Wright writes.....

[uax6]

10 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

 

My Dad had a 1971 Traveller as his Daily Drive for 49 years. A wise choice in motor :)

 

Indeed, they also better if you drive them everyday. I aspire to have a '56 splitty GPO van* on the road too. Sadly its far to derelict to go anywhere near the road (or the Mrs!) at the minute, I think of it as a V5 with the essence of Minor!

 

Andy G

*Yes one with an opening drivers windscreen (which is the best bit of the van, and even thats cracked!), but with the sensibly steel front wings, not the silly rubber ones: https://www.gpovan.co.uk/slf540.html (put your browser on full screen for the full rust effect!)

Edited July 19, 2023 by uax6

[MarkC]

23 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

Did the real things have clearance problems? I found it less so with the couple of Raven Pacifics I've built; because the cylinders are higher? 

 

Hello Tony

 

I think that they did - I'm sure that I've seen a photograph of an Atlantic that was in a spot of bother, having got a bogie wheel caught in an intimate embrace with the cylinder or crosshead.

 

That's an interesting point that you make about the model Raven A2s - I don't think that the cylinders are much higher, if at all, than the Atlantics, or indeed the B16s. Did DJH mount them a little further out, perchance?

 

Mark

[Tony Wright]

45 minutes ago, MarkC said:

Hello Tony

 

I think that they did - I'm sure that I've seen a photograph of an Atlantic that was in a spot of bother, having got a bogie wheel caught in an intimate embrace with the cylinder or crosshead.

 

That's an interesting point that you make about the model Raven A2s - I don't think that the cylinders are much higher, if at all, than the Atlantics, or indeed the B16s. Did DJH mount them a little further out, perchance?

 

Mark

'Did DJH mount them a little further out, perchance?'

 

Looking back, they probably did.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[chris p bacon]

1 hour ago, uax6 said:

Andy G

*daily driver, I have two options to get to the box, a 67 4 dr saloon, or a 67 GPO engineers van....

 

All that walking makes you very fit.....🤣

[Northmoor]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

In my helping, at times, the RTR manufacturers, I'm often told that several criteria are 'best met' when considering introducing a steam-outline loco. These usually consist of....

1. Longevity. Pre-Grouping, Grouping, BR and preservation.

2. The last-mentioned in 1 is important, because it can be scanned.

3. Geographical spread. The wider the sphere of operation, the better.

4. Numbers in a class - the more the better, though one-offs seem popular - 71000, for instance; and the forthcoming 'Big Bertha'? 

5. Popularity. Is a particular class well-liked among enthusiasts? (This can be 'blown out of the water', of course. In 2010, in a book I wrote for Irwell on LNER Pacific modelling options, I opined that an RTR Thompson Pacific would never happen. Shows how much - or little - I know!). 

6. Not too many variations over the years (I think this is the reason it's taken so long for anyone to tackle an RTR 'Buckjumper').

 

There are several other factors mentioned, but I think these are the main ones. It's certainly not a prescriptive list, and those (noble folk) who compile the various RTR wish-list polls will know far more than me with regard to popularity. 

I find that list really surprising Tony because of how often in the recent past, the RTR manufacturers have commissioned models which fail to meet multiple criteria.  Consider the various prototype diesels:

1. No

2. No, with the exception of "Deltic"

3. Most operated only in a limited area or one route

4. All one-offs, except the LMS Twins

5. Probably the hardest to predict, as you've suggested

6. Some changed livery once but often they kept the same one throughout their limited life.

 

Perhaps #5 reflects that many modellers "collect" locos just as they spotted locos in their youth, and hence want to get at least one of every class, even if there are multiple classes of one.  This suggests that, to paraphrase, "If you make it, they will buy".

[Michael Edge]

1 hour ago, MarkC said:

Hello Tony

 

I think that they did - I'm sure that I've seen a photograph of an Atlantic that was in a spot of bother, having got a bogie wheel caught in an intimate embrace with the cylinder or crosshead.

 

That's an interesting point that you make about the model Raven A2s - I don't think that the cylinders are much higher, if at all, than the Atlantics, or indeed the B16s. Did DJH mount them a little further out, perchance?

 

Mark

DJH always put the cylinders much too far out and they do it 7mm as well with even less justification.

[jrg1]

5 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Mark,

 

'This, the ability (or lack of it) to negotiate even 3rd radius curves is another criteria to add to Tony's list, I suggest.'

 

You make a good point. I wonder how many other (non-NER) types of outside-cylindered classes cause so many problems in model form because of restricted clearances on curves? Of those NER types which qualify, I've had to shave loads of the inside edges of the cylinders, especially the B16/1s and Atlantics. Oddly, the B16/2s and B16/3s I've built need less metal removal. 

