Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

Jesse's D2 is now finished (as far as I'm concerned) and will be posted off to Graham Nicholas tomorrow in order that it'll be available to run on Grantham at Harrogate in just over a week. 

 

 

Worth it? Probably not, but that's not for me to decide.

 

I checked the ride height and was able to lower the loco body a little by scraping away at its chassis-fixing points.

 

 

Still a twitch high (though not the 2-3mm some thought) seen against my latest A3 build. 

 

 

The tender needed no height adjustment. 

 

 

[Jesse Sim]

This will be me the entire time staying at Wrights Towers

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Jesse's D2 is now finished (as far as I'm concerned) and will be posted off to Graham Nicholas tomorrow in order that it'll be available to run on Grantham at Harrogate in just over a week. 

 

 

Worth it? Probably not, but that's not for me to decide.

 

I checked the ride height and was able to lower the loco body a little by scraping away at its chassis-fixing points.

 

 

Still a twitch high (though not the 2-3mm some thought) seen against my latest A3 build. 

 

 

The tender needed no height adjustment. 

 

 

 

Have you looked at photos of real D2s in your assessment of the model Tony? The reason people thought it was several mm. out is that on the real D2, on a sideways shot, the top of the bogie wheels is just under the bottom edge of the valance.

 

That is the reason why the front end looks so wrong. If the buffer height is correct (I always measure against rail height rather than compare it to another model that may or may not be correct but I am sure you have built enough DJH locos to be confident that it is right) then either the bogie wheels are undersized, or the valance is too thin, or maybe both.

 

I would need to check a drawing to be certain but my recollection is that the chimney on the non superheated version of this loco was in the centre of the smokebox, not against the rear edge. They were usually vertical too but that perception may be caused by the close up camera and distortion. Maybe it is vertical in real life. The handrail is rather too low as well. There should be a much bigger gap between the splasher top and the handrail. The shape of the front footplate step plate is quite wrong too. It should have a lovely curve at the front edge. 

 

There are so many things not quite right that a major strip down and a rebuild would be needed to make into a decent D2. It is maybe one of those "If you want to go there, I wouldn't start from here" situations.

 

I thought you were quite correct when you questioned whether or not it was a worthwhile exercise to put time, effort and money into it. 

Edited February 28, 2023 by t-b-g
To add content

[Chamby]

Cheap A2/3 anyone?  A well-known retailer in the northwest is now selling Hornby’s A2/3 No.514 in LNER lettered pea green at £109 each…

 

 

 

[drmditch]

6 hours ago, RAYTHEROCK said:

My, large colection of Meccano - blue chequer-plate, nickel plate, red/green, yellow blue has been taken by my grand-daughter to start a girls' basic engineering group at her school. Good luck to them- pity Meccano was so crude.

 

Crude?

Not my experience.

What with clockwork motors (and a Mamod oscillating steam engine) so much could be designed and made and operated. I remember making gearboxes and differemtial drives on rear axles, and lorries and buses and a landrover and a traction emgine (steam driven) and big cranes.

 

My younger brothers had Lego.

[RAYTHEROCK]

gears were indeed a strong point; I was thinking of say 12.5" angle girders which were all bowed in my experience, or the circular plate whose piercings were all off centre. Still I understand the girls are enjoying the Meccano experience - they got two E20R motors with it but no transformers,  only an old Duette giving 12v .

[polybear]

8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Jesse's D2 is now finished (as far as I'm concerned) and will be posted off to Graham Nicholas tomorrow in order that it'll be available to run on Grantham at Harrogate in just over a week. 

 

 

Worth it? Probably not, but that's not for me to decide.

 

I checked the ride height and was able to lower the loco body a little by scraping away at its chassis-fixing points.

 

 

I think it's turned out very nicely indeed; as for the buffer heights I do know that 1947 revision of the R.C.H. “Regulations respecting the repairing & rebuilding of wagons ..“ gives figures for buffer height which varied between 3ft 1in and 3ft 6in.  Whilst I know that a D2 isn't a Wagon (which is pretty advanced knowledge for me 🤣 perhaps there were similar (though not as wide) limits for Locos due to tyre wear etc?

