Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, 2750Papyrus said:

Oops!

 

"You're own layout"? 

Well spotted.

 

I have no excuse, but it'll please the trio from yesterday no end! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Jesse Sim]

On 25/11/2023 at 21:10, Tony Wright said:

Sorting kits for despatch will take place tomorrow, because today is a running session on Little Bytham with three good friends.

 

In getting things ready this morning, the sun streaming on to the fiddleyard caught my eye..............

 

 

 

All ready to go!

I hope there are some ropes coming for those two wagons behind the B1!!! 

[Jol Wilkinson]

15 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi Jol,

do you know what controls the height of the frame spacers?  Taking material off the top of the frames wouldn’t be particularly difficult unless that then destroys any positioning  slots for the spacers.

Frank

 

Hi Frank,

 

IIRC the spacers are locater by half etched grooves, so probably not possible to relocate them.

 

Jol

14 hours ago, rka said:

Thank you, I suppose I could file an amount from the underside of the running plate. 

 

Probably not the easiest task or best answer. The LRM Coal Tank kit is etched in .4 mm nickel silver so the K's running plate would be have thinned down to that. However if the K's casting is about 1.5mm or so thick (from memory I recall that their castings weren't as thick as the GEM ones, for example) it will raise the loco body by about 1.0mm which is possibly acceptable.

 

Jol

[Compound2632]

On 24/11/2023 at 12:27, Tony Wright said:

 

I've just posted elsewhere a criticism of the composition of some of Tony's photographs, though as much as anything it's a comment on the visual limitations of 00; I'm not someone who works in one of the closer-to-scale gauges but in 00 myself, so I can't be accused of taking a superior attitude, I hope! It would be improper having made my remarks elsewhere not to make them in the presence of Tony himself. I hope I do not give too much offence.

 

It's Tony's fondness for three-quarter or near end-on shots such as this that I think does his superb model a disservice, by emphasising the narrow gauge. To my mind, what really spoils the illusion of reality more than the narrow gauge is the exaggeration of the ratio of the six foot to the four foot way. I'm sure that the track on Little Bytham is laid to prototypical centres and these appear to be wider than the common standard of 11' 2" on this section of line. But if one takes that 11' 2" value, then the prototypical ratio between six foot and four foot is 1.27; for 00 laid to 45 mm centres, this becomes about 1.6, i.e. a distortion of 26%, which is much more noticeable than the 13% distortion in the track gauge, if the track is seen on its own - such as on a single-track line. I suspect that when seen in the flesh*, the eye, taking in the whole picture, overlooks this distortion but in a photograph, where one is drawn in to look at detail, it does stand out.

 

So my moral is, 00 is better photographed sideways-on!

 

*The which I have had a very kind offer to do, though regrettably I have not had the opportunity to do; and am reconciled to its possibly being withdrawn as a result of this post!

Edited November 27, 2023 by Compound2632

[polybear]

Sideways-on is fine when taking a photo of a Loco or piece of rolling stock, but not so great f you want to show a complete train as it becomes "further away" in order to fit it into the view.  Hopefully that makes sense....

[Compound2632]

16 minutes ago, polybear said:

Hopefully that makes sense....

 

It does. But that's the problem.

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I've just posted elsewhere a criticism of the composition of some of Tony's photographs, though as much as anything it's a comment on the visual limitations of 00; I'm not someone who works in one of the closer-to-scale gauges but in 00 myself, so I can't be accused of taking a superior attitude, I hope! It would be improper having made my remarks elsewhere not to make them in the presence of Tony himself. I hope I do not give too much offence.

 

It's Tony's fondness for three-quarter or near end-on shots such as this that I think does his superb model a disservice, by emphasising the narrow gauge. To my mind, what really spoils the illusion of reality more than the narrow gauge is the exaggeration of the ratio of the six foot to the four foot way. I'm sure that the track on Little Bytham is laid to prototypical centres and these appear to be wider than the common standard of 11' 2" on this section of line. But if one takes that 11' 2" value, then the prototypical ratio between six foot and four foot is 1.27; for 00 laid to 45 mm centres, this becomes about 1.6, i.e. a distortion of 26%, which is much more noticeable than the 13% distortion in the track gauge, if the track is seen on its own - such as on a single-track line. I suspect that when seen in the flesh*, the eye, taking in the whole picture, overlooks this distortion but in a photograph, where one is drawn in to look at detail, it does stand out.

