Wright writes.....

[t-b-g]

One area where the RTR A2 does score over the kit one is the shape of the curve at the top edge of the tender side. I have seen many DJH kits built up on various layouts over the years and most seem to have the same error, in that the curve at the top edge is more like an angled bend than a continuous curve.

 

The Bachmann one has that looking right.

 

I like the sheet from the cab to the tender on the RTR model too, although I appreciate that is something that has been added. It is so common on the real thing yet rarely modelled. A very nice touch.

 

There isn't very much between the two models that would bother me greatly. I think the join between the dome and the boiler on the kit could be a lot neater. The RTR valve gear actually has a multi layer expansion link but the kit as a single layer. The kit model has better definition and depth in the axleboxes on the tender and under the cab.

 

I still think that leaving Romford/Markits axle nuts visible is a bit lazy and I have never been keen on a visible head of a cheesehead bolt holding the valve gear together. Neither is difficult to hide.

 

The Rathbone lining is certainly a lot more in keeping with colour photos of the period but as has been said, we can't all be in a position to benefit from that input of skill and even if we were, some of us might still prefer to have a go ourselves.

 

I have noticed the figure of £1000 mentioned as the cost of having a loco painted and lined. I can't speak for all painters and liners but a friend of mine has his done by one of the top painters and liners for around half that in O gauge, so I think it is a bit off the mark.

[richard i]

I believe the 1000 was a reference to both painting and lining. In which case it is below what I would expect. 1200pds is closer to the mark all in I think. Not that I could afford such a price for a loco/ be able to justify such expenditure on a loco to the household management.

richard

[polybear]

10 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

DJH A2.

 

Apologies for my having just lifted my DJH A2 off the layout for photography (a bit dusty), having seen almost 20 years of hard work. 

 

 

I'll wager good money that a Bachmann would've died long ago and would never achieve anywhere near 20 years of similar service.  Another plus point for the DJH is it will be repairable almost indefinitely; the likes of Hornby/Bachmann etc. it's often the case that many spares are unavailable even from Day One.

[davidw]

12 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Mick,

 

Don't you just enjoy a robust debate? I know I do........

 

Quote..... 

  'I have also built as already mentioned  two more "modern" DJH kits  that include a etched chassis, a A2 and A2/3 both about 20 or more  years ago. Both were poor in quality and detail , that is when compared to other kits I have also built.

The A2 was sold off,  when the Bachmann A2 when released , which is superior in quality in all departments , other than pulling power'.....

 

In the words of my good friend (and man of the law) Gilbert Barnatt, 'Please show me your evidence'......

 

May I present mine to the contrary, please?

 

 

Bachmann A2 as supplied.

 

 

DJH A2.

 

 

Bachmann A2

 

 

DJH A2.

 

 

Bachmann A2.

 

 

DJH A2.

 

Apologies for my having just lifted my DJH A2 off the layout for photography (a bit dusty), having seen almost 20 years of hard work. 

 

Is the Bachmann one 'superior' in quality in all departments?

 

I'm certainly not claiming that my A2 is 'superior' to the Bachmann one, apart from, as you concede, in pulling power (which it definitely is), but I can't let your blanket statement go unchallenged. 

 

Of course, mine is blessed with a paint job by one of the best in the business, Ian Rathbone, but any DJH A2 will have to be painted. And, to be fair, I've seen some DJH A2s which are anything but painted well, and are certainly inferior to the Bachmann one's finish. 

 

Speaking of the Bachmann A2, it really is a very fine model, especially with some detailing.

 

 

I set about 'improving' this ex-HAPPY KNIGHT; pipework, new bogie wheels, renumbering/renaming, etc. I also painted the top of the tender sides green.

 

 

Producing VELOCITY. Gone is the horrid seam along the bottom of the boiler, and I've altered the return crank's incorrect 'lean' on this side. I've also raised the back end so that it's more in line with the tender's soleplate (but not quite enough). Tom Foster's superlative weathering completes the job.

 

 

I doubt if my DJH A2 is more-convincing, but (I hope) it's certainly not inferior. 

