Wright writes.....

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

On 23/10/2023 at 15:46, Barry O said:

...My biggest problem are the back to backs. They are all over the place...

How is it that some of us have literally had no trouble with this dimension from Hornby since they cleaned up their act* while with Sanda Kan from about 2003?  (* 'Ye olde Margateness' of 14.2mm btb on loco drivers.)

 

I have purchased new and retained all the suitable locos from Hornby for the KX area 1956-62 and a few more, all these ER allocated classes in multiples: A3, A4, B1, B12/3, B17, D16/3, J15, J50, K1, L1, N2, O1, and of course a solitary W1, Brush type 2, 350hp shunter; furriners J36, P2, Q6, Bulleid Q1, Riddles 7MT, Stanier 8F. And some rolling stock...

 

And I might add, purchases of new models from a total of eight other RTR OO brands, all trouble free in respect of btb. I am well past a thousand wheelsets from Bachmann alone...

 

Now the ugliness. I also purchase s/h. Now this is very definitely 'all over the place', there's nothing Johnny Ninethumbs enjoys more than messing with this dimension is my assessment. Do some of the consequences of this end up being retailed as 'new'? 

Edited October 27, 2023 by 34theletterbetweenB&D
typo correction

[Chas Levin]

13 hours ago, Buhar said:

You could do something similar to an electrician's test equipment test.  Measure a known item, measure the B2B, re-measure the calibration item.

 

Alan

 

I do this fairly reguarly with my Mitutoyo digital calipers and a Markits brass B2B - it only takes a second and provides some extra peace of mind. I realise the brass B2B will alter ever so slightly with our modern global warming temperature changes, but like others who've commented on 00's tolerant tolerances, I think it's still accurate enough... 

[Bernard Lamb]

Tony recently mentioned Hornby locomotives that had passed through his hands. This one looks familiar. Still giving good service.

Bernard

 

[Barry O]

6 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

How is it that some of us have literally had no trouble with this dimension from Hornby since they cleaned up their act* while with Sanda Kan from about 2003?  (* 'Ye olde Margateness' of 14.2mm btb on loco drivers.)

 

I have purchased new and retained all the suitable locos from Hornby for the KX area 1956-62 and a few more, all these ER allocated classes in multiples: A3, A4, B1, B12/3, B17, D16/3, J15, J50, K1, L1, N2, O1, and of course a solitary W1, Brush type 2, 350hp shunter; furriners J36, P2, Q6, Bulleid Q1, Riddles 7MT, Stanier 8F. And some rolling stock...

 

And I might add, purchases of new models from a total of eight other RTR OO brands, all trouble free in respect of btb. I am well past a thousand wheelsets from Bachmann alone...

 

Now the ugliness. I also purchase s/h. Now this is very definitely 'all over the place', there's nothing Johnny Ninethumbs enjoys more than messing with this dimension is my assessment. Do some of the consequences of this end up being retailed as 'new'? 

Do you ever measure them? It depends on what track you are using. Must be a bit of my engineering background showing through.

 

This is a brand new model. NOT secondhand.

 

I always check wheelsets as they are so variable. My K1 (Hornby) and B1(Hornby now sport Gibson  pony/bogie wheels sets to get the b2bs correct and to stop them running on the chairs of finer scale track.

 

Baz

 

(And its not rocket science.. been a rocket scientist in my engineering career and neither is using a set of verniers).

Edited October 27, 2023 by Barry O

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

37 minutes ago, Barry O said:

Do you ever measure them? It depends on what track you are using. Must be a bit of my engineering background showing through.

Likewise with the background, was lead on 6 Sigma  implementation in the early 1970s, and check all my traction purchases, and samples of the new rolling stock, and all s/h purchase rolling stock.

 

Historical review.

 

Prior to Bachmann's 'Blue Riband' line which I first encountered in 1999, RTR OO gauging truly was a shambles. But I was only purchasing occasional traction pieces to run outdoors. All the rolling stock - largely kit built - was on kit wheels as were the small number of kit locos I had retained from the 1960s onwards during my 'youthful round' of model railwaying.