 

Did the real things have clearance problems? I found it less so with the couple of Raven Pacifics I've built; because the cylinders are higher? 

 

Say what one likes about the Thompson Pacifics, in model form I rarely have to shave anything off the inside faces of the cylinders - they're so far out of the way!

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 

The Raven Pacifics had problems with the curves into Newcastle station, Marks showed the wheels grinding on the frames

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, Northmoor said:

I find that list really surprising Tony because of how often in the recent past, the RTR manufacturers have commissioned models which fail to meet multiple criteria.  Consider the various prototype diesels:

1. No

2. No, with the exception of "Deltic"

3. Most operated only in a limited area or one route

4. All one-offs, except the LMS Twins

5. Probably the hardest to predict, as you've suggested

6. Some changed livery once but often they kept the same one throughout their limited life.

 

Perhaps #5 reflects that many modellers "collect" locos just as they spotted locos in their youth, and hence want to get at least one of every class, even if there are multiple classes of one.  This suggests that, to paraphrase, "If you make it, they will buy".

Thanks Rob,

 

Though I did confine my list to 'steam-outline'. That said, I did assist (in a small way) Accurascale in the development of the firm's production Deltic, providing photographs and notes. Other than that, I wouldn't presume to offer advice to anyone on diesel-outline or electric-outline models.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Michael Edge]

5 hours ago, jrg1 said:

The Raven Pacifics had problems with the curves into Newcastle station, Marks showed the wheels grinding on the frames

I think many locos were liable to do this but full size railways don't use 2 rail electrification.....

One of our club members recalls moving the exhibits from the old museum in York to the present one and he says that bogie wheels were gouging into the frames on the inside cylinder NE 4-4-0s.

[Chamby]

10 hours ago, Northmoor said:

I find that list really surprising Tony because of how often in the recent past, the RTR manufacturers have commissioned models which fail to meet multiple criteria.  Consider the various prototype diesels:

1. No

2. No, with the exception of "Deltic"

3. Most operated only in a limited area or one route

4. All one-offs, except the LMS Twins

5. Probably the hardest to predict, as you've suggested

6. Some changed livery once but often they kept the same one throughout their limited life.

 

Perhaps #5 reflects that many modellers "collect" locos just as they spotted locos in their youth, and hence want to get at least one of every class, even if there are multiple classes of one.  This suggests that, to paraphrase, "If you make it, they will buy".

 

I doubt if anyone reading this thread has bought the RTR GT3 in BR ‘double arrow’ blue livery...  or the APT in a livery it never carried.

 

 Unrebuilt ‘Hush Hush’ in Apple green, anyone?

 

Several RTR manufacturers don’t seem to be restricted by prototypical liveries any more.

[melmoth]

33 minutes ago, Chamby said:

 

Several RTR manufacturers don’t seem to be restricted by prototypical liveries any more.

 

Nor were Wrenn back in the day

[LNER4479]

May I be permitted (briefly?) to return to the dead vs live frog debate? And I have a question at the end.

 

Followers of the Hills of the North thread might be familiar with this. Even if not, as you can see there are two double track junctions in succession where the various routes to/from Carlisle split. All laid in Code 75 electrofrog.

 

Although off-scene, they are operated remote (ie from an operating position some distance away) and will be covered in normal circumstances. Consequently, full frog switching installed. Not so bad for the plain points but the long crossings require 3 sections of track to be switched, using the 'common return' system. Each of the junctions thus requires 4 separate switching functions (two of the frogs can be paired together as it's the same switching combo). This could just be achieved used a double microswitch on each point of the double junction ... however, due to the remote / covered location, I've also installed indicator lights on the panel so the operator can see which way the points are set. As it's a non scenic section there's no need to hide the wiring so I've run it alongside (easier to do!) so you can see the extent of the wiring involved.

 

Now - contrast it with this:

 

Caldew junctions (Carlisle No 3 box). There are 4 double junctions here, allowing trains to switch either way from two sets of double track. 3 have been laid so far. This is all Code 100, dead frog - live frog option not available for the crossings and slips in any case. I've chosen dead frogs in this occasion as there will be an operator right in front of it - the points are hand operated (at least for now). And it's Code 100 as these boards have to be removable to get Shap to exhibitions(!)

 

And this is the extent of the wiring involved! Basically just two wires to each track at the toe of the junction and away you go. We ran this for the first time at the weekend and I don't believe there were any running problems (if there were, they were kept quiet!)