 

Eric Kidd certainly made a splendid job of 'improving' his Bachmann 60537............

 

 

 

And what a lovely job he made (though the Cartazzi axleboxes are a bit anorexic). 

 

It's more detailed than my DJH A2. 

 

Without evidence, I think blanket statements are best avoided.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

What's evident to me on Bachmann BR A1 and A2 livery models is the bumblebee lining which needs to be toned down. This spoils in my opinion a very good starting point. The paint jobs on your kit built models is far better, and the kit built models have presence the plastic rtr can't match.

With respect to lining, Hornby used to get this just right. But these days the lining looks more straw/yellow than orange. Enough has been said over Hornbys Thompson pacifics livery already.

[Tony Wright]

11 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

Come, come, Tony - let's not compare apples to oranges.

 

You are one of a very select band who can aspire to "an Ian Rathbone paint job" - and that via an even rarer 'barter' arrangement, I believe.

 

The comparison that you make would be more valid if :-

 

a) the Bachmann model was also the subject of Ian's attentions;

 

or

 

b) the DJH model was subjected to a Bachmann factory paint job.

 

Let's leave specialist artisan work out of a comparison of RTR with kitbuilt locos, which latter are - to the vast majority of modellers - self built / finished models.

 

I do think that, sometimes, you loose sight of what a privileged position you occupy in the model railway world.

 

John Isherwood.

Come, come John,

 

It wasn't me who started this 'comparison'. My response was to a claim that the Bachmann A2 is superior in just about every way to a DJH A2 (apart from in haulage capacity); a statement I completely refute.

 

Here is more of my evidence to substantiate this.................

 

 

 

Another DJH/Wright/Rathbone combination. 

 

I am certainly not suggestion that the opposite is true, in that the DJH A2 is superior in every way to the Bachmann A2 (Tony Gee has pointed out some valid criticisms of the DJH A2), and, I hope, that I've shown that how (with a fair bit of work) the Bachmann A2 can be made into a very fine model.

 

Your last statement rather depresses me. You make it sound as if my 'privileged position in the model railway world' is as of right. I never lose sight of the position I'm in, and count myself extremely lucky that I've been able to make a living from building models, writing about them and taking photographs. But, that 'privileged' position had to be earned. Earned by being able to do the three things I've mentioned, plus helping others along their modelling 'journeys' through tutorials, one-to-one assistance, demonstrations and presentations. And, assisting both RTR manufacturers and kit-manufacturers with their projects in any way I can.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 

Edited March 29, 2023 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[Atso]

Hello everyone,

 

I've not been doing much modelling recently but the discussion regarding RTR vs Kit/Scratch building has been interesting. Tony, your K4 scratch build is very good; as the the painting an lining on it.

 

While my knowledge of the items available in 4mm scale (and larger) is limited, I have found that available items for my chosen period (1930's) and scale (N gauge) is limited. Therefore I had a choice of not bothering at all, making do with what is available or designing/making my own bits and pieces as well as adapting RTR/kits where appropriate. Through this, I've designed my own models using CAD and realised them using 3D printing and/or etching. More recently I have become the owner of a small milling machine and lathe (both manual) and I am slowly learning how to use them.

 

Many of the photos below have been shared here before so apologies to those who have seen them previously and for my poor photography skills.

 

 

Above is possibly my favourite locomotive, or rather the one that I am most satisfied with. Very much a learning curve getting her to run and haul well - and a crash course on the importance of balancing a 4-4-2 wheel arrangement. 3D printed body on top of (mainly) adapted RTR components. The tender chassis and bogie were originally 3D printed as well but have since been replaced with machined brass components (the bogie is sprung).

 

 

A much better photo (thank you Tony!) of my D49, "Yorkshire". Again, 3D printed body on adapted RTR components.

 

 

A buffet car for my Cambridge "Beer Train" set. 3D printed body, interior and solebars with a mix of etched and scratch built items below the solebars. The figures are cheap 160 scale ones found on eBay.

 

 

A part complete GNR 8 wheel brake van spliced together from two BHE etched kits of the 4 wheel version and W irons/axle boxes from the 2mm Association. I really must finished this one!

