Wright writes.....

[DenysW]

4 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

I wonder how long it would have taken for the cost of fitting to be recovered in the efficiency savings gained?

In a bureaucracy you need a "Spend to save" capital budget to bridge the gap between the capital and revenue budgets being unrelated. And if it, also, is spent out for the year ...

[zr2498]

Accurascale are one RTR manufacturer that are thinking of the conversions during their design phase. Rolling stock as well I believe.

Not sure about their steam locos as yet.

 

[Tony Wright]

Returning to the EM theme........

 

Was High Dyke built in less than a year, including all the locomotives and trains? Surely some locos/stock came from Gainsborough Central. 

 

Anyway, some more of my own experiences..........

 

 

I built this Crownline B17 some little time ago in OO, writing about it in my book for Crowood. However, since CLUMBER would be an unlikely loco on Little Bytham..............

 

I then built an EM chassis for her for use on Retford (where her appearance is much more appropriate, and it's where I often witnessed her). From tight perspectives such as in these two views, the appeal of EM's far more-accurate gauge is very apparent. 

 

Actually, building chassis for the likes of B17s in EM, even using Markits drivers, is quite simple; because the crosshead assembly doesn't move immediately in front of the leading crankpin, as it does on the likes of this..............

 

 

 

Roy Jacksons A2/2, for which I built the chassis.

 

Again, the better gauge is only too apparent in comparison with.........

 

 

An A2/2 in OO, where there is no need to alter the piston rod's position to gain the requisite clearance.

 

Moving the OO drivers out certainly works on RTR locos..........

 

 

As Ray Chessum proved when he did this to a Bachmann D11 (the bogie wheels are replacements, of course). 

 

Returning to B17s.........

 

 

I've done another for Retford using a Hornby body; an old Hornby (ex-tender-drive) body.

 

 

Hornby's latest B17 is in a different class and could well be altered to EM. 

 

Or...........

 

 

Even P4. This is Dave Hawkins' work.

 

This, of course, has replacement drivers - merely extending Hornby's outwards won't do. 

 

To close, here's to the next hundred pages (and the approaching 3,000!) on Wright writes!

 

 

 

 

Edited April 7, 2023 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Clem]

After visiting Tony in January (a very enjoyable afternoon watching expresses on Little Bytham) I promised I would post the videos I took. Sorry Tony , I have been very neglectful and thank you for reminding me when we met at the Cotgrave show recently. Finally (hopefully), here they are...

 

 

https://youtube.com/video/hsV-ZgtNOH0

 

https://youtube.com/video/SbXlyuk47tQ

 

https://youtube.com/video/R_SgTaRNiQg

 

https://youtube.com/video/K5ZdGI-bFwU

 

 

On the EM topic, Sandra has pretty well echoed my thoughts. Some RTR lend themselves to relatively easy conversion while others require more effort. For instance the Bachmann K3 requires major surgery both to the chassis and the body in order to get the right size wheels in place. Here's my conversion of 61896. It runs slightly better than it did in OO but still not as well as my other (Wills) K3 which I built a sprung chassis for. 

 

 

I had a couple of failed EM projects in the Autumn, felt that a complete break was required, and so I started building a couple of things in OO for a proposed GC layout in the loft which would bring back some of the memories of my youth living by the GC in the early 1960s. So here's my almost complete V2 for that. Note that it's also done the trick of giving me a fresh start with my existing layout. I'm ready to get on with the Dave Bradwell chassis for my J39/3 after my upcoming holiday in France and other non model railway commitments. Just for clarity, the OO layout in the loft will use a lot of RTR - I haven't got time to do it any other way - and my EM layout remains my main focus.

 

 

 

Edited April 7, 2023 by Clem

[Dunsignalling]

Regarding the double chimney A4s, in addition to any extra capital cost, the Kylchap blast-pipe arrangement was a patented device, and its adoption presumably involved paying royalties or a lump-sum to commute them.

 

Those were normally proportional to the number of units in use, and licences often involved signing up for two or more years in advance for whatever number of fitments were made.

 

The LNER directors would want to thoroughly assess the financial implications of adopting them (i.e. what potential fuel/maintenance savings might offset the cost) as well as any on-the-road performance benefits offered, on a "guinea-pig" locomotive before committing themselves further.   

 

John

 

 

Edited April 7, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[thegreenhowards]

Many Thanks Tony (and Ian) for the A4, Sparrow Hawk which you sent a few days ago. I have now fitted the dreaded DCC chip and she’s running nicely on my layout, Gresley Jn as seen here.

 

 

I have had to route restrict her as the fitting of the rimmed Cartezi axle means she won’t take the curved side of Peco double slips - have others had this problem? I could fit a rimless axle, but it would be a shame to spoil such a beautifully finished model.