 

So my moral is, 00 is better photographed sideways-on!

 

*The which I have had a very kind offer to do, though regrettably I have not had the opportunity to do; and am reconciled to its possibly being withdrawn as a result of this post!

Good afternoon Stephen,

 

Why would I withdraw an invitation to visit LB because of a perfectly-valid observation? 

 

You're right; Bytham's track centres are laid (as near as possible) to the prototype's because BR's own trackplan was employed, scaled to 4mm. Which means that the 'distortion' you mention is greater than scale. 

 

But (there's always a 'but'), so what? My camera equipment allows me the ability to photograph almost everything in a scene in focus, so why limit my picture-taking to just side-on, especially when 99% of observers probably don't notice the aberrations you mention at all.  Granted, in EM, any 'distortions' would be less, but until someone recreates one of my shots in P4, then I'll live with the limitations of my 'narrow gauge' track's appearance (by 'recreating' one of my shots, I mean an equivalent ECML scene, with, say, an A1 on 15 heavy bogies running in the high-90s! And, after that, any A2s, A3s, A4s, V2s, etc, etc................). 

 

One visitor who models in P4, complimented me on Bytham's running, but said he couldn't live with the 'narrow gauge and crude wheels', as he witnessed a P2 I'd just built, bowl round at 80+ on the said 15 bogies. I responded a couple of months later, on observing his P4 layout in operation at a show, that I couldn't live with a 2-6-2T on two bogies which was unable to travel more that four feet (on straight track!) without derailing. 

 

I think that's the nub of it for me (and I've promulgated this many times before); I admire those who strive to model in the most-accurate 4mm gauge (I admire even more, those who can actually make it work), but I know it's beyond my skill-set. However, in OO (despite its 'limitations') I can recreate those indelible memories of my train-spotting youth (where I very rarely saw things derail). 

 

Anyway, some examples of possible interest.............

 

 

OO, photographed more 'sideways on'; though the narrowness of the gauge is disguised, the over-scale flanges are still apparent.

 

 

Perhaps 'further away' the effect is 'less-offensive' on the eye.

 

 

As here.

 

 

And here? 

 

Obviously...........

 

 

A head-on view on a P4 system is much more-realistic (this is a P4 layout which actually works - London Road).

 

 

As does this one - Portchullin.

 

 

And definitely this one - Sanford and Banwell. 

 

True-scale standard gauge indeed!

 

 

And another - Stoke by Nayland.

 

Other than being superb examples of the highest quality modelling, what do these P4 layouts have in common? They all represent minor/secondary/branch lines, where trains are short, locos are small and nothing travels fast. 

 

On Stoke by Nayland, that Ivatt 2MT is one of the largest locos, along with a B12.

 

Whereas............

 

 

A B12 is one of the smallest on Little Bytham. 

 

Is this high-angle, straight-on type of view the most-critical of OO?

 

Perhaps,

 

 

But I wonder how many notice the 'narrow gauge' trackwork in this shot? Yes, it's 'only' OO! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

[Compound2632]

Well indeed, the artistry is in the way the compromises are addressed.

[Tony Wright]

Just to let buyers know, I've posted off 12 parcels this morning; either 1st Class recorded or guaranteed delivery, dependent on value.

 

Any problems, please advise..........

[Richard_A]

On 26/11/2023 at 14:07, rka said:

Can I ask the great and the good on here a few questions, please? 

 

After much deliberating I have settled on a layout based on the Swansea end of the central Wales line should I ever find the time to build one. 

 

I have been picking up various kits both unbuilt and built but needing work, the first loco I want to sort out is a k's lnwr coal tank. 