 

Once Hornby corrected their 14.2mm btb on loco drivers from 2003, the only trouble with wheelsets since were wrongly profiled wagon wheels from Dapol, now over a dozen years past. (The btb was 'correct', except that with the profile being in error, since btb is a substitution measurement for gauge it was meaningless).

 

My track is a mix of Peco streamline, 100, 75, BH, medium and large radius points only (based on a statistically validated reliability assessment), SMP BH including plastic kit base points, Marcway points, my own soldered construction code 75, and I am trying out some Peco code 83 points for 'off-scene' use.

 

With my statistician hat on it is problematic that I receive correctly gauged product on what constitutes a significant sample size, if Chinese sourcing is considered as a whole, and others do not.

 

The major problem factor I experience in RTR OO is the variation in coupler designs and their mounting. This would be the leading cause of unsatisfactory running reliability on my layout, did I not evaluate and fix as required, see my posts in thread below.

 

 

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Barry O said:

Do you ever measure them? It depends on what track you are using. Must be a bit of my engineering background showing through.

 

This is a brand new model. NOT secondhand.

 

I always check wheelsets as they are so variable. My K1 (Hornby) and B1(Hornby now sport Gibson  pony/bogie wheels sets to get the b2bs correct and to stop them running on the chairs of finer scale track.

 

Baz

 

(And its not rocket science.. been a rocket scientist in my engineering career and neither is using a set of verniers).

 

My eldest daughter always counters "It's not rocket science" with "I studied rocket science at University and it's not that complicated".

 

I like the way that some folk say RTR back to backs come at a good consistent standard and others say they don't. Both can and could very well be correct. It all depends on how the wheels are assembled in the factory and how good the machine, or the person operating it and checking it, are.

 

I have had some RTR locos with good, consistent and accurate B2B dimensions and others with dreadful ones.

 

So they all get checked (I also use a Vernier Gauge, an old fashioned non battery one) and any adjustments made. 

[Tony Wright]

7 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Tony recently mentioned Hornby locomotives that had passed through his hands. This one looks familiar. Still giving good service.

Bernard

 

 

 

Good evening Bernard,

 

I'm delighted the 2P is giving good service, though it's not likely to get much further with the leading tender wheelset off the road!

 

I assume (at least I hope) that it was just placed for photography. I'd hate to be the one who sold you a loco where its tender derailed!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Dunsignalling]

On 23/10/2023 at 16:01, MJI said:

Any wagon modellers - of course there are.

 

Reminds me I need wheels, lots of wheels.

 

Anyway Chiver Finelines are releasing some parts as spares.

 

https://www.chiversfinelines.co.uk/shop/kit-parts-spares

 

Got some axle boxes on the way.

 

My current job list requiring parts are.

 

Ex GWR 10ft 5 plank

4 more LMS hoppers

2 Ex LMS vans

 

Gibsons next, then Precision.

 

 

Thanks for the info. Now the underframe is available separately, I can finish the Chivers kits I've robbed for other projects....

 

Those door bangers will come in handy too.

 

John

Edited October 27, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[Bernard Lamb]

33 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

Good evening Bernard,

 

I'm delighted the 2P is giving good service, though it's not likely to get much further with the leading tender wheelset off the road!

 

I assume (at least I hope) that it was just placed for photography. I'd hate to be the one who sold you a loco where its tender derailed!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Well spotted Tony.

I only had a few minutes tio spare this morning as I had a hospital appoitment. To get a similar view point to roughly simulate your photograph I reversed it through a point that was set the wrong way.  Of course the other shots in the batch show all wheels on the track but not the angle of view that I was trying to copy. It actually runs rather well.

Bernard

[sandra]

Hello Tony,

 

You will remember that some time ago you very kindly built the under frame for a B17 which was to go under an old Hornby B17 body.

 

I have now nearly finished the locomotive and I tested her on the railway today. I decided that I couldn’t live with the Hornby tender and as I had a spare DMR tender kit I decided to build this to go with the locomotive. I also removed the moulded ejector pipe and replaced the handrail knobs and handrails together with various other modifications.Here she is, 61657 Doncaster Rovers. This locomotive was the only B17 with a group standard tender which was allocated to March in 1957 and as March usually provided the engine for the Parkeston Quay/Liverpool boat train it was the only Footballer likely to be seen at Retford. There are a number of photos of this locomotive on the train. This is the Boat Train heading west just before crossing the ECML.

