet the rims, BUT, almost certainly cheaper than Markits even if no longer the bargain they once were. Dearer than Gibsons certainly, but very easy to order last time I had to try - no test of "personal idiosyncrasies tolerance" involved.

[Tony Wright]

34 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I have a few locos in EM with Romford/Markits wheels and outside cylinders and valve gear. Not many as there isn't a lot of call for in in my usual interests.

 

I have found that I don't need to alter the cylinders if I recess the leading crankpin retainer. If the coupling rods are a double layer, as they usually are, I remove the outside boss at the front, which allows a washer to be soldered to the crankpin and be flush with the outside face of the rod.

 

I have done that on K2 and Royal Scot and it made enough room. On the K2, the rods were a single layer of quite thick material, so I filed a bit off the boss and made a new retainer out of thin material.

 

Redrilling cylinders an altering slidebar mountings works well enough but might be a bit more difficult to get right for the less experienced modeller.

 

Edit to add that I had forgotten that I have just done an LMS "Coronation" streamliner mechanism, so that makes 3!

Thanks Tony,

 

I also should have said that I thin down the leading crankpin retaining washers as well. If a rod is double-thickness, I remove one of the bosses at the front (the outer one), leaving it single thickness. Though (theoretically, and practically) it gives a thinner bearing surface, I've never noted excessive wear; not even on those locos I've built for Retford. The clearance gained is crucial.

 

I think it's easier where the crosshead slides between the slidebars, often with the little end sandwiched inside the faces. Clearances are more limited with the LNER Pacific slidebar arrangement (not the Raven A2s), where the little end of the connecting rod is slightly behind the slidebars. 

 

We all have our personal 'dodges' for getting round problems. I've only ever copied those of others, never having 'invented' a process myself. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[t-b-g]

22 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Tony,

 

I also should have said that I thin down the leading crankpin retaining washers as well. If a rod is double-thickness, I remove one of the bosses at the front (the outer one), leaving it single thickness. Though (theoretically, and practically) it gives a thinner bearing surface, I've never noted excessive wear; not even on those locos I've built for Retford. The clearance gained is crucial.

 

I think it's easier where the crosshead slides between the slidebars, often with the little end sandwiched inside the faces. Clearances are more limited with the LNER Pacific slidebar arrangement (not the Raven A2s), where the little end of the connecting rod is slightly behind the slidebars. 

 

We all have our personal 'dodges' for getting round problems. I've only ever copied those of others, never having 'invented' a process myself. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

It certainly varies from kit to kit and from prototype to prototype.

 

Some have much worse clearance problems than others.

 

One thing I have started doing, out of necessity but it worked out nicely, is to use Gibson top hat crankpin bearings as the retainers on Romford "standard" crankpins.

 

Thinned down, they look much more realistic than the fairly hefty washers supplied by Markits.

 

I managed to lose a Markits washer on the floor working on the LMS Pacific and after much searching, looked around for an alternative. The Gibson retainers really improve the look. They fit the crankpins very nicely.

 

I don't need anybody picking the faults out on this, which is an old Ks kit retaining certain items from the original that could be improved but are retained for sentimental reasons. The kit was bought for Ken Hill by his dad, who used to drive these for the LMS. So we are keeping it the colour he chose and with as much that he provided as possible.

 

The Ks mechanism is being replaced with a Comet one to make it go as it never ran with the Ks motor, wheels and valve gear.

 

You can just about make out the retainers.

 

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Tony,

 

I also should have said that I thin down the leading crankpin retaining washers as well. If a rod is double-thickness, I remove one of the bosses at the front (the outer one), leaving it single thickness. Though (theoretically, and practically) it gives a thinner bearing surface, I've never noted excessive wear; not even on those locos I've built for Retford. The clearance gained is crucial.

 

I think it's easier where the crosshead slides between the slidebars, often with the little end sandwiched inside the faces. Clearances are more limited with the LNER Pacific slidebar arrangement (not the Raven A2s), where the little end of the connecting rod is slightly behind the slidebars. 

 

We all have our personal 'dodges' for getting round problems. I've only ever copied those of others, never having 'invented' a process myself. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I have been giving it a bit of thought Tony. I have never studied the LNER valve gear types closely as the only one I ever build was a NuCast V2 when I was about 16 years old and didn't know any better than to just put a kit together.