 

It has an old white metal chassis with what I assume are k's wheels and motor, because I am thinking about building to em gauge, my thoughts are to replace the whole chassis for a London Road models chassis with markits wheels and new motor and gearbox. 

 

Has anyone used this body and chassis combination?

 

If so what problems should I look out for? 

 

Also, looking in the markits catalogue I cannot understand what diameter the axles are, 3mm or 1/8". Do they make both, is one size best to buy because the market is set up for it? 

 

Very confusing. 

Can anyone help me with this question about axles please? 

[Barry Ten]

18 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

 

But I wonder how many notice the 'narrow gauge' trackwork in this shot? Yes, it's 'only' OO! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

 

The last thing I'd notice in that shot is the track gauge (the track just looks "right") but I'm immediately drawn

to the over-thick sides on that coach. Not a criticism at all, just an observation that there's a lot more to railway

modelling than a few mms here and there in the trackwork, and I wish the great 00/EM/P4 debate could be

buried once and for all.

[billbedford]

1 minute ago, rka said:

Can anyone help me with this question about axles please? 

 

There is no real difference between 3mm or 1/8th inch axles as long as they are matched with the appropriate sized bearings. 

[JIJ]

20 minutes ago, billbedford said:

 

There is no real difference between 3mm or 1/8th inch axles as long as they are matched with the appropriate sized bearings. 

Having recently been on the look out for 3mm bearings and axles (to make use of some of those n20 motor gearbox combos) it looks like 3mm bearings are a little harder to come by from the usual sources, and I've not seen a set of 3mm tapered assembly axles at all. This put me off the whole endeavour, and I'm going back to 1/8". I will try to ream out the bearings and final drive gear for the n20

[Richard_A]

24 minutes ago, billbedford said:

 

There is no real difference between 3mm or 1/8th inch axles as long as they are matched with the appropriate sized bearings. 

I suppose that I should have qualified the question by stating that, on the high level kits website it states that 3mm axles are not a common size, which is why I ask about what the market is more set up for. 

 

 

[coronach]

Reliable, smooth running is dependent on good electrical connectivity at the rail-wheel interface. I generally clean the rails using a peco track rubber or felt block however some areas are difficult to reach. I have recently purchased a track cleaning vehicle -a BR 20t brake van with an abrasive pad suspended between the axles. I am considering whether to moisten the pad with isopropyl alcohol; I have a bottle of surgical spirit - does anyone have experience of using this?  For example, might it leave an insulating deposit after it dries?

[Methuselah]

41 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Stephen,

 

Why would I withdraw an invitation to visit LB because of a perfectly-valid observation? 

 

You're right; Bytham's track centres are laid (as near as possible) to the prototype's because BR's own trackplan was employed, scaled to 4mm. Which means that the 'distortion' you mention is greater than scale. 

 

But (there's always a 'but'), so what? My camera equipment allows me the ability to photograph almost everything in a scene in focus, so why limit my picture-taking to just side-on, especially when 99% of observers probably don't notice the aberrations you mention at all.  Granted, in EM, any 'distortions' would be less, but until someone recreates one of my shots in P4, then I'll live with the limitations of my 'narrow gauge' track's appearance (by 'recreating' one of my shots, I mean an equivalent ECML scene, with, say, an A1 on 15 heavy bogies running in the high-90s! And, after that, any A2s, A3s, A4s, V2s, etc, etc................). 

 

One visitor who models in P4, complimented me on Bytham's running, but said he couldn't live with the 'narrow gauge and crude wheels', as he witnessed a P2 I'd just built, bowl round at 80+ on the said 15 bogies. I responded a couple of months later, on observing his P4 layout in operation at a show, that I couldn't live with a 2-6-2T on two bogies which was unable to travel more that four feet (on straight track!) without derailing. 

 

I think that's the nub of it for me (and I've promulgated this many times before); I admire those who strive to model in the most-accurate 4mm gauge (I admire even more, those who can actually make it work), but I know it's beyond my skill-set. However, in OO (despite its 'limitations') I can recreate those indelible memories of my train-spotting youth (where I very rarely saw things derail). 

