Wright writes.....

[Bernard Lamb]

3 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

and the date on the photo is accurate.....

........or you have the knowledge to check that the details match the claim, or if not, the knowledge to calculate the true date range.

Bernard

[zr2498]

1 hour ago, Bernard Lamb said:

........or you have the knowledge to check that the details match the claim, or if not, the knowledge to calculate the true date range.

Bernard

Or have the knowledge to know that you don't have the knowledge and are prepared to openly admit thus.

[AdamOrmorod]

2 hours ago, Jeepy said:

Hi, 

 

I'm no expert but I've got a feeling the handrail will be bent around and the knobs fitted above the smoke box door eventually 🤔, 

 

Best wishes, 

 

Jim. 

Of course 🤦 for some reason I thought the handrails themselves turned a full 180º to come into the smokebox front, rather than there being a knob at the end.

 

Thanks!

[MJI]

Another coupling question,  lots of kits Parkside,  Ratio, Airfix, 3D resin none fitted at present.

 

Seen a few more discrete ones DG and Sprat and Winkle as example.  Tension locks are a bit big.

 

What else are there and would people recommend?

 

Kadee in this circumstance not much better than tension locks.

[Buhar]

5 minutes ago, MJI said:

Seen a few more discrete ones DG and Sprat and Winkle as example. 

Dinghams via the 0 Gauge Society including the 4mm version or the new variant Flippems (I think), there is thread on here.

Alan 

[MJI]

On back order,  also found alex jackson

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, AdamOrmorod said:

Just curious, why does the A3 have an extra handrail knob on each side at the front?

Good afternoon Adam,

 

The 'extra' ones each side will eventually be soldered to the smokebox ring at the front; after all internal soldering has been completed and the smokebox door (including the ring) has been fixed in place. 

 

Then it's just a case of bending the rails through 90 degrees and soldering the knobs into pre-drilled holes in the outer ring, then trimming to suit. The right angle bends in the handrails at present are to stop those knobs dropping off. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Edited to acknowledge that others have already answered your question.

Edited June 4, 2023 by Tony Wright
to add something

[polybear]

There's also B&B Couplings.  Do you want auto uncoupling/coupling?

[thegreenhowards]

Personally I found Vol 1 of Banks and Carter a truly inspirational read and it is probably what started me down the road of modelling correct formations rather than just putting a few coaches together to form something that might have been a train. I was blissfully aware of the errors until Tony pointed them out and while they are a shame, for me it doesn't detract too much from the utility of the book. I will be in the queue for Vol 2.

 

Andy

[MJI]

3 hours ago, polybear said:

There's also B&B Couplings.  Do you want auto uncoupling/coupling?

I think so, will do a little shunting.

 

No stock cross over with my BR blue layout, so that can stay as is.

[2750Papyrus]

To be fair to Steve Banks, there is a section on his web site which gives details of some of the errors in volume 1, though it is undated and I don't know how comprehensive it is.  Clearly, it requires that he who spots an error to report it,  and that the (verified) information is added to the web site.

 

I think this sets a precedent which could be followed by  other authors/publishers.

[zr2498]

P2 Prince of Wales - making good progress.

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

And now for something rather different................

 

 

Picked up at the Sleaford Show, with a request from a friend 'Can you fit a motor to this, please?'. 

 

From memory, I think this is a Cotswold or a Westward white metal kit, complete with a solid milled brass chassis. I say from memory, because I built one of these for a customer of Roy Millership (Modellers' Mecca) many years ago. The chassis was all but impossible to adapt without machine tools (I'd finished with teaching by then), and it drove off the rear axle. The motor of choice was an XO4 derivative; a great big triangular 'slot' being removed from the block for this purpose. As for brakes and so forth.................

 

Whoever built the loco above seems to have done a reasonable job (though the crosshead being out of the slidebars might suggest a potential mechanical problem), and there is a gear wheel fixed to the rear axle, but no motor. An attempt seems to have been made at fitting brakes, but it's not been carried on with. There are no pick-ups fitted. The whole thing, along with its tender, weighs a considerable amount! 