 

From an engineering point of view, I would be very surprised if the connecting rod wasn't in line with the slidebar and the piston rod in real life. So I am not sure the little end of the connecting rod should be set back behind the slidebar.

 

Looking at close up photos of Gresley valve gear, they do look to be in line. What I don't know is how easy it would be to alter that to be right on a model but it might buy some clearance where it is needed.

 

Edit to add this link, which includes a plan view illustrating that they should indeed be in line.

 

https://www.lner.info/article/tech/valvegear/gresley.php

 

 

 

 

Edited December 20, 2022 by t-b-g
To add content

[Guest Simon A.C. Martin]

Let this be my final word on the Thompson matter in 2022. With apologies for the long essay again.

 

Wright Writes has always been a haven for getting the small details correct, focusing on research, evidence based approaches and learning from each other. This was true 10 years ago when the thread was started, has likely continued in my absence from RMweb, most certainly, and even today there is still excellent discussion on the modelling issues of the day, with a clear focus on experience, source material and finding the details to be at the heart of it all.

 

The very first post in this thread, however, was born out of the discussion of the Thompson Pacifics. Looking back at it, you can see that times have moved on since that first post. The story around Thompson has changed, and hopefully will continue to change as the source material gets better known. Who could have foreseen that Hornby would be making an almost full range of Thompson's standard locomotive designs? (A2/2, A2/3, B1, L1, K1, O1).

 

I am not the only writer to (as Tony himself wrote) "redress the balance" where Edward Thompson is concerned in the last ten years. I may be the most vocal, and there are reasons why I have consistently been vocal.

 

For a start, let us consider the wider implications of reputational damage that 60 years of writing on the LNER has done to Edward Thompson.

 

Edward Thompson has had everything aimed at him, including unkind comments in books alluding to him being a "traitor to Gresley", dismissals of his work in general, and he has even been excluded almost entirely from the story of several success stories in Gresley's work (e.g. his work on class B12/3).

 

In online (and poorly researched) videos talking about his work there are vile things written about him, and even egged on to, by members of the general public and enthusiast fraternity who have been pre-conditioned to believe that everything Thompson did was bad, personally motivated, and in some way aiming at Gresley's legacy (which, as I keep pointing out, given the numbers, given Thompson's evidenced decision making, is a nonsense to suggest). There is the same approach taken on internet forums, here, there, and elsewhere. On certain Facebook pages every single time a photograph of a rebuilt P2 or Great Northern was shown there was a litany of provocative, accusatory abuse levelled at the man and his reputation.

 

By association to Edward Thompson, members of his family have remained silent throughout for fear of repercussions (I have this on record). By association, those who worked on his locomotives have kept their silence (one very elderly man stopped me at Ally pally last year to thank me for my talk: he had been an apprentice working on the B2s and considered them fine engines). 

 

The people of Doncaster Works drawing office and engineering facilities have also suffered. Instead of commentary praising them for the turn around of several rebuilds and new designs that actually serviced the LNER and later BR Eastern region well, these locomotives are constantly downplayed, ignored, questioned, or misunderstood to a level that wouldn't be acceptable, were someone making these criticisms on the receiving end instead.

 

The second issue for me is that it is absurdly easy for anyone to go and research Edward Thompson and get the "other side of the story" (which to me, given I have spent ten years researching it, is as close to the full truth of things that we are able to get).

 

At the National Archives at Kew, files Rail 390 and 394 are freely available which have an absurd number of letters and reports from 1923-1948. Rail 394 includes the full board minutes, including WW2's emergency board minutes, and the full locomotive committee minutes are available from 1923-1948.

 

We are able to see real time discussions and decision making play out over the course of the LNER's life from its biggest players and supporting engineers, financiers and decision makers. 

 

In Search Engine in the National Railway Museum, we have a full set of files on drawings of the LNER's locomotives to an absurd level of detail, including but not limited to the original engine record cards for most of the LNER's Pacifics and some of the other larger types too. There are also folders of Gresley's and Thompson's supporting archives, which includes letters, interviews, and more.