 

Anyway, here is a one minute video of her completing a circuit of Gresley Jn.

 

 

Andy

[t-b-g]

The layout High Dyke was built in a year. Roy Geoff and John did have a bit of help with the baseboards from a friend so it wasn't entirely their own work. Some of the locos and stock were from Gainsborough Central (as I said earlier) but the vast majority were built new for the layout. There were not too many pacifics and expresses at Gainsborough. I recall John telling me they built around 250 iron ore wagons for it.

 

It was a great achievement and is still remembered with great affection. Stoke Summit was a great achievement too and is also remembered with great affection.

 

High Dyke was my personal favourite as it was in EM and was built by people who I knew at the time and was more interesting to watch operating. 

 

Was one a greater achievement than the other? I neither know nor care!

[Barry Ten]

4 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Many Thanks Tony (and Ian) for the A4, Sparrow Hawk which you sent a few days ago. I have now fitted the dreaded DCC chip and she’s running nicely on my layout, Gresley Jn as seen here.

 

 

I have had to route restrict her as the fitting of the rimmed Cartezi axle means she won’t take the curved side of Peco double slips - have others had this problem? I could fit a rimless axle, but it would be a shame to spoil such a beautifully finished model.

 

Anyway, here is a one minute video of her completing a circuit of Gresley Jn.

 

 

Andy

 

The curved route through Peco slips is definitely on the tight side. I try to get my tank locos and smaller tender engines to run through the curved way, but I don't worry if larger engines struggle, as they're not asked to do so in normal operations.

[PMP]

8 hours ago, zr2498 said:

Accurascale are one RTR manufacturer that are thinking of the conversions during their design phase. Rolling stock as well I believe.

Not sure about their steam locos as yet.

 

They have said they’re not designing their steam locomotives with the wider gauges in mind, and won’t be providing replacement em/p4 wheelsets for them.

[iak]

Reading this EM discussion, prompts a confession.

For nigh on 20 years as part of the Mostyn team, it has been BR Blue, 1977, P4 diesels... The memories of childhood holidays in North Wales being the big stimulus. The other motivation being the comfort of diesel locomotive drop-in wheel conversions...

However, living next to the auld CLC has prompted a return to EM steam outline for my future "big thoughts;" as well as any smaller Scottish projects.

I have attempted to build steam locomotives in the past and failed - valve gear can be maddening, demanding wheel profiles etc. EM provides an effective half-way house with which to explore the satisfaction of a more realistic track gauge.

That is not to say that certain 00 layouts are stunning creations and when properly presented, fool you a shade. 

[t-b-g]

11 hours ago, JamesSpooner said:

Tony, I would be really interested to hear more about Malcolm’s techniques for improving Kirk Gresley kits, given the range has just been taken over by Precision and may be restarted.

 

Nigel

 

There were three parts to what Malcolm did. The first was to inlay rectangles of plasticard into the upper solid panels, which reduced the rather too deep effect. The second was to flush glaze and the third was to alter the roof profile. This he did simply by filing, as the plastic was thick enough to allow material to be removed without going through. It removed the bit of a "hump" that the Kirk roof has and made it more of a curvy shape.

 

None of it was very difficult or took very long but it made a decent difference. 

 

He also fitted nice corridor connections and added the alarm gear.

 

I always thought his glazing could have been a bit tidier and when I did the one for Roy, I made a rebate by adding strips of thin plastic along the vertical edges. That allowed the glazing to have a surface to sit against and I could make them slightly undersized and fit them with varnish, which gave a better look than the one Malcolm got. I have some of his carriages here and this is an example.

 

 

We LNER modellers and BR ones too, should be very grateful for these kits. They made modelling the LNER and ER so much more accessible when there was very little available for us. With a little bit of work they scrub up very nicely.

[PMP]

7 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

 

I have had to route restrict her as the fitting of the rimmed Cartezi axle means she won’t take the curved side of Peco double slips - have others had this problem? I could fit a rimless axle, but it would be a shame to spoil such a beautifully finished model.

 

Andy

As @Barry Tenhas mentioned the Peco Bullhead slips curved radius is tight, as it is the same geometry at the previous ‘streamline’ points. The rigid pony truck types from Hornby aren’t keen on them E.g. A4’s Britannia’s etc and can bind. Make sure the b2b’s on them are set at 14.5mm that helps a tiny bit. The ‘flat tread’ wheels however that Hornby provide work fine across them, and there are no issues if the pony trucks and bogies have side play or swivel.