 

Now, questions if I may, please? I'll find out I'm sure, but is there an etched brass/nickel silver chassis available to suit this? And, if not, would a 28XX/38XX set of frames suit? I can't really see myself battling on trying to fit a decent, modern motor/gearbox to the lump of brass (has anyone succeeded?), so I think a new chassis is the way to go.

 

Thanks in anticipation. 

 

 

[Jol Wilkinson]

Would this suffice?

 

LCP19: GWR 2800/2884 2-8-0 Chassis Pack – Wizard Models Limited

[Coach bogie]

Kemilway made one, in the past if you can find one.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Chuffer Davies]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

And now for something rather different................

 

 

Picked up at the Sleaford Show, with a request from a friend 'Can you fit a motor to this, please?'. 

 

From memory, I think this is a Cotswold or a Westward white metal kit, complete with a solid milled brass chassis. I say from memory, because I built one of these for a customer of Roy Millership (Modellers' Mecca) many years ago. The chassis was all but impossible to adapt without machine tools (I'd finished with teaching by then), and it drove off the rear axle. The motor of choice was an XO4 derivative; a great big triangular 'slot' being removed from the block for this purpose. As for brakes and so forth.................

 

Whoever built the loco above seems to have done a reasonable job (though the crosshead being out of the slidebars might suggest a potential mechanical problem), and there is a gear wheel fixed to the rear axle, but no motor. An attempt seems to have been made at fitting brakes, but it's not been carried on with. There are no pick-ups fitted. The whole thing, along with its tender, weighs a considerable amount! 

 

Now, questions if I may, please? I'll find out I'm sure, but is there an etched brass/nickel silver chassis available to suit this? And, if not, would a 28XX/38XX set of frames suit? I can't really see myself battling on trying to fit a decent, modern motor/gearbox to the lump of brass (has anyone succeeded?), so I think a new chassis is the way to go.

 

Thanks in anticipation. 

 

 

Hi Tony,

the 28xx chassis is completely different to the 47xx series.  The 47xx is an extended design of the 43xx Mogul.   Brassmasters sell the Finney 47xx kit and might be a able/willing to provide you with a chassis kit…

Regards,

Frank

[melmoth]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

 

Now, questions if I may, please? I'll find out I'm sure, but is there an etched brass/nickel silver chassis available to suit this? And, if not, would a 28XX/38XX set of frames suit? I can't really see myself battling on trying to fit a decent, modern motor/gearbox to the lump of brass (has anyone succeeded?), so I think a new chassis is the way to go.

 

Thanks in anticipation. 

 

 

 

Basic frames are available from Alan Gibson. As @Chuffer Davies points out, the 28xx and 47xx have little in common except the wheel arrangement. 28xxs used 4'7 1/2" driving wheels, the 47xxs had a longer coupled wheelbase and 5' 8" drivers

[MarkC]

14 minutes ago, melmoth said:

 

Basic frames are available from Alan Gibson. As @Chuffer Davies points out, the 28xx and 47xx have little in common except the wheel arrangement. 28xxs used 4'7 1/2" driving wheels, the 47xxs had a longer coupled wheelbase and 5' 8" drivers

@Tony Wright

Hi Tony - the Alan Gibson code you need for the frames is LM1-254

 

Brgds

Mark

 

 

[Willie Whizz]

3 hours ago, 2750Papyrus said:

To be fair to Steve Banks, there is a section on his web site which gives details of some of the errors in volume 1, though it is undated and I don't know how comprehensive it is.  Clearly, it requires that he who spots an error to report it,  and that the (verified) information is added to the web site.

 

I think this sets a precedent which could be followed by  other authors/publishers.

Yes, I corresponded with him (initially by that route) not too long after Vol. 1 was published regarding the 1920s Mansfield-Marylebone express, where his account of this rather ‘grey area’, shall we say, varied from my own research; and he added a short section to his own website addressing the issue, acknowledging this and indicating more might follow later, though to date it hasn’t.