 

I focused on the primary evidence from the railway company: the LNER. Unless we are suggesting that Thompson undertook a Soviet Union style coverup of his work for the LNER, and had edited or redacted every single negative letter, report, statistic, or similar, in the name of clearing his name (before he would have known it needed clearing), we can assume the archives at Kew and York are accurate and because of that we know that they robustly tell a very specific story about Edward Thompson. Conscientious, hard working, maintenance minded, focused on improving the lot of the LNER and being able to focus the minds around him to do their best in the most difficult of circumstances. The same can be said of the team around him.

 

What a pity that in the rush to make him a villain it is forgot it is not just about Thompson, singular, but about those who worked under him too.

 

Tim Hillier-Graves when he wrote his books on Gresley, Thompson and Peppercorn focused on the personal, family archives that were available to him, and as such his work is different to mine by seeing more of the "behind the scenes", for which his books are must reads. I cited them both in my book's bibliography, and I was grateful for his advice and kind words throughout the development of my book. As such, you are able to read both our books and get a full flavour of the professional and private life of the individuals involved, with full citations and references to original source material given. 

 

Peter Grafton, unhappily, is no longer with us, but his book on Thompson was the earliest which questioned the popular views. If he had had access to the materials that myself and Tim Hillier-Graves have had, he would have produced a further book, of that I am certain, and he may have been far more critical than I have been.

 

Richard Hardy virtually rebuked everything written about Edward Thompson: he was actually there at the time too, and in the department involved at the centre of most of the so-called controversies: the drawing office. He even worked on the Great Northern design, or the Thompson A1 as he knew it when it was being developed. (That, by the way, is a primary source of information who has presented it in secondary sources - his own books. An important distinction to make). 

 

There's a point where no one can do anything more to convince anyone.

 

I've done the hard work, published my book, given the lectures and more. I've done my bit, as has Tim Hillier-Graves, Peter Grafton and Richard Hardy before me. I do not pretend to be as good as these excellent historians, but at least I have tried to do the right thing since my original questions on "were the Thompson Pacifics really that bad" - the longest can of worms ever opened, some might say!

 

But what a sad thing it is to me, to keep seeing the same apocryphal myths get repeated ad infinitum: the same misconceptions, the same fantasies when the evidence based approach which this very thread inspired me to go and do the hard graft is the thing which has shown all of these things to be wanting for evidence, and for the most part, completely contradicted by the primary source evidence.

 

Edward Thompson was not a villain. Not even slightly. He was an engineer, and he disagreed with his manager, mentor (and dare I say: friend) on one specific item: conjugated valve gear. The various statistics available for viewing, the ES Cox report, and more, vindicate his position. The views of engineers outside of the LNER vindicate his views too. This disagreement does not make him a villain.

 

Nor should liking the conjugated valve gear, and thinking Thompson could have dealt with things differently, have to lead to questioning him personally and undermining him at the level of allowing various secondary sources that are unsupported by evidence to override the overwhelming primary evidence base available to us.

 

Edward Thompson took over the LNER at the height of bombing from Nazi Germany and oversaw the rebuilding of the railway up to his retirement in 1946. His primary concerns were availability of locomotive stock (of which some designs were built to plug gaps in serviceable fleets, and some to provide future development for the railway), the modernisation of the LNER as best that could be done with a difficult financial situation, and to ensure that his staff were able to do their jobs and do so safely despite the dangers around them.

 

At the end of the day, a man who fought in one world war and was decorated for his services to the United Kingdom, and worked through another, and in-between was a supporting engineer to one of the most remarkable locomotive engineers of our time is deserving of better analysis than we have seen in the past.

 

With best wishes to you all for the holiday season ahead.

 

Kind regards,

 

Simon

Edited December 20, 2022 by Simon A.C. Martin

[Jol Wilkinson]

12 hours ago, john new said:

Agree we all need to learn, quite happy with that view but when you read things as were stated in some recent posts about boilers too short, boilers the wrong diameter, IIRC the wrong chimney, wrong design of smokebox door, etc., and that is before the debate about gearboxes and the like, and the dearth of wheels currently it is off-putting to a person wanting to step up from r-t-r  to something different. Like Tony W I like making things, I don't have his skills in metal, but fully 'get' his viewpoint. Probably time to move the debate back to  looking at what people have made/adapted, and the models on here are stunning. Inspiring, yet frightening at the same time.

 

John,

 

as one of the several people here who has designed 4mm etched kits, there are compromises that have to be taken into account that sometimes make things less easy for the builder than they might otherwise be. Designing to accomodate three different gauges, recognising that builders will have different skill levels  and experience, keeping material and production costs - and hence kit price - down, are just some of them. 