 

Anyway, some examples of possible interest.............

 

 

OO, photographed more 'sideways on'; though the narrowness of the gauge is disguised, the over-scale flanges are still apparent.

 

 

Perhaps 'further away' the effect is 'less-offensive' on the eye.

 

 

As here.

 

 

And here? 

 

Obviously...........

 

 

A head-on view on a P4 system is much more-realistic (this is a P4 layout which actually works - London Road).

 

 

As does this one - Portchullin.

 

 

And definitely this one - Sanford and Banwell. 

 

True-scale standard gauge indeed!

 

 

And another - Stoke by Nayland.

 

Other than being superb examples of the highest quality modelling, what do these P4 layouts have in common? They all represent minor/secondary/branch lines, where trains are short, locos are small and nothing travels fast. 

 

On Stoke by Nayland, that Ivatt 2MT is one of the largest locos, along with a B12.

 

Whereas............

 

 

A B12 is one of the smallest on Little Bytham. 

 

Is this high-angle, straight-on type of view the most-critical of OO?

 

Perhaps,

 

 

But I wonder how many notice the 'narrow gauge' trackwork in this shot? Yes, it's 'only' OO! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

As a relatively recent returnee, starting from scratch, I was highly attracted by the idea of P4 from a clean sheet - fidelity is, after all, what decent modelling is all about. I did actually start to amass material for P4..... However, then a number of factors started to permeate my addled cranium. Firstly, the sheer effort required to address all the interlaced complexities dawned on me - and that's just for a small set-up. It's not just track, and wheels - but the need for suspension etc etc. So much has to be built, and it's much much harder to get any utility from any RTR to speed things up. Then there is the sheer TIME......a decent-sized P4 set-up would be pretty-much a lifetimes work. Now add to that, as Tony points-out - the question of consistant running.... It's hard enough 'just' to get OO to run really consistently...... Finally, the gauge difference really isn't that noticeable - especially with decent Bullhead track such as on LB for example.

 

I had to submit to reality in the end - but on the plus side - I have been able to scale-up my aspirations to a much more complex set-up, with at least a realistic prospect of completing it before I expire. Modelling really is the art of compromise, so I agree wholeheartedly with Tony's sentiments on this one. My hat's-off to any and all P4 modellers, but I'd rather, on balance, be able to get together everything on a more realistic timescale - and be able to run it without huge hassle. 

 

I'm with Harry on this one.......😜

 

 

[Barclay]

1 hour ago, rka said:

Can anyone help me with this question about axles please? 

Hi the K's Coal Tank has a good body and a very bad chassis so I definitely recommend replacing that. The frames I used came with the kit from ebay so I don't know the make I'm afraid, but LRM will be decent I'm sure. 1/8" is the standard axle size - I think 3mm would be for replacing those in a RTR loco.

 

Edit - I had to shorten the frames slightly to fit between the buffer beams and there was the usual grinding with a burr in a Dremel underneath to get the chassis to sit straight and at the right level. More detail on the EMGS Forum:  https://emgs.org/members-forum/topic/ks-coal-tank-rebuild/

 

 

Edited November 27, 2023 by Barclay

[2750Papyrus]

6 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

So my moral is, 00 is better photographed sideways-on!

 

 

I have noticed the opposite at exhibitions.  EM or P4 layouts are often branch line termini, with trackwork running parallel to the stand axis.  This much reduces the visual aspect of the more correct gauge and it is sometimes only by reading the description - or looking back on the layout when walking away - that this becomes apparent.

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, 2750Papyrus said:

I have noticed the opposite at exhibitions.  EM or P4 layouts are often branch line termini, with trackwork running parallel to the stand axis.  This much reduces the visual aspect of the more correct gauge and it is sometimes only by reading the description - or looking back on the layout when walking away - that this becomes apparent.