 

Thanks for very kindly building the locomotive which needless to say performs beautifully.

 

Sandra

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, sandra said:

Hello Tony,

 

You will remember that some time ago you very kindly built the under frame for a B17 which was to go under an old Hornby B17 body.

 

I have now nearly finished the locomotive and I tested her on the railway today. I decided that I couldn’t live with the Hornby tender and as I had a spare DMR tender kit I decided to build this to go with the locomotive. I also removed the moulded ejector pipe and replaced the handrail knobs and handrails together with various other modifications.Here she is, 61657 Doncaster Rovers. This locomotive was the only B17 with a group standard tender which was allocated to March in 1957 and as March usually provided the engine for the Parkeston Quay/Liverpool boat train it was the only Footballer likely to be seen at Retford. There are a number of photos of this locomotive on the train. This is the Boat Train heading west just before crossing the ECML.

 

Thanks for very kindly building the locomotive which needless to say performs beautifully.

 

Sandra

Thanks Sandra,

 

You've (nearly) finished it off very well.

 

If I may, please, I'll take its photo (or several) on Monday. 

 

It's a privilege to be able to build another locomotive for Retford (for various personal reasons, the best model railway ever built - or being built!).

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

My eldest daughter always counters "It's not rocket science" with "I studied rocket science at University and it's not that complicated".

 

I like the way that some folk say RTR back to backs come at a good consistent standard and others say they don't. Both can and could very well be correct. It all depends on how the wheels are assembled in the factory and how good the machine, or the person operating it and checking it, are.

 

I have had some RTR locos with good, consistent and accurate B2B dimensions and others with dreadful ones.

 

So they all get checked (I also use a Vernier Gauge, an old fashioned non battery one) and any adjustments made. 

Good evening Tony,

 

Perhaps due to my natural indolence, I don't check any b-t-bs on OO RTR locos before I try them on Little Bytham. I just put them on a road, turn the juice on and away they go. Very, very rarely now do I have to do any adjustments; if so, it's always because a b-t-b is too tight. 

 

Have I been lucky, I wonder? This is not just Hornby, but all the other RTR manufacturers, too. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Woodcock29]

I've not had to vary BTB on any of my recent Hornby purchases  (I use Peco Code 75) but have on a number of Bulleid light pacifics a friend purchased quite some years ago. Some were less than 14mm on the driving wheels.

Andrew

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Tony,

 

Perhaps due to my natural indolence, I don't check any b-t-bs on OO RTR locos before I try them on Little Bytham. I just put them on a road, turn the juice on and away they go. Very, very rarely now do I have to do any adjustments; if so, it's always because a b-t-b is too tight. 

 

Have I been lucky, I wonder? This is not just Hornby, but all the other RTR manufacturers, too. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

My experience of RTR models for my own use is virtually nil, as I have said before. When I took on the task of making Burnden Park run, there were many locos which bumped quite badly through the hand made, fairly tight tolerance points on the layout. To be fair to the locos, the points were 16.5mm gauge with 1mm check rail gaps, which required a B2B minimum of over 14.5mm. However, when I started checking and altering them, the B2B measurements were anywhere from 14.1mm to 14.5mm.

 

So the points were not built to a normal OO standard, which made the situation worse but measuring the B2B dimensions was a real eye opener.

 

As has been said, generally OO is a fairly tolerant and forgiving way to build a layout, so perhaps it is not that critical if you have wider check rail gaps. If you do the sums, 16.5mm minus two lots of 1.2mm check rails means anything over 14.1mm B2B should go through, so you may have a wide variety of B2B dimensions and just never had a problem with them.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 27, 2023 by t-b-g
typo

[St Enodoc]

3 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

My experience of RTR models for my own use is virtually nil, as I have said before. When I took on the task of making Burnden Park run, there were many locos which bumped quite badly through the hand made, fairly tight tolerance points on the layout. To be fair to the locos, the points were 16.5mm gauge with 1mm check rail gaps, which required a B2B minimum of over 14.5mm. However, when I started checking and altering them, the B2B measurements were anywhere from 14.1mm to 14.5mm.