 

The point? (no pun intended) Live frog is preferable in terms of good running, but comes at a price, both literally (in terms of the additional electrical components) but also, more significantly in my case, the additional time and effort taken. I have a lot of railway to get built and running; time saved as above can be invested in other parts of the layout where live frog is more beneficial (eg in station areas where slow speed movements will be undertaken).

I appreciate that for some on here who are using hand-built track then simple dead frog wiring is not an option anyway but for the silent majority of modellers up and down the country, cheerfully using proprietary trackwork systems, the additional wiring work involved (which bamboozles many) can be a significant issue in going life frog.

 

Finally the question: can frog juicers be used for DC as well as DCC?

 

Edited July 20, 2023 by LNER4479

[micklner]

1 hour ago, Chamby said:

 

I doubt if anyone reading this thread has bought the RTR GT3 in BR ‘double arrow’ blue livery...  or the APT in a livery it never carried.

 

 Unrebuilt ‘Hush Hush’ in Apple green, anyone?

 

Several RTR manufacturers don’t seem to be restricted by prototypical liveries any more.

Milking the moulds to the extreme. They still sell them, many people are clueless ,dont care, or just like the livery.

[Chas Levin]

On 18/07/2023 at 09:19, gr.king said:

I remember using that stuff too, finding (not unexpectedly) that it was only mildly electroconductive and that the "repaired" element in the heater would still be cooler than the rest over most of its length but with a pronounced hot-spot around the repair...

 

A little late on this one, but: I agree that electrically conductive paints can be quite variable in their effectiveness. I tried several a while back and I can recommend Busch 5900 Electric Conductive Paint. IT's a very fine and quite dense silver suspension (shake well before use!) that comes with a second bottle of protective lacquer to be applied over the conductive layer once that's dried. I've used it to provide a flat conductive path for LEDs (using normal paint over the protective lacquer) and as a bit of a bodge fix for poorly conductive fishplated rail joins, where lifting and replacing isn't an easy option). It works superbly straight away and so far (several years) has continued to do so. Not cheap, but it does the job. Also, the very small bottles aren't necessarily the problem they seem as a little goes a long way. (Usual disclaimer, no connection with the company!).

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, LNER4479 said:

Finally the question: can frog juicers be used for DC as well as DCC?

Short answer: no.

 

Long answer: definitely not.

 

 

[Barry Ten]

3 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

 

I appreciate that for some on here who are using hand-built track then simple dead frog wiring is not an option anyway but for the silent majority of modellers up and down the country, cheerfully using proprietary trackwork systems, the additional wiring work involved (which bamboozles many) can be a significant issue in going life frog.

 

 

 

I didn't bother with frog switching on my earlier layouts (code 100 and code 75 Peco) which seemed to work pretty reliably provided the point blades were clean,  but I couldn't get Peco Code 55 to work at all once it had been within spitting distance of ballast and paint. So, I started using switched frogs from that point on and haven't looked back. For DC, I fixed small Maplins microswitches directly under the point motor, and these have proven 100% reliable over more than a decade of use, despite being effectively inaccessible once installed, since they're mounted beneath the track but above the baseboard.

 

For my current French layout, which was only ever going to run as DCC, I've used frog juicers* for the first time and am massively impressed with the simplicity and speed of using them. I was totally bamboozled by a Peco 3-way, though, despite experience wiring these up for DC, and couldn't get the juicers to work as intended, so went to normally switched frogs in that instance.

 

* whatever Gaugemaster call theirs.

 

 

 

Edited July 20, 2023 by Barry Ten

[Geep7]

I've always wondering why Peco have never done their Code 100 crossings or slips as Electrofrog versions, seeing as they've managed to for Code 75. Personally, i've always used Electrofrog points, and recently moved to using frog juicers (of the Tam Valley variety). and can get my Bachmann 08 to crawl across my slips without stalling. And this is without using any stay-alive.

[gr.king]

Not sure why Peco would wish to spend any money re-tooling to produce new electrically refined track in a crude coarse-scale form. I can't imagine that they'd produce proper switched electrofrog now anyway - they're in love with the commercial compromise (bodge?) that is "unifrog".

[MJI]

2 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

 

For my current French layout,  I've used frog juicers*

 

 

That can sound a bit dodgy.😀

[Willie Whizz]

9 hours ago, Chamby said:

 

I doubt if anyone reading this thread has bought the RTR GT3 in BR ‘double arrow’ blue livery...  or the APT in a livery it never carried.

 

 Unrebuilt ‘Hush Hush’ in Apple green, anyone?

 

Several RTR manufacturers don’t seem to be restricted by prototypical liveries any more.

I do see that particular version of the GT3 as  “not just one, but two steps too far”.