 

 

Some etches I've designed for a few bits and pieces but mainly to obtain an ex-GNR BFK/FK twin for one of my KX - Leeds expresses.

 

 

Amazingly, it when together pretty much as designed on first attempt! I've recently returned to this project and filled the gaps in the roofline with Milliput. Another piece of rolling stock long overdue for finishing!

 

I'm not sure that I'm a convert to only kit building or scratch-designing (I can't really say I scratchbuild!) as I happily use RTR items (usually modified) wherever they available.

[DenysW]

11 hours ago, APOLLO said:

all banned from straying off the main line, and my spindly trestle bridges,

Presumably - as the prototype?

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, richard i said:

I believe the 1000 was a reference to both painting and lining. In which case it is below what I would expect. 1200pds is closer to the mark all in I think. Not that I could afford such a price for a loco/ be able to justify such expenditure on a loco to the household management.

richard

Good morning Richard,

 

I cannot tell exactly what a top painter would charge for painting, say, an A2 in BR lined green livery, but I would imagine it would be between £200.00 and £300.00 (if I've got this wrong, then my apologies, for it might be more). As for building as well, I think that's where the £1,000.00 figure might come from, plus the cost of all the components (say, a further £300.00+), making a kit-built loco very expensive in comparison with an RTR equivalent - probably four to five times more expensive. 

 

I do get the 'sense' in using RTR instead of kit-builds, especially with such a huge price differential. Not only that, since the turn of the century (and the arrival of the likes of Hornby's rebuilt 'Merchant Navy') those RTR equivalents (in OO) have been just that - 'equivalents', as those worked-on Bachmann A2s show. But, that was not always the case - to get something really 'decent', it had to be kit-building or scratch-building, certainly in the days of tender drives and split chassis. 

 

I'll see if I can dig up more 'comparisons'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[LNER4479]

1 minute ago, Tony Wright said:

 

I'll see if I can dig up more 'comparisons'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I have the lovely 46245 here, Tony. I'll see if I can set up a comparison with a RTR version of my favourite loco type ...

[t-b-g]

I would add one further comment regarding the comparison between the two A2 models.

 

I didn't say which one was my favourite.

 

That would be the kit built one, every day and twice on Sundays!

 

The appearance of the finished model is down to the skill of the builder and the painter and model is unique. In that respect, a less than perfect kit build model (as mine are) will always be preferred by me to the best mass produced model.

 

For those that don't know, Ian Rathbone's "trick", apart from his skill, is to avoid using a bright orange paint in the lining. From memory, he uses "tan" colour paint instead. It would be interesting if either the RTR people or the transfer providers did something similar. I think it would improve the appearance of such lining considerably.  

Edited March 29, 2023 by t-b-g
To add content

[Jol Wilkinson]

11 hours ago, micklner said:

Jol,

     The comment was relating to the very troubled financial times we are all living and not knocking kits. I was being realistic or at least trying too , simply in relation  to how many people are struggling financially on a daily basis.

 

Mick

Mick,

I think we are all feeling the pinch to some degree, but looking at the frothing that surrounds new model announcements and the posts stating that people have ordered this or that, sometimes in several iterations, and the photos posted showing this or that new acquisition(s) on their layouts, then it does seem that a lot of money is still being spent. Perhaps some people are "struggling" to spend as much as they used to.

Has it reduced my spending? No, not much but then I probably spend less than  many in the first place.

 

2 hours ago, richard i said:

I believe the 1000 was a reference to both painting and lining. In which case it is below what I would expect. 1200pds is closer to the mark all in I think. Not that I could afford such a price for a loco/ be able to justify such expenditure on a loco to the household management.

richard

I have several professionally painted and lined kits (by one of the painters listed in this topic), as does a friend. The cost has been considerably less than you estimate. Building a kit however generally takes much more time and I would expect the cost for a detailed etched kit build by someone who is good at it to cost considerably more.

 

Perhaps I am fortunate in modelling the LNWR as the loco livery is one of the least complex.

 

The attached photos show one professionally painted and lined loco and one done by an amateur. Not a lot of difference but it is still there.