 

Ideally fold up chassis are the easiest and most accurate way to do things, but that means three separate items to cover OO, EM and P4, so increasing the size of the etch and costing more. Nickel silver is easier to solder and stronger for chassis than brass but not so easy to form into curves. However, if you can design the whole kit in n/s you can use one etch tool, again reducing cost. Cast resin boiler/smokeboxes are easier for the beginner, but quality resin castings aren't cheap, lack weight and may not so easy to fit ballast into. Rolling boilers isn't easy, so the artwork design should allow this to  be removed and rolled by the manufacturer.

 

None of this should excuse badly designed, difficult to assemble or inaccurate kits. I had access to GA's for the loco kits I designed, with one exception for which there was no GA available. I rarely looked at "modellers drawings but studied photos wherever possible. Even then it is possible to miss minor details of differences between what the drawing office produces and the shop floor actually made.

 

With regard to the skill and and knowledge of the builder, the designer has to make a judgement of how experienced  and well equipped they are. Lets say the designer of a tank loco kit has opted for a section of drawn tube for the boiler. It is unreasonable (in my view) to expect all modellers to cut this very accurately to length with "square" ends. So providing the boiler machined tube turned to length is essential. However to cut out the section to clear the motor where it is hidden by the side tanks and hence not too dimensionally critical could be something that the builder is capable of doing with a junior hacksaw or piecing saw.

 

There is much information and guidance available through the web, including this forum, but some of it is misleading or confusing/contradictory (just look up "soldering" for example). Realistic kit producers will advise inexperienced modellers on which kits in their range would be suitable. Sometimes however, this advice isn't readily accepted, where the buyer wants to make a model of a particular loco that might be better done with more experience.

 

The only way is to give it a try. Pick a model that is suited to learning the ropes. A simple van or wagon could be a first step but don't assume what might appear easy be will be son. A friend who wants to build models started with an etched chassis kit to fit under a RTR loco body from a model he already had. He soon sought my advice, which after looking at the kit was to repeat the Irishman's reply when he was asked by a stranger for some directions to another place " If I was going there, I wouldn't start from here". So I gave him a cast white metal/etched wagon cut to start on. He made a great job of that and was able to get on successfully with the chassis kit with confidence (and more guidance).

 

Jol

[davidw]

On 16/12/2022 at 18:27, robertcwp said:

The summer of 1957 is as you will know the time that Retford depicts. Roy and others built lots of engines and stock, a good deal of which has since been made RTR or soon will be and Retford also has lots of RTR stock that has been modified, altered or improved in some way. 

 

There are, however, some notable gaps, for example the K2 and J6. The A1/1 and A2/1 are also gaps in RTR but there was only one of the former and if I recall correctly only one of the latter was on the ER. The two A2/2s that did not have the A2/3 type of boiler and modified cab are also not covered RTR. There are probably various other types missing, plus the haulage capability issue for most RTR models. Hornby's A3s can't seem to manage much but their A4s can shift a decent train with additional weight.

 

There are lots of kit-built wagons on the GN side of Retford that have since been done very well RTR, mainly by Bachmann, but by no means all. 

 

Turning to coaching stock, let's run through some of the trains modelled:

 