 

However, if anyone ever produces an ex-GC ‘Jersey Lily’’  Atlantic in early BR livery, I’m following Tony’s example with his out-of-timeline Deltic and invoking Rule One!

[Northmoor]

2 hours ago, Willie Whizz said:

I do see that particular version of the GT3 as  “not just one, but two steps too far”.

 

However, if anyone ever produces an ex-GC ‘Jersey Lily’’  Atlantic in early BR livery, I’m following Tony’s example with his out-of-timeline Deltic and invoking Rule One!

In my youth I planned a model - I did this a lot instead of school work - of a contemporary (late 1980s) British Rail where almost everything operating was fictional or What-ifs?.  There would have been Class 88 electrics based on twin-cab HST power cars, Class 36 diesels (can't remember what I intended as a basis for that) on short push-pull Mk2 sets, a 25kV 4/5-car EMU based on air-conditioned Mk2s, bogie coal wagons based on European prototypes (long before we really had them in the UK).........  I got as far as repainting an Airfix Mk2D in my own livery and modifying a Lima 33 to look less recognisable and giving that another imaginary livery.

 

Then I started taking railway modelling more seriously, where did I go wrong?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On 20/07/2023 at 08:26, Chamby said:

...Unrebuilt ‘Hush Hush’ in Apple green, anyone?...

Not for me, I trend the other way.

 

There shall in time be a BR lined green late crest P2 - streamline form with Kylchap exhaust - coming my way. Since the class received power stokers in the early 50s, the BR power classification shall be 9P/10F. (Operational necessity dictates an overline coaling tower located somewhere between  York and Newcastle will be required, but that's 'off my modelling map'.) 😁

 

15 hours ago, Northmoor said:

...bogie coal wagons based on European prototypes (long before we really had them in the UK)...

There were attempts by several pre-group companies in the 1900s to move toward higher capacity bogie wagons with continuous brakes. The best known outcomes probably the GNR and subsequent LNER builds and operation of bogie brick wagons, and the LMS bogie coal wagons used to supply their Stonebridge Park power station. In both cases, the railway companies concerned significantly had control / influence over the load and off load locations.

https://www.steve-banks.org/prototype-and-traffic/143-lms-coal-the-40t-hoppers

[Clive Mortimore]

16 hours ago, Northmoor said:

In my youth I planned a model - I did this a lot instead of school work - of a contemporary (late 1980s) British Rail where almost everything operating was fictional or What-ifs?.  There would have been Class 88 electrics based on twin-cab HST power cars, Class 36 diesels (can't remember what I intended as a basis for that) on short push-pull Mk2 sets, a 25kV 4/5-car EMU based on air-conditioned Mk2s, bogie coal wagons based on European prototypes (long before we really had them in the UK).........  I got as far as repainting an Airfix Mk2D in my own livery and modifying a Lima 33 to look less recognisable and giving that another imaginary livery.

 

Then I started taking railway modelling more seriously, where did I go wrong?

Nothing wrong with imaginary stuff as long as you say it is.

A proper livery for a Brush Type 5

 

Another green loco this time a BR type 5.

 

A pair of English Electric Type 3s each powered by a single 18 cylinder Deltic engine.

 

Ignore the missing buffers, an English Electric Type 4 with twin 9 cylinder Deltic engines with another loco from the Vulcan Foundry a Type 2 A1A-A1A with a 1350hp 12 cylinder engine.

 

Oh, please mister
Just leave me alone
I'm only
Lookin' for fun
Lookin' for fun
F, U, N

 

At a show I slipped D700 on to Hanging Hill. This chap was telling his son what we called loco classes back in the green days. He got to D700 and said he couldn't remember what it was. I did say in was make believe, made two pullman power cars. 

Edited July 21, 2023 by Clive Mortimore

[Coach bogie]

Not just fictional loco's.  What about coaching stock. Here is a GWR K42.5  Centenary full brake. Well Collett should have made one.....

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Tony Wright]

Geoff Haynes popped round today with more of his painting work to be photographed...........

 

 

 

Viewers might recall I showed this Alan Gibson Buffalo some little time ago. I built the body and Geoff made it go, then painted it (it has Gibson wheels, so I wasn't keen on those). 

 

The commissioner thought it was too glossy, so Geoff's toned it down. 

 

I think it looks very-natural.

 

Now for something rather different..................

 

 

 

Apparently, this is a Scot Class (or Scott?) GWR 4-4-2. As for its name, Lalla Rookh, I have no idea. Does anyone?

 

The builder is unknown (it was bought off eBay) and the construction (from a white metal kit, by the look, but which?) was a bit rough. 

 

I think Geoff's done a great job in disguising some of the 'roughness' (his brief was to paint it), though on test all we got was a short!