 

So the points were not built to a normal OO standard, which made the situation worse but measuring the B2B dimensions was a real eye opener.

 

As has been said, generally OO is a fairly tolerant and forgiving way to build a layout, so perhaps it is not that critical if you have wider check rail gaps. If you do the sums, 16.5mm minus two lots of 1.2mm check rails means anything over 14.1mm B2B should go through, so you may have a wide variety of B2B dimensions and just never had a problem with them.

 

 

 

 

Interesting, Tony. For me, performance always trumps appearance and I have for many, many years set my wing rail gaps to 1.15mm (using the little aluminium SMP gauge) and the check rail gaps to 1.5mm (using a very ancient roller gauge, possibly sold by Precision Scale Models of Newport). That lets a very wide range of wheels run though the points without problems. As I also use a switch blade gap of 2.4mm (two SMP copperclad sleepers), my points aren't the best-looking from end-on but from side-on they're fine - and the train set works pretty well.

[Iain.d]

With the Roxey Moulding 3 coach LSWR set that I’m doing, I’ve got them to the point of painting. I have built the interiors from plastic card, other than for the floors I didn’t use the plastic card that came with the kits, I used a sheet of DCC Concepts card that has marked 1mm grid lines on, thinking that would be easier to measure and cut with. Well it was, but what I didn’t realise was that their card has a thin clear film stuck to the surface that doesn’t take to liquid poly glue. Even when I managed to pick the film off, the glue bond doesn’t seem as secure as ‘normal’ plastic card; I’m not sure how long these bonds will last. Time will tell.

 

Here they are with all the partitions and seats placed in place, less a few seat backs. When the carriages are painted, I’ll glue them all in position, some painting will be done before fitting but most will be done after gluing them in.

 

 

I added the vents to the roofs and the small grab handrails at the one end of each roof. I have rain strips to add from tape, but I’ll do that after the final clean.

 

 

I had previously made up some couplings (similar to the Bill Bedford type) but I wasn’t happy with my workmanship or how far the vehicles were held apart. So I made some new ones, using the shortest screw coupling loops I had, which was my determining factor on the length of the coupling. I think they look better now, still not quite prototypical but the gap is less noticeable.

 

 

And the 3 coaches together.

 

 

I’ve also cut individual glass for the windows, a laborious and time-consuming process. I had so many breakages of the slip covers, I almost gave up and resorted to plastic, but persevered as I’m not in a rush to finish them; Christmas is my target. Next, I need to give them a final wash and then clear off my painting table in the garage so I can start spraying them, that’s a plan for this week.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

[St Enodoc]

2 hours ago, Iain.d said:

 

I had previously made up some couplings (similar to the Bill Bedford type) but I wasn’t happy with my workmanship or how far the vehicles were held apart. So I made some new ones, using the shortest screw coupling loops I had, which was my determining factor on the length of the coupling. I think they look better now, still not quite prototypical but the gap is less noticeable.

Unfortunately, Iain, when coaches are screw-coupled the buffers should be touching (slightly compressed, in fact).

 

Easy to say, not so easy to do - especially with "model railway" curves.

[Tony Wright]

At the York Show last Easter, I bought a Pro-Scale B1 kit off a friend. 

 

As far as I know, this was the only kit in the range with a cast metal boiler. In some ways that makes construction easier; as long as the boiler is the right diameter........

 

 

Which this one wasn't - it's fatter than a K3's boiler! 

 

A razor saw cut out a section (though even this amount wasn't enough).

 

When I asked John Sutton about his 3mm Pro-Scale B1(seen earlier), he said he'd made the boiler from brass (either because no cast boiler was supplied, or, if it were, it too was too fat). 

 

With the requisite amount taken out, the bottom seam was then soldered-up. However, that then resulted in a non-round boiler..........

 

 

Easily squeezed into the correct shape by use of a vice, with the boiler protected by two hardwood 'cheeks' (my emery boards). 