 

 

 

 

[Atso]

22 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

For those that don't know, Ian Rathbone's "trick", apart from his skill, is to avoid using a bright orange paint in the lining. From memory, he uses "tan" colour paint instead. It would be interesting if either the RTR people or the transfer providers did something similar. I think it would improve the appearance of such lining considerably.  

 

I've only painted one BR Green locomotive and used Ian's recipe of Humbrol gloss tan with a little red mixed in. I cheated by spray a piece of decal paper with this mix and then ruling on the black line before carefully cutting out to leave a thin strip of 'orange' lining on either side. No prototypical in the lining style (missing the tiny green lining between the black and orange lines)but, in N gauge I don't think it is noticeable. I still had to hand paint the corners though.

 

After getting matted down, the 'orange' looks better than RTR to my eye but I'm bias!

 

Sorry about the poor quality photos (again!) but I can't get any better as I don't own this locomotive.

 

[gr.king]

On the subject of preference for models that you have made for yourself, my inevitable thought is that the final painting and lining is an essential part of the process of making the model. If I were to get somebody else to paint a model that I had put together, I would no longer feel that I "made it myself" as fully as was possible. I know that some would argue that the use of ready made parts like motors, gears, axles, wheels, turned bearings, etched kits, commercial castings and so on also detracts from the "made it myself" claim, but it's just my opinion that surrendering the painting process to somebody else isn't really the right thing to do if the claim to have made it yourself actually matters to you. Above all, it costs money, or results in owing a favour in return too...

Of course, if the supply of affordable, useable, multi-colour, correct width fine transfer lining doesn't improve, we may all have to consider surrendering some of the work to those who can do a fantastic multi-colour lining job with a pen, in a short time.

[LNER4479]

46 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

 

The attached photos show one professionally painted and lined loco and one done by an amateur. Not a lot of difference but it is still there.

 

 

 

 

I give in, Jol - which is which?(!)

 

(I think I can tell - just ... And that's a compliment to the 'amateur', not a slur on the professional painter!)

 

[60027Merlin]

Tony,

 

Just catching up on things and noticed your photos of the Bachmann A2, Bachelors Button, on the previous page. I had added quite a bit of extra detail including change of dome (photo attached), wiggly pipes, AWS pipe along the running plate etc. I repaint the valve gear, wheels, etc. but for the Haymarket locos i am loathe to weather the bodies as a mark of respect to the staff there who always attempted to keep the Pacifics as clean as possible. For the Gateshead and Heaton visitors that is another story!

 

I'll take DJH/other kits and certain good r-t-r locos any time if they fit in to the layout!

 

Eric

 

During the "doing up"

 

Now finished before painting the nameplate black

 

 

Regular visitor to 64B

 

[cctransuk]

23 minutes ago, gr.king said:

Of course, if the supply of affordable, useable, multi-colour, correct width fine transfer lining doesn't improve, we may all have to consider surrendering some of the work to those who can do a fantastic multi-colour lining job with a pen, in a short time.

 

A subject of which I am very well aware!

 

However, whilst I do supply scale lining transfers for BR coaching stock, and a couple of other vehicles, I have avoided producing the standard BR orange / black / orange and red / grey / cream lining.

 

There are two principle reasons :-

 

a) the registration of such fine lining, when produced at scale widths, is extremely difficult to achieve consistently - even when digitally printed. Wastage is, I'm afraid, unacceptably high - though I can and do produce occasional sheets for my own use.

 

b) generic lining is, IMHO, useless. Anyone who has struggled (and sworn profusely) whilst trying to get generic curves to conform to splasher and running-plate radii will know that what is needed are dedicated lining sheets for each subject. The problem, of course, is that a comprehensive range of such sheets would be huge - and the design time / sales ratio would be wholly impracticable.

 

I know that some dedicated sheets are available for popular subjects, but I do not see a major expansion of that area of the hobby being forthcoming.

 

Sorry,

John Isherwood,

Cambridge Custom Transfers.

Edited March 29, 2023 by cctransuk

[AdamOrmorod]

14 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

...

 

...

- return crank set correctly at '90 deg forward'

...