10:00 King’s Cross-Edinburgh ‘Flying Scotsman’ - all RTR except the Thompson RSO/RK/RFO - not available RTR and I'm not sure that you can still buy the sides for the RSO - I can't find any available etched sides for one
14:18 King’s Cross-Harrogate/Hull - mostly RTR but has some Gresley stock not available RTR, plus a Thompson RF (which needs replacing) - also not available RTR in 4mm scale (but is or soon will be in 0 gauge - bangs head on wall at this point)
16:50 King’s Cross-Newcastle ‘Tees-Tyne Pullman’ - Hadrian Bar not available RTR other than the Golden Age model (which is I think slightly out of period) - plus Hornby has never done its excellent Pullman cars in typical 1950s livery style, or in a decent shade of umber for that matter (Hornby's is too dark). The TTP on Retford is ex-Gamston Bank, kindly loaned by Geoff West
17:30 King’s Cross-Harrogate/Hull ‘Yorkshire Pullman’ - could now all be done RTR except for the livery issue - the set on Retford is older Hornby cars with new sides, painted (including crests) by Geoff Kent I believe
07:45/16:00 King’s Cross-Edinburgh ‘Talisman’ - all kits but once Hornby does the Coronation twin first in BR condition, six out of eight will be covered RTR, with the Thompson RF and RSO missing
15:40 King’s Cross-Bradford/Leeds ‘West Riding’ - once Hornby does the ex-streamlined stock RTR, the whole train could be covered thus - the current set is all kits apart from the Hornby BSO at the rear
10:20 King’s Cross-Leeds/Ripon/Bradford/Hull - this has a Gresley Restaurant Triplet (not available RTR) - the current one and some other stock in the train is on loan from Geoff West
10:10 King’s Cross-Glasgow - this will be covered in full RTR once the Coronation restaurant second twin is made by Hornby - the one currently in the train is Mailcoach and the remainder is RTR
12:20 King’s Cross-Newcastle ‘Northumbrian’ - all RTR except the Gresley restaurant triplet, which is a kit (and very good, complete with the standing bar modification to the 1938 Flying Scotsman triplet)

12:55 Grantham-Doncaster - this needs some Gresley stock not available RTR - the current set has some kit-built stock in it

 

And that's just the passenger trains modelled in the down direction.

A Thompson RSO is still available via Southern Pride. Also Wizard/Comet do a similar Thompson SO. Strangely it's not listed on the website. I think I discovered it in a phone conversation. Worth asking

[Michael Edge]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

I have been giving it a bit of thought Tony. I have never studied the LNER valve gear types closely as the only one I ever build was a NuCast V2 when I was about 16 years old and didn't know any better than to just put a kit together.

 

From an engineering point of view, I would be very surprised if the connecting rod wasn't in line with the slidebar and the piston rod in real life. So I am not sure the little end of the connecting rod should be set back behind the slidebar.

 

Looking at close up photos of Gresley valve gear, they do look to be in line. What I don't know is how easy it would be to alter that to be right on a model but it might buy some clearance where it is needed.

 

Edit to add this link, which includes a plan view illustrating that they should indeed be in line.

 

https://www.lner.info/article/tech/valvegear/gresley.php

 

 

 

 

The connecting rod actually passes between the two bottom bars of the LNER three bar arrangement, this is not easy, the connecting rod has to be parallel to the frames and not move sideways very far. However most kits represent this as two bars in a vertical plane so Tony's arrangement looks about right on these - Finney kits and my etches do the slidebars properly with a wide top bar and two lower ones.

[t-b-g]

11 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

The connecting rod actually passes between the two bottom bars of the LNER three bar arrangement, this is not easy, the connecting rod has to be parallel to the frames and not move sideways very far. However most kits represent this as two bars in a vertical plane so Tony's arrangement looks about right on these - Finney kits and my etches do the slidebars properly with a wide top bar and two lower ones.

 

I think that the crossheads produced by Markits are the correct pattern too.

 

As long as you leave the outside face intact, the appearance isn't spoiled by filing away a small amount of the inside rear bottom edge of the inner slidebar, even on the kit slidebars with the wrong arrangement of plates and bars.

 

In 00, the connecting rod usually has to angle in towards the driving wheel, so you should only need to create clearance on the inside face, leaving the outside looking as before.

 

I only mentioned it as there was a discussion about clearances behind crosshead and this is one way of gaining a small amount, improving the look by getting the connecting rod in line with the piston rod in the process.

 

 

[robertcwp]

2 hours ago, davidw said:

A Thompson RSO is still available via Southern Pride. Also Wizard/Comet do a similar Thompson SO. Strangely it's not listed on the website. I think I discovered it in a phone conversation. Worth asking

I shall ask Andrew about the Comet one, thanks. 

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I have been giving it a bit of thought Tony. I have never studied the LNER valve gear types closely as the only one I ever build was a NuCast V2 when I was about 16 years old and didn't know any better than to just put a kit together.

 

From an engineering point of view, I would be very surprised if the connecting rod wasn't in line with the slidebar and the piston rod in real life. So I am not sure the little end of the connecting rod should be set back behind the slidebar.

 

Looking at close up photos of Gresley valve gear, they do look to be in line. What I don't know is how easy it would be to alter that to be right on a model but it might buy some clearance where it is needed.