 

 

Now the correct diameter, according to the Isinglass drawing.

 

 

 

The degree of the boiler being over-porcine can be judged by this comparison of smokebox doors.

 

On the left (over the drawing) is a correct-diameter Nu-Cast door and on the right, the Pro-Scale one - even larger than a K3's! 

 

With the firebox added, the whole assembly is over-long as well, meaning over a mil' needs taking off at the back end. 

 

I've seen Pro-Scale B1s made-up without this boiler modification, and they just look daft. 

 

Having looked at the frames, with their cut-outs for horn blocks and necessary springing/compensation (at source), I thought I can't be bothered; so I've ordered a complete Comet B1 chassis - much more sensible for my needs. 

 

I'll report on the build as I go along. With at least 15 others, do I need another B1? Of course not, but as the late, great Roy Jackson once told someone in answer to the question of why he kept on building locomotives, his answer was 'It's what I like to do! Which is good enough for me............ 

 

 

Edited October 30, 2023 by Tony Wright

[LNER4479]

9 hours ago, t-b-g said:

As has been said, generally OO is a fairly tolerant and forgiving way to build a layout, so perhaps it is not that critical if you have wider check rail gaps. If you do the sums, 16.5mm minus two lots of 1.2mm check rails means anything over 14.1mm B2B should go through, so you may have a wide variety of B2B dimensions and just never had a problem with them.

 

I think that very neatly summarises my approach. I don't own a B2B gauge - never have. I put a loco / coach / wagon on the track and if it goes, it goes! If it doesn't, then I investigate and find out why. If I suspect that the wheels aren't the right distance apart then I compare it with a known 'good' vehicle (touch them flange to flange) and adjust if necessary. There are many other reasons why a vehicle might not run properly (eg a wagon not sitting square on its wheels, insufficient movement in a bogie suspension, etc)

 

At Milton Keynes, there must have been hundreds of wheelsets running around the layout; one vehicle (kit built; not mine) was suspected of B2B problems. Someone did have a B2B gauge and it did appear slightly tight. But I also checked the one point on the layout where it was occasionally derailing - and made a small adjustment. A wagon with a marginally tight B2B had actually found a minor track defect that all other vehicles seemed to be coping with.

 

I appreciate the above only really applies to 'sloppy' OO gauge.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

16 hours ago, t-b-g said:

...I like the way that some folk say RTR back to backs come at a good consistent standard and others say they don't. Both can and could very well be correct. It all depends on how the wheels are assembled in the factory and how good the machine, or the person operating it and checking it, are.

 

I have had some RTR locos with good, consistent and accurate B2B dimensions and others with dreadful ones...

Well here's my thought on this matter, which I have insufficient data to support. When I purchase  the necessary RTR OO locos for my modelling interest, they are bought 'new' in two senses: from a retailer's shelf of new stock, and from the first group of releases.

 

My experience of the real world of batch manufacturing, suggests that new introductions are typically made on all new tooling, and get the attention of a good crew on the better equipment; that best secures the item's - and thus the brand's - reputation. Should there be repeat batches, tooling has been in storage, and wear and deteriorations accumulate, and the production run isn't by a top crew on the best available kit: because that's always fully loaded with the 'latest and greatest' newer introductions.

 

 

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Well here's my thought on this matter, which I have insufficient data to support. When I purchase  the necessary RTR OO locos for my modelling interest, they are bought 'new' in two senses: from a retailer's shelf of new stock, and from the first group of releases.

 

My experience of the real world of batch manufacturing, suggests that new introductions are typically made on all new tooling, and get the attention of a good crew on the better equipment; that best secures the item's - and thus the brand's - reputation. Should there be repeat batches, tooling has been in storage, and wear and deteriorations accumulate, and the production run isn't by a top crew on the best available kit: because that's always fully loaded with the 'latest and greatest' newer introductions.

 

 

I have Bulleid air-smoothed Light Pacifics from two of the earliest (Wilton, Tangmere) to a Bideford from a couple of years back. Revisions apart, I see little evidence of change beyond livery application, which seems to have varied, but newer is generally better.