[Tony Wright]

8 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Have you looked at photos of real D2s in your assessment of the model Tony? The reason people thought it was several mm. out is that on the real D2, on a sideways shot, the top of the bogie wheels is just under the bottom edge of the valance.

 

That is the reason why the front end looks so wrong. If the buffer height is correct (I always measure against rail height rather than compare it to another model that may or may not be correct but I am sure you have built enough DJH locos to be confident that it is right) then either the bogie wheels are undersized, or the valance is too thin, or maybe both.

 

I would need to check a drawing to be certain but my recollection is that the chimney on the non superheated version of this loco was in the centre of the smokebox, not against the rear edge. They were usually vertical too but that perception may be caused by the close up camera and distortion. Maybe it is vertical in real life. The handrail is rather too low as well. There should be a much bigger gap between the splasher top and the handrail. The shape of the front footplate step plate is quite wrong too. It should have a lovely curve at the front edge. 

 

There are so many things not quite right that a major strip down and a rebuild would be needed to make into a decent D2. It is maybe one of those "If you want to go there, I wouldn't start from here" situations.

 

I thought you were quite correct when you questioned whether or not it was a worthwhile exercise to put time, effort and money into it. 

Good morning Tony,

 

The bogie wheels are too small (correct-sized ones fouled the frames, and, anyway, how much more 'good' money needs to be spent going after 'bad'?). The valance is a little under-nourished as well.

 

I know my new A3 rides at exactly the right height (though that can vary), so a quick comparison was the easiest way, I thought. 

 

There's possibly a little bit of 'diverging verticals' in the photographs. 

 

I have a London Road D2 (saturated) to build for the smaller section of LB, which, with luck and a following wind, might just turn out to be satisfactory. If I post images of it on here, I know it'll come under the closest scrutiny. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Woodcock29]

8 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Have you looked at photos of real D2s in your assessment of the model Tony? The reason people thought it was several mm. out is that on the real D2, on a sideways shot, the top of the bogie wheels is just under the bottom edge of the valance.

 

That is the reason why the front end looks so wrong. If the buffer height is correct (I always measure against rail height rather than compare it to another model that may or may not be correct but I am sure you have built enough DJH locos to be confident that it is right) then either the bogie wheels are undersized, or the valance is too thin, or maybe both.

 

I would need to check a drawing to be certain but my recollection is that the chimney on the non superheated version of this loco was in the centre of the smokebox, not against the rear edge. They were usually vertical too but that perception may be caused by the close up camera and distortion. Maybe it is vertical in real life. The handrail is rather too low as well. There should be a much bigger gap between the splasher top and the handrail. The shape of the front footplate step plate is quite wrong too. It should have a lovely curve at the front edge. 

 

There are so many things not quite right that a major strip down and a rebuild would be needed to make into a decent D2. It is maybe one of those "If you want to go there, I wouldn't start from here" situations.

 

I thought you were quite correct when you questioned whether or not it was a worthwhile exercise to put time, effort and money into it. 

In some ways I don't want to get back on this subject - Jesse's  D2.

 

Tony G is right about the chimney position. Tony W has corrected the height issue which was really only marginal. The reason it looks odd is that the  bogie wheels are under size and I think Tony W mentioned this in the first instance but also the splashers are oversize which makes the driving wheels look too small and the handrail too close to the top of the splashers. The handrail is in the correct position. There's not much Tony W could have done about the splashers. Its much easier to make them larger (which I did on a Bec D11) than make them smaller.

 

Andrew

Edited March 1, 2023 by Woodcock29
Typo

[micklner]

Basically a simply awful kit of the D2, or what might have been one at some  in another universe !!. 🍌🤑🗑️

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Tony,

 

The bogie wheels are too small (correct-sized ones fouled the frames, and, anyway, how much more 'good' money needs to be spent going after 'bad'?). The valance is a little under-nourished as well.

 

I know my new A3 rides at exactly the right height (though that can vary), so a quick comparison was the easiest way, I thought. 

 

There's possibly a little bit of 'diverging verticals' in the photographs. 