Please could you explain how you altered this?

[Tony Wright]

34 minutes ago, gr.king said:

On the subject of preference for models that you have made for yourself, my inevitable thought is that the final painting and lining is an essential part of the process of making the model. If I were to get somebody else to paint a model that I had put together, I would no longer feel that I "made it myself" as fully as was possible. I know that some would argue that the use of ready made parts like motors, gears, axles, wheels, turned bearings, etched kits, commercial castings and so on also detracts from the "made it myself" claim, but it's just my opinion that surrendering the painting process to somebody else isn't really the right thing to do if the claim to have made it yourself actually matters to you. Above all, it costs money, or results in owing a favour in return too...

Of course, if the supply of affordable, useable, multi-colour, correct width fine transfer lining doesn't improve, we may all have to consider surrendering some of the work to those who can do a fantastic multi-colour lining job with a pen, in a short time.

Good morning Graeme,

 

A fine differentiation. 

 

The claim to have 'made it myself' still holds good in my opinion. I just wish I could say 'I painted it myself' where lined, more-complex liveries are concerned. As an ex-professional model-maker (other than now as part of barter), my customers expected a professional paint job (NOT transfer-lined); something I wasn't able to satisfy.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Comparisons?

 

Let's start off with a V2.........

 

 

A Bachmann V2. This has the new chassis, but retains the old body. 

 

 

With some work, it could be improved. I changed the chimney to represent an earlier period, fitted a new dome, detailed it here and there, and Tom Foster weathered it. All this is, of course, unnecessary because of Bachmann's latest V2.

 

 

And, a Pro-Scale kit of 60862; built by Alan Hammet and weathered by Tony Geary. 

 

There's no guessing needed as to which one I still own!

 

 

[Jol Wilkinson]

38 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

I give in, Jol - which is which?(!)

 

(I think I can tell - just ... And that's a compliment to the 'amateur', not a slur on the professional painter!)

 

Thanks Graham,

 

I painted the outside cylinder Jubilee and lined it with a mix of SMS (now Modelmaster, I think) and HMRS transfers. I used cellulose paint over PPP 2 pack etch primer and varnished with Ian Rathbones suggestion of Ronseal satin varnish with a small amount of black enamel added.

 

The two cylinder Renown was lined and varnished by Ian, although I had already painted it with black cellulose. I got Ian to do this model and a LNWR 4' 6" tank as the sight in my right eye was damaged following several operations and I have yet to do any painting and lining (There are three partly finished LNWR carriages awaiting).

 

The obvious difference are in the lining. Ian does the full grey/cream/black/red version, the transfers are just grey/black/red. He also does the black rectangle on the front buffer beam, missing from the Jubilee "Warrior". Ian also paints the cab gauges and hands, something well beyond me.

 

Graeme King makes an interesting point and getting several locos professionally painted is the only time I have had "outside" work done on my models other than a couple of wagon kits a friend has built and painted as part of his "apprenticeship" in P4 model building. I have some D&S NER carriages being built by another friend who built quite a lot for Bramblewick and who I will pay (if he finishes them in my lifetime). Another friend volunteered to build a Mallard LNWR Railmotor kit for which I had designed a new power bogie, but that has become something of a mythical creature. Apparently it  is out there somewhere!

 

Jol

 

P.S. I forgot the Andrew Stadden figures Cat Gibbs painted for London Road. I must go and sit on the naughty step.

[gr.king]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

A subject of which I am very well aware!

 

However, whilst I do supply scale lining transfers for BR coaching stock, and a couple of other vehicles, I have avoided producing the standard BR orange / black / orange and red / grey / cream lining.

 

There are two principle reasons :-

 

a) the registration of such fine lining, when produced at scale widths, is extremely difficult to achieve consistently - even when digitally printed. Wastage is, I'm afraid, unacceptably high - though I can and do produce occasional sheets for my own use.

 

b) generic lining is, IMHO, useless. Anyone who has struggled (and sworn profusely) whilst trying to get generic curves to conform to splasher and running-plate radii will know that what is needed are dedicated lining sheets for each subject. The problem, of course, is that a comprehensive range of such sheets would be huge - and the design time / sales ratio would be wholly impracticable.