 

(I have to admit I haven’t been able to pursue it any further myself though; too much else happening in life …)

[Coach bogie]

PDK sell their 47xx chassis etch separately (CH7) for £40

 

http://www.pdkmodels.co.uk/Chassis Kits.html

 

Mike Wiltshire

[uax6]

To use the block chassis, you would have to open out the gear wheel slot to take a gearbox. Branchlines sell gearboxes that are 8mm wide (from memory), and I've fitted them in the old triang cast chassis before. 

It'll take a bit of filling to open that slot though...

 

Andy G

[sandra]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

And now for something rather different................

 

 

Picked up at the Sleaford Show, with a request from a friend 'Can you fit a motor to this, please?'. 

 

From memory, I think this is a Cotswold or a Westward white metal kit, complete with a solid milled brass chassis. I say from memory, because I built one of these for a customer of Roy Millership (Modellers' Mecca) many years ago. The chassis was all but impossible to adapt without machine tools (I'd finished with teaching by then), and it drove off the rear axle. The motor of choice was an XO4 derivative; a great big triangular 'slot' being removed from the block for this purpose. As for brakes and so forth.................

 

Whoever built the loco above seems to have done a reasonable job (though the crosshead being out of the slidebars might suggest a potential mechanical problem), and there is a gear wheel fixed to the rear axle, but no motor. An attempt seems to have been made at fitting brakes, but it's not been carried on with. There are no pick-ups fitted. The whole thing, along with its tender, weighs a considerable amount! 

 

Now, questions if I may, please? I'll find out I'm sure, but is there an etched brass/nickel silver chassis available to suit this? And, if not, would a 28XX/38XX set of frames suit? I can't really see myself battling on trying to fit a decent, modern motor/gearbox to the lump of brass (has anyone succeeded?), so I think a new chassis is the way to go.

 

Thanks in anticipation. 

 

 

Hello Tony,

 

It is possible to fit more modern motors to these solid brass chassis it just takes a long time drilling and filing to remove enough metal to get the gearbox to fit.

 

You probably won’t remember this but here is a photo of  my Taff Vale Cameron A class 0-6-2 on LB hauling a southbound mineral train.This is built from a Sutherland kit with a solid brass chassis but it is fitted with a large Portescap motor, I’m not quite sure which type but I think it may be an RG4.

 

It did require a great deal of work as I don’t have a milling machine but only ordinary files, however the heavy brass chassis combined with a heavy white metal body results in a very heavy locomotive which with the large motor will pull the side off a house.

 

Sandra

[Keith Turbutt]

Don't think we have seen one of these on WW before. It is a CDC Design resin body of an NLR Tank on a proprietary Electroten chassis. It belongs to a friend and I added transfers and glazing for him as I had a steadier hand! I'm rather pleased how it has turned out.

 

Edited June 5, 2023 by Keith Turbutt
Added photo

[bbishop]

On 03/06/2023 at 21:56, melmoth said:

 

Tony, most of your criticisms above seem to be to do with incorrectly captioned images - which is fair enough, and might also obviously be indicative of further textual errors. On the other hand, while accuracy should be foremost in anything pertaining to be an historical record, how far do poorly captioned photographs detract from the textual information? Or are they, as per above, a sort of canary in a coalmine?

Photographs can be a minefield.  I submitted an article to a journal, with a number of photographs.  Recently my text was returned with a selection of photographs, with a request for captions ... like, now.  One problem was the photographs were in aesthetic order, but the article would only make sense if they were in time order.  And the time frame was just one hour so I was desperately tracking a bunch of middle aged gentlemen walking around Waterloo station in overcoats and top hats, trying to work out who they were, where they were and when they were, all the time fielding ever more aggressive e-mails from the editor.

I think I got it right.  Bill

[Dunsignalling]

23 hours ago, MJI said:

On back order,  also found alex jackson

Treat with caution unless you model P4 or EM. Reliable operation is a bit "plus or minus nowt".

 

The slack in the track/wheel interface in OO makes coupling up very hit-and-miss. 

 

Kadees are fine so long as they aren't the sort fitted into monstrous NEM boxes! No bigger than the old Peco/HD coupler of yore and much more reliable. Fit and forget so long as you do it right.

 

John

Edited June 5, 2023 by Dunsignalling