 

I have a London Road D2 (saturated) to build for the smaller section of LB, which, with luck and a following wind, might just turn out to be satisfactory. If I post images of it on here, I know it'll come under the closest scrutiny. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

I have little doubt that the London Road version will be much better Tony. You really were starting from a "no win" position with this one. Even an experienced modeller like yourself was always going to struggle to build a good D2 from that very poor starting point. If you were building the kit from new, things like altering the frames to take larger bogie wheels or taking some from the bottom of the splashers to lower them are maybe not too difficult but trying to resurrect a poorly built (albeit partially dismantled) model, it was always going to be difficult to correct what are really quite significant errors.

 

If I had been in your position, I would have rebuilt the thing and got rid of it quietly without illustrating it on here. Still, maybe it gives others hope and encouragement when even people with your experience struggle sometimes!

 

I look forward to seeing what you do with the better kit as a starting point. They are good looking locos, these GNR 4-4-0 types and modelled well, they make lovely models too.

[FarrMan]

3 hours ago, RAYTHEROCK said:

gears were indeed a strong point; I was thinking of say 12.5" angle girders which were all bowed in my experience, or the circular plate whose piercings were all off centre. Still I understand the girls are enjoying the Meccano experience - they got two E20R motors with it but no transformers,  only an old Duette giving 12v .

Even morebowing on 24.5" angle girders!

 

Lloyd

[LNER4479]

Well, if nothing else, Jesse's D2 occupies a vacant number in the LNER numbering sequence! We already have 4323, 4325, 4327 & 4329 available for use on Grantham ...

[gr.king]

23 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Apparently, I'm quite lucky; most have already sold out, even some on pre-order. 

 

Is this the way of market forces in the hobby now? Buy immediately when something is available, otherwise that's it - there won't be re-runs.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Generally true for those who want the same product as everybody else, straight out of the box, but for those of us willing and able to do some work, there's the alternative strategy of waiting to see whether the prices of the un-popular left-over versions eventually tumble, with a view to re-finishing or re-building them as different / better versions. It's a risk of course, as is every course of action, but it can pay off.

[Tony Wright]

Ah, 

 

The D2 saga..............

 

 

Whilst searching 'D2' on my computer, this popped up. It's yet another WSM D2, but where, why and how I photographed it, I have no idea (the coal rails were not attached, I assure you).

 

The London Road D2 is an excellent kit...............

 

 

 

As I hope the above images show, especially after passing through Mr Rathbone's paint shop. 

 

The LRM D3 is also an excellent kit...........

 

 

 

 

 

Especially after passing through Mr. Haynes' paint shop.

 

We've run another D3 on Little Bytham...........

 

 

During the 1938 weekend. I can't recall whose this is, but it's very nice. 

 

 

[Dunsignalling]

On 28/02/2023 at 11:12, Tony Wright said:

 

They're Great Northern, but can be altered to suit. Apparently, I'm quite lucky; most have already sold out, even some on pre-order. 

 

Is this the way of market forces in the hobby now? Buy immediately when something is available, otherwise that's it - there won't be re-runs.

 

 

At a practical level (especially for we more senior types) It's probably best to work on that assumption if we desire specific examples of any r-t-r products bar a Hornby Mallard or Flying Scotsman.

 

Probably not never, but re-runs will likely be a few years away rather than a few months.

 

Given the sheer number of liveries in Hatton's programme, I doubt any of the early ones will be revisited before the rest of those already announced have been released.  

 

John

Edited March 1, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[polybear]

1 hour ago, LNER4479 said:

Well, if nothing else, Jesse's D2 occupies a vacant number in the LNER numbering sequence! We already have 4323, 4325, 4327 & 4329 available for use on Grantham ...

 

Of course all this makes Jesse's D2 achieve nigh-on "infamous" status - it'll be worth a fortune....🤣

 

[LNER4479]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

We've run another D3 on Little Bytham...........

 

 

During the 1938 weekend. I can't recall whose this is, but it's very nice. 

 

... except this one is a D2!!

 

The GNR 4-4-0s are horrendously complex, with many and various rebuilds, re-designations, etcs. It's not as simple as curved running plate / separate splashers = D2; straight running plate/combined splasher = D3. The first batch of D2s (4321-4325) had straight running plates, as per above. This loco is Graeme King's, and very lovely it is too.