[thegreenhowards]

35 minutes ago, PMP said:

As @Barry Tenhas mentioned the Peco Bullhead slips curved radius is tight, as it is the same geometry at the previous ‘streamline’ points. The rigid pony truck types from Hornby aren’t keen on them E.g. A4’s Britannia’s etc and can bind. Make sure the b2b’s on them are set at 14.5mm that helps a tiny bit. The ‘flat tread’ wheels however that Hornby provide work fine across them, and there are no issues if the pony trucks and bogies have side play or swivel.

Thanks PMO and Barry10,

 

I recognise that they’re not ideal. 24” radius I believe - easily the tightest on my layout. I only have a couple, one of which is at the exit to the reversible roads in my fiddle yard and this is where Sparrow Hawk objected. I run lots of other Pacifics over this slip with minimal problems but they mainly have the non rimmed axle. I’ll check the b2b which might help as I think some other ‘rimmed’ Pacifics have coped in the past.

 

Andy

[zr2498]

Tony

Enjoy York this weekend. I assume you will be there. I'm planning to go Monday,  and very much looking forward to seeing 'Hills of the North'

 

[Chamby]

10 hours ago, Bucoops said:

 

No doubt the reasons are buried in the company archives somewhere (no I'm not volunteering!) - but I wonder how long it would have taken for the cost of fitting to be recovered in the efficiency savings gained?

 

This dilemma is encountered frequently.  The problem is that to undertake the conversion now, means finding additional funds somewhere from this year’s budget, so it is an additional unbudgeted cost.  The savings will be realised either from an alternative budget that has already been allocated, or recovered sometime in the future ie: not in the current financial year.  So ‘the system’ determines that within this year’s budget the costs will be negative, thus not worth doing!

[MJI]

I found my triang jinty in the garage today, how accurate are they?

 

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, MJI said:

I found my triang jinty in the garage today, how accurate are they?

 

Surely sentimentality outweighs accuracy on this one? 47606 - my first engine!

[Bucoops]

12 minutes ago, MJI said:

I found my triang jinty in the garage today, how accurate are they?

 

 

They are very accurate Triang Jintys. Not sure about anything else.

[MJI]

Just watching train truckers.

 

Made me think that the current trains on ECML are the worst in the last century.

[billbedford]

14 hours ago, Bucoops said:

 

No doubt the reasons are buried in the company archives somewhere (no I'm not volunteering!) - but I wonder how long it would have taken for the cost of fitting to be recovered in the efficiency savings gained?

 

I think that is something that would not have been thought worth doing before the concept of spread sheets. 

[JamesSpooner]

13 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

There were three parts to what Malcolm did. The first was to inlay rectangles of plasticard into the upper solid panels, which reduced the rather too deep effect. The second was to flush glaze and the third was to alter the roof profile. This he did simply by filing, as the plastic was thick enough to allow material to be removed without going through. It removed the bit of a "hump" that the Kirk roof has and made it more of a curvy shape.

 

None of it was very difficult or took very long but it made a decent difference. 

 

He also fitted nice corridor connections and added the alarm gear.

 

I always thought his glazing could have been a bit tidier and when I did the one for Roy, I made a rebate by adding strips of thin plastic along the vertical edges. That allowed the glazing to have a surface to sit against and I could make them slightly undersized and fit them with varnish, which gave a better look than the one Malcolm got. I have some of his carriages here and this is an example.

 

 

We LNER modellers and BR ones too, should be very grateful for these kits. They made modelling the LNER and ER so much more accessible when there was very little available for us. With a little bit of work they scrub up very nicely.

Tony,

 

Thank you very much! 
 

Nigel

[dibateg]

I do like making track, its even more fun in O gauge...  and just when I think I've done enough, I have a whole set to make up for a large GW project.. This is the view off the end of the platform on Basford North. The track has now been ballasted and the backscene is in place. Signals in place but not connected up yet.

 

I also wish I went EM, but had too much invested in OO  - group projects etc. In the end I went to 7mm as I was always unhappy at the narrow gauge look of 16.5mm track and chassis..

[drmditch]

13 hours ago, Bucoops said:

 

They are very accurate Triang Jintys. Not sure about anything else.

Help. I'm using my smartphone in bed (recovering from some necessary but uncomfortable medical interventions).

 

I think I hit the 'report' tab entirely in error. I don't know if I got out of it without making a 'report'.

 

Should I contact AndyY?

[AY Mod]

5 minutes ago, drmditch said:

Should I contact AndyY?

 

No need, already spotted it. 🙂

[Dylan Sanderson]

16 hours ago, PMP said:

They have said they’re not designing their steam locomotives with the wider gauges in mind, and won’t be providing replacement em/p4 wheelsets for them.

That’s really quite disappointing, I was hoping the newer model manufacturers would be more accommodating and go the extra mile!