 

I know that some dedicated sheets are available for popular subjects, but I do not see a major expansion of that area of the hobby being forthcoming.

 

Sorry,

John Isherwood,

Cambridge Custom Transfers.

As luck has it in my case John, my standards of acceptable paint finish are flexible to enough to admit my own imperfect bow-pen work for many awkward curves like splasher edges, and for a number of instances of edge-lining on cabs, tanks, bunkers and frames (where I find paint stays on rather better than a transfer anyway, if the edge is exposed to handling). I can't however achieve the standard I want for say white-black-white lining on boiler bands or the inset panels on tanks and bunkers, including the regularly formed curved corners, even if I try to make my own lining strips, so generic lining sheets are acceptable to me, if inevitably a bit wasteful as the number of examples of each form of lining on the sheet never seems to be quite right to suit any loco (or carriage) types that ever existed.

 

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Graeme,

 

A fine differentiation. 

 

The claim to have 'made it myself' still holds good in my opinion. I just wish I could say 'I painted it myself' where lined, more-complex liveries are concerned. As an ex-professional model-maker (other than now as part of barter), my customers expected a professional paint job (NOT transfer-lined); something I wasn't able to satisfy.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Individual opinions are perfectly acceptable - especially to the individual, and in the end we all ought to be modelling only (or largely) to suit ourselves rather than to please / satisfy others. Any hypocrisy is therefore also perfectly acceptable (to me anyway) in modelling matters, rather than being a failing.

[Steven B]

The DJH/Wright/Rathbone combination might well be better than a RTR equivalent, but the DJH/Average Modeller/Average Painter probably won't. I'd also suggest that a fleet of RTR locos of a particular class is probably more consistent mechanically and visually than a kit put together by the average Joe Blogs.

 

Most of my loco fleet is RTR - of the 3 loco classes I've kit built all but one have since been released RTR allowing multiple purchases. Renumbering still happens, but the end result it a more representative fleet and time spent on what can't be bought RTR (wagon kits and semi-decent weathering!).

 

Steven B.

[CF MRC]

There have been some interesting and, dare I say it, fairly predictable comments on the RTR  vs. kit built conundrum  on WW.
 

On a big exhibition layout such as CF the availability of decent commercial models as a basis for conversion to 2mm FS is a godsend: e.g. the advent of the Farish Jinty’s was in the nick of time, just as our original Grafar conversions were beginning to wear out. Similarly our Dapol B17 is now on its second chassis with a decent motor fitted. Jolly useful engines (if somewhat lacking in the traction stakes) that will be the first ones to get out and start the layout running at a show -  and the range available will get better…
 

As to kit building, there aren’t that many kits that suit our particular theme, but shot down 4mm etches are a good starting place. My last loco was one of these, the GC 9P ‘Valour’. 

This was shot down from some excellent 4mm scale Nick Eason loco etches and a tender etch from Paul Craig artwork. The construction was fairly straightforward and the superb finish was from

the hand of Ian Rathbone. I normally paint my own engines, but at the time my eyesight wasn’t quite up to scratch (it is now) for such a complex livery. I enjoyed making the engine, and it looks super on CF at the head of an early Pullman train, but somehow it’s just a bit too far short of ‘all my own work’
 

However, my current project, the NER 4-6-2 class is in a different league. The tender again uses etches (from Steve Barnsfield original artwork) but the loco is nearly completely scratch-built apart from the driving wheels and gears. I am

enjoying this construction far more as I have complete control of how it is made: e.g. I can design it to make it easy to paint and use the ‘correct’ materials for the valve gear. 

So is there a right and wrong: I don’t think so. I have been scratch building locos for nearly 50 years, so some might say there’s an advantage - I have also invested in superb tools for the job over the years; so that’s another advantage. Importantly, it’s a matter of what gives you pleasure that counts. The ‘short cut’ conversion of an excellent commercial model gives me satisfaction when I know it will be useful on CF. But the real head turners are when a unique scratch built engine makes it’s way on the layout: that is what really gives me pleasure.
 