 

Edit to add this link, which includes a plan view illustrating that they should indeed be in line.

 

https://www.lner.info/article/tech/valvegear/gresley.php

 

 

 

 

Thanks Tony,

 

It's clear on the real thing that all things (crosshead/piston rod/little end) are in line in plan view. 

 

The 'clearance' problem arises because that's not the case with many LNER kit crossheads, especially the likes of Jamieson and DJH, where the little end is fixed to the rear of the crosshead. Comet's are better (they're not handed), where the little end of the connecting rod fits inside the body of the crosshead. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited December 20, 2022 by Tony Wright
typo error

[62613]

6 hours ago, polybear said:

 

I often see posts like those you mention - some are glaringly obvious even to me (such as a Triang Princess being slightly too short 🤣), yet many other posts I see, such as "Smoke Box Door Profile all wrong" (is it really - looks ok to me), or "Boiler is 0.5mm too short" (only discovered after measuring every dimension with a Vernier a against a known 100% accurate drawing) I can get less concerned over if it can only be discovered after hours of careful measurement or looking at dozens of photos.  For me if it looks like a nicely constructed and finished V2/A1/Hush Hush/Jinty etc. and runs well then I'm a happy bunny.  This is in no way a criticism of those who do like to aim for everything to be "spot on", however.

 

What's one of them?

[t-b-g]

16 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Tony,

 

It's clear on the real thing that all things (crosshead/piston rod/little end) are in line in plan view. 

 

The 'clearance' problem arises because that's not the case with many LNER kit crossheads, especially the likes of Jamieson and DJH, where the little end is fixed to the rear of the crosshead. Comet's are better (they're not handed), where the little end of the connecting rod fits inside the body of the crosshead. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

This is the sort of situation where if I was short of clearance, I might ditch the kit parts and replace them with Comet replacements.

 

It is probably only an issue in EM gauge, so it won't bother many folk.

[Barry Ten]

4 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

 

When it comes to locos, I would suggest an inside cylinder type to start with, perhaps with Markits wheels, which are the easiest to fit.

 

For what it's worth my first loco kit was the DJH C2X 0-6-0, which I would suggest is a good option for a beginner as there are no snags in the construction and you end up with something that hasn't yet been offered in the RTR market. At the time I built it I wasn't particularly interested in Southern locos but it led on to a widening interest in that company and its pre-grouping constiuents, so now I'm very happy that I took the plunge. I soldered the chassis (which went together easily, with screw-in frame spacers) and epoxied the body and tender. That was over twenty years ago and no bits have ever fallen off, so no one should be deterred from a white metal kit just because they haven't yet got to grips with low-temp soldering.

 

In rough order of progression I then did:

 

A King chassis (first with outside cylinders) to go under an RTR body.

 

A  DJH 1366 (also outside cylinders, another good beginner's kit).

 

A City (first 4-4-0 and first with outside cranks).

 

A Castle chassis for an RTR body.

 

A DJH S15 (first go at valve gear, and first loco built using soldered white meta).

 

After that, I've built lots of etched chassis to go under RTR bodies, and never had

much trouble with valve gear. I must say that I found rivetted assembly very tricky

so I've now settled on Tony W's approach of dressmaker's pins. I've also built a few

complete white metal kits, from DJH, Gem and Finecast and not really run into any

major horrors. I think the main lesson I've learned is that there aren't many mistakes

you can't dig yourself out of given a clear head and maybe a nip of whisky.

[t-b-g]

51 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

 

For what it's worth my first loco kit was the DJH C2X 0-6-0, which I would suggest is a good option for a beginner as there are no snags in the construction and you end up with something that hasn't yet been offered in the RTR market. At the time I built it I wasn't particularly interested in Southern locos but it led on to a widening interest in that company and its pre-grouping constiuents, so now I'm very happy that I took the plunge. I soldered the chassis (which went together easily, with screw-in frame spacers) and epoxied the body and tender. That was over twenty years ago and no bits have ever fallen off, so no one should be deterred from a white metal kit just because they haven't yet got to grips with low-temp soldering.

 

In rough order of progression I then did:

 

A King chassis (first with outside cylinders) to go under an RTR body.

 

A  DJH 1366 (also outside cylinders, another good beginner's kit).

 

A City (first 4-4-0 and first with outside cranks).