 

I more than concur, though, where plastic wagon kits are concerned, as the moulds are probably less durable, leading to deterioration of part quality/fit over time.

 

A number of Parkside ones have been discontinued or retooled over the years. I've experienced the "delights" of building a couple of the former (PC.05, PC.14) from late batches, produced some years pre-Peco.

 

Both turned out well (eventually), but getting them square required much more work than is usually necessary. Peco may not even have the original moulds, and both have since been produced in r-t-r form, so neither is likely to re-emerge.

 

I've since made another PC.05 from an even older kit (earlier packaging) picked up at a swapmeet, and it almost fell together! 😃

 

John

Edited October 28, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[Izzy]

2 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

A wagon with a marginally tight B2B had actually found a minor track defect that all other vehicles seemed to be coping with.

 

I appreciate the above only really applies to 'sloppy' OO gauge.

Similar has just recently happened to me with my P4 plank re-build so I think it can happen with any scale/gauge combination. I remade the layout from the baseboard up, all new trackwork to a new design. Once built, laid, and wired it was fully tested with all my locos/stock before ballasting and adding the rest, buildings, scenery etc since there wouldn’t be much room to work afterwards should anything be amiss. Once done I got on building a couple more locos I wanted. Ho hum. In combination they ‘found’ bits where the track it turned out wasn’t quite right but had caused no issues with any of the other stock, one of these being the middle crossing of a three way turnout which was hemmed in with buildings and thus extremely difficult to put right ……

 

Bob

[Chas Levin]

On 28/10/2023 at 09:51, LNER4479 said:

I think that very neatly summarises my approach. I don't own a B2B gauge - never have. I put a loco / coach / wagon on the track and if it goes, it goes! If it doesn't, then I investigate and find out why. If I suspect that the wheels aren't the right distance apart then I compare it with a known 'good' vehicle (touch them flange to flange) and adjust if necessary. There are many other reasons why a vehicle might not run properly (eg a wagon not sitting square on its wheels, insufficient movement in a bogie suspension, etc)

 

At Milton Keynes, there must have been hundreds of wheelsets running around the layout; one vehicle (kit built; not mine) was suspected of B2B problems. Someone did have a B2B gauge and it did appear slightly tight. But I also checked the one point on the layout where it was occasionally derailing - and made a small adjustment. A wagon with a marginally tight B2B had actually found a minor track defect that all other vehicles seemed to be coping with.

 

I appreciate the above only really applies to 'sloppy' OO gauge.

 

I'd totally agree with this on paper (so to speak), but: I have some of the sloppiest 00 gauge trackwork you'll find anywhere and while a wide variety of RTR locos and rolling stock - ranging from the 1960s to the 2020s - and kit-built stock running on commerial wheelsets usually travels without problems, every so often I come across something that repeatedly derails on points. In such cases it's almost always the B2B (usually too narrow) and correcting that produces perfect running, even on my trackwork!

Perhaps I might start keeping a record of which loco or stock items this happens with, the manufacturer, the corrections made etc and see if there's any pattern...🤔

[Pebbles]

On 27/10/2023 at 10:04, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Graham,

 

How strange, because I had 20 (mainly metal) carriages behind that loco (on the flat, mind). 

 

I don't know if there's space inside 46252 to add more ballast. The original HD 'Duchess' is such a great big lump of mazac that I'm not surprised it pulled 15 cars up Shap!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I'm just wondering whether the performance of the original HD "Duchess" on an incline is as a result of rear weight biases. Apart from any overall weight, the substantial motor/magnet at the rear could give adhesion "bite" on the rear wheels in much the same way that a 4-6-0 would. 

[Kirby Uncoupler]

If Tony and followers haven't already heard, here's some very sad news. Peter Townend, the last shedmaster of Kings Cross steam depot (Top Shed) until 1963, has died at the grand age of 98. He must have been one of the last surviving significant figures from the BR steam era. What a glorious life he has led.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/tributes-yorkshire-railwayman-one-last-120637623.html

 

A page has been opened in RMweb Obituaries, all are welcome to contribute a few words.

                                                                           Brian Kirby.