 

Well yes, I would agree that on a single-track branch line, the narrow gauge of 00 is less evident; the moral is that large multi-track layouts need to be EM or P4 for best visual effect, whereas 00 is fine for small layouts!

[Chuffer Davies]

1 hour ago, billbedford said:

 

There is no real difference between 3mm or 1/8th inch axles as long as they are matched with the appropriate sized bearings. 

And gears….

4mm kit builders typically use 1/8th axles with 3mm being one of the RTR replacement axle diameters around at one time I seem to recall. 
Frank

[MikeParkin65]

1 hour ago, coronach said:

Reliable, smooth running is dependent on good electrical connectivity at the rail-wheel interface. I generally clean the rails using a peco track rubber or felt block however some areas are difficult to reach. I have recently purchased a track cleaning vehicle -a BR 20t brake van with an abrasive pad suspended between the axles. I am considering whether to moisten the pad with isopropyl alcohol; I have a bottle of surgical spirit - does anyone have experience of using this?  For example, might it leave an insulating deposit after it dries?

I've used IA with no ill effects but I've found both DCC Supplies Track Cleaner and DeLux Materials Track Magic to produce resukts faster, ie less effort required. Bear in mind that with any fixed track cleaner it very soon becomes dirty/dry/clogged along the fixed surface that is running across the railhead. Loathe to mention it on WW but with DCC I very very rarely need to clean the track or the wheels.....

[Michael Edge]

My advice is to throw the Peco track rubber away - it's far too coarse for this job and leaves scratches in the railhead. I used to use very fine (1200 grade) emery which gradually polished the rails but since applying graphite to the track I hardly ever have to clean anything.

[johndon]

2 hours ago, Methuselah said:

Firstly, the sheer effort required to address all the interlaced complexities dawned on me - and that's just for a small set-up. It's not just track, and wheels - but the need for suspension etc etc. So much has to be built, and it's much much harder to get any utility from any RTR to speed things up. Then there is the sheer TIME......a decent-sized P4 set-up would be pretty-much a lifetimes work. Now add to that, as Tony points-out - the question of consistant running.... It's hard enough 'just' to get OO to run really consistently...... Finally, the gauge difference really isn't that noticeable - especially with decent Bullhead track such as on LB for example.

 

Re 'the need for suspension', I'm afraid that is still a much quoted fallacy.  May I humbly present this video taken on my own, as can be clearly seen, very much under construction layout.  The track, eighteen turnouts, two diamonds, two single slips and one catch point and all the plain track is hand built and represents my first attempt at doing so.  This represents 'Phase 1' of my planned layout and is 18' * 3' although I will freely admit it has taken 3 years to get this far 😁

 

Most of the rolling stock is RTR with the 24 coming ready fitted with P4 wheels and the wagons a mix of Hornby and Parkside but none of them have any form of suspension and none of them (apart from the loco) have sprung buffers.  Note that this was one of the very first tests of the trackwork which still requires some adjustment.

 

 

One of these days I'm going to run an A4 with 15 on along the layout at high speed to show Tony it can be done 😉

Edited November 27, 2023 by johndon

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

 

The last thing I'd notice in that shot is the track gauge (the track just looks "right") but I'm immediately drawn

to the over-thick sides on that coach. Not a criticism at all, just an observation that there's a lot more to railway

modelling than a few mms here and there in the trackwork, and I wish the great 00/EM/P4 debate could be

buried once and for all.

Good evening Al,

 

I don't think the coach sides are over-thick; they're etched brass, built by Lawrence/Goddard or Larry himself. 

 

The problem is that the glazing is coming loose, it would seem. All the coaches built by this source which I've had through my hands of late (I sold these to Giles Baxter, York's owner) are 'sealed', meaning there's no way of easily getting inside them to rectify failed glazing, and, in some cases, seats/partitions coming loose. 

 

The gauge debate generally crops up from time to time (not just on here) and opinions/views are well-entrenched by now. I don't really mind, and it's been my privilege to photograph layouts (some outstanding) in all three of the main 4mm gauges. As I've said before, I wish I'd adopted EM when I was