 

A Castle chassis for an RTR body.

 

A DJH S15 (first go at valve gear, and first loco built using soldered white meta).

 

After that, I've built lots of etched chassis to go under RTR bodies, and never had

much trouble with valve gear. I must say that I found rivetted assembly very tricky

so I've now settled on Tony W's approach of dressmaker's pins. I've also built a few

complete white metal kits, from DJH, Gem and Finecast and not really run into any

major horrors. I think the main lesson I've learned is that there aren't many mistakes

you can't dig yourself out of given a clear head and maybe a nip of whisky.

 

That is a good selection covering most things you will find that you have to deal with.

 

I used to use pins for valve gear but I modified them by holding the shaft in a mini drill and making the head flatter and a bit smaller with a file.

 

Then I came across a packet of rivets which have a small flat head. I use those now but I solder them in, using chemical blackening on one part as a solder resist.

 

Roy Jackson used to say that the difference between an average modeller and a good modeller was how much effort they put in to sorting out their mistakes.

 

As you say, there is rarely a problem that cannot be overcome with a little thought and ingenuity (and alcohol!).

[Chuffer Davies]

1 hour ago, Barry Ten said:

I think the main lesson I've learned is that there aren't many mistakes

you can't dig yourself out of given a clear head and maybe a nip of whisky.

I couldn’t agree more other than it’s Sherry in my case.

Frank

[Barry Ten]

3 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said:

I couldn’t agree more other than it’s Sherry in my case.

Frank

 

I hope Sherry agrees.

[Northmoor]

2 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

I think the main lesson I've learned is that there aren't many mistakes you can't dig yourself out of given a clear head and maybe a nip of whisky.

As the Highland doctor joke goes:

"So Doctor, what do you recommend for this?"

"A wee dram and straight to bed with ye!"

"And what if that doesn't cure it, what then?"

"Two wee drams and straight to bed!"

"And what if I still don't feel better, what then?"

"Three drams and straight to bed!"

"Doctor, what if I don't like whisky?"

"Och, if that's the case Laddie, you're nae worth savin'!"

[LNER4479]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

Roy Jackson used to say that the difference between an average modeller and a good modeller was how much effort they put in to sorting out their mistakes.

 

As you say, there is rarely a problem that cannot be overcome with a little thought and ingenuity (and alcohol!).

David Jenkinson used to categorise any problem requiring solving as a 'one bottle problem', a 'two bottle problem' or a 'three bottle problem' ... 

[t-b-g]

4 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

David Jenkinson used to categorise any problem requiring solving as a 'one bottle problem', a 'two bottle problem' or a 'three bottle problem' ... 

 

A three bottle problem must have been pretty serious.

 

My "go to" stress relief is stop, walk up the path to the house and put the kettle on for a cup of tea. Then I take the cup down to the shed and let it go cold while I grapple with whatever is on the workbench.

 

Maybe I am doing it wrong.

[melmoth]

20 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

A three bottle problem must have been pretty serious.

 

 

A three bottle problem is one where you've forgotten what the problem was by the end of third bottle

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

A three bottle problem must have been pretty serious.

 

My "go to" stress relief is stop, walk up the path to the house and put the kettle on for a cup of tea. Then I take the cup down to the shed and let it go cold while I grapple with whatever is on the workbench.

 

Maybe I am doing it wrong.

Good evening Tony,

 

I wish I could take my own advice to others when problems occur; that is to put something down, walk away and 'cool off'. Then, come back to it after a cup of tea or a nip of something stronger. Or better still, 'sleep on it' and come back refreshed in the morning with a clearer mind. Sound advice? Pity I never take it! 

 

I find it impossible to go to bed if I'm struggling with a model, particularly with regard to its running. I'll keep on at it, which is often counter-productive. I end up spending more time 'undoing' what I'm not happy with, effectively having to do a job twice. Still, I never admit to being 'beaten'. 

 

When we lived in Wolverhampton, one of our cats used to sleep in the workshop when I was working in there, snugly in her basket. On occasions, she'd stretch and request to be let out. Almost without fail, this was but a minute before all Hell broke loose as I bellowed out a stream of profanities as something I was making went wrong. She could predict it, saving herself from the worst of my excesses. Then, after the storm, she'd politely ask to be let back in. A rather calming influence.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.