Tim

[LNER4479]

7 hours ago, AdamOrmorod said:

Please could you explain how you altered this?

Of course! You can have the 3 minute version or the 10 second version.

 

3 minute version

 

Here's another example 'out of the box', with right hand eccentric crank set backwards.

 

Using probably a better pair of pliers than this(!) undo the hex-headed bolt holding things in place and remove parts shown from the crank pin. Unfortunately, the rectangular(-ish) slot in the eccentric crank doesn't show up too well in this photo, but you can see it better below. Suffice to say that it locates on shouldered flats on the end of the crank pin and the bolt holds it all in place.

 

Use a file to produce new flats, in the correct orientation. The (brass?) material is relatively soft, so only takes a few strokes each side to do this.

 

This close up shows the effect. The red lines show the original flats; the green lines are the new flats. Note that you are not eliminating the old flats per se - you end up with them in a sort of combined diamond formation.

 

Reassemble, with retaining bolt loosely tightened. You'll then end up with the crank being able to move between the two positions. Keep it held in the 'forward' position and finally tighten in position. The final tightening will clamp the thing in place (and, as it happens, as you're tightening clockwise, it will tend to head in that direction anyway).

 

10 second version (!)

 

A Britannia also needs treating ...

 

Grip top of the crank pin, including the eccentric crank itself, firmly with pliers in one hand and the driving wheel with the other hand. With firm but carefully applied pressure, the crank pin can be rotated in its housing (it's a tight, interference fit).

 

10 seconds later!

 

Might look a little brutal but I have done this with several locos now, no problem. I did once manage to break a Hornby eccentric crank (albeit not as part of this procedure) so they can be quite delicate - blue box equivalent much more robust.

 

With both the above, big disclaimer - the above works for me, with practice. But if you ruin a loco trying any of the above, don't come crying to me! Ideally, try it out first on an older / spares chassis if you have one. Also, the above only for Hornby. Different procedure for Bachmann locos.

Edited March 29, 2023 by LNER4479

[Tony Wright]

11 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Of course! You can have the 3 minute version or the 10 second version.

 

3 minute version

 

Here's another example 'out of the box', with right hand eccentric crank set backwards.

 

Using probably a better pair of pliers than this(!) undo the hex-headed bolt holding things in place and remove parts shown from the crank pin. Unfortunately, the rectangular(-ish) slot in the eccentric crank doesn't show up too well in this photo, but you can see it better below. Suffice to say that it locates on shouldered flats on the end of the crank pin and the bolt holds it all in place.

 

Use a file to produce new flats, in the correct orientation. The (brass?) material is relatively soft, so only takes a few strokes each side to do this.

 

This close up shows the effect. The red lines show the original flats; the green lines are the new flats. Note that you are not eliminating the old flats per se - you end up with them in a sort of combined diamond formation.

 

Reassemble, with retaining bolt loosely tightened. You'll then end up with the crank being able to move between the two positions. Keep it held in the 'forward' position and finally tighten in position. The final tightening will clamp the thing in place (and, as it happens, as you're tightening clockwise, it will tend to head in that direction anyway).

 

10 second version

 

A Britannia also needs treating ...

 

Grip top of the crank pin, including the eccentric crank pin, firmly with one hand and the driving wheel with the other. With firm but carefully applied pressure, the crank pin can be moved (it's a tight, interference fit).

 

10 seconds later!

 

Might look a little brutal but I have done this with several locos now, no problem. I did once manage to break a Hornby eccentric crank (albeit not as part of this procedure) so they can be quite delicate - blue box equivalent much more robust.

 

With both the above, big disclaimer - the above work for me, with practice. But if you ruin a loco truing any of the above, don't come crying to me! Ideally, try it out first on an older / spares chassis if you have one. Also, the above only for Hornby. Different procedure for Bachmann locos.

Very effective Graham,

 

Thank you.

 

I've done very similar things (luckily not busting anything as yet!). 

 

In my experience, it's the nearside of Bachmann locos with outside gear where the return cranks are leaning the wrong way, and the offside (as in your examples) with Hornby.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.