 

The D3s were rebuilds of earlier D4s ... and some of those ended up with curved running plates, just to add to the fun. Some were rebuilt for the second time, ie D4 --> D3 --> D2! Typical LNER muddle.

Edited March 1, 2023 by LNER4479

[Tony Wright]

9 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

... except this one is a D2!!

 

The GNR 4-4-0s are horrendously complex, with many and various rebuilds, re-designations, etcs. It's not as simple as curved running plate / separate splashers = D2; straight running plate/combined splasher = D3. The first batch of D2s (4321-4325) had straight running plates, as per above. This loco is Graeme King's, and very lovely it is too.

 

The D3s were rebuilds of earlier D4s ... and some of those ended up with curved running plates, just to add to the fun. Some were rebuilt for the second time, ie D4 --> D3 --> D2! Typical LNER muddle.

Oops!

 

Despite my ignorance in describing it, it is, as you say, quite rightly, a very lovely model.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[31A]

5 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

Well, if nothing else, Jesse's D2 occupies a vacant number in the LNER numbering sequence! We already have 4323, 4325, 4327 & 4329 available for use on Grantham ...

Would you like 3049 to go with those?

 

[jwealleans]

I have a D2 which I was hoping to bring to Harrogate, but I've had similar problems to Tony with the bogie wheels fouling the underside of the running plate.   When I did some measuring, whoever built it has used 24mm wheels, so hardly surprising that the (correct) bogie wheels drag on the body.   It'll be fine for Newcastle.

[LNER4479]

1 hour ago, 31A said:

Would you like 3049 to go with those?

 

Thanks Steve - the full 'roll call' is:

3050 (s/h, last D2 built) 4317 (D3), 4323, 4325 (both straight frame D2s), 4327 (s/h D2) & 4329 (D2) ... so we're not exactly short of the little blighters. I was just quoting those in the 432x number range to highlight that Jesse's 4328 was a 'near miss' duplicate!

 

Of course - do bring it along. If nothing else, we can photo a D2/3 line-up(!)

[Barry Ten]

14 hours ago, drmditch said:

 

Crude?

Not my experience.

What with clockwork motors (and a Mamod oscillating steam engine) so much could be designed and made and operated. I remember making gearboxes and differemtial drives on rear axles, and lorries and buses and a landrover and a traction emgine (steam driven) and big cranes.

 

My younger brothers had Lego.

 

 

 

I might be of the generation which overlapped between Meccano and Lego. I had both as a child (lucky boy) but despite strong encouragement from my dad, I never quite clicked with Meccano. It was too hard on small fingers, tightening all those nuts and bolts, whereas Lego could be assembled quickly and without sore fingertips. I found Meccano hampered my creativity where Lego allowed it full-flight. Lego was a very different beast back then, too, with relatively few specialised blocks and only a few colours compared the spectrum available now.

[Clearwater]

32 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

 

 

 

I might be of the generation which overlapped between Meccano and Lego. I had both as a child (lucky boy) but despite strong encouragement from my dad, I never quite clicked with Meccano. It was too hard on small fingers, tightening all those nuts and bolts, whereas Lego could be assembled quickly and without sore fingertips. I found Meccano hampered my creativity where Lego allowed it full-flight. Lego was a very different beast back then, too, with relatively few specialised blocks and only a few colours compared the spectrum available now.

 

Apologies for being a bit offtopic albeit still constructional.  I'm finding contemporary lego which I'm building with my kids, more constrained than the classic lego of the late 70s/early 80s given the higher number of specialist pieces.  That said, the stuff available commercially is phenomenal. I built their Collett Hall with my kids (Harry Potter branded).  Even included a tapered boiler.  Had to quarter the wheel for valve gear.  Did building lego fire my ambition to do other stuff?  Absolutely.

 

Sites like BrickLink Studio allow you to create your own designs and order bespoke kits which is just amazing. What people have built with these tools is again incredible.  Example from an open day at  Acton Museum.

 

David

 

 

 

[lezz01]

Lego has to be the greatest toy of all time. Or maybe Mechano although I think it's a photo finish.

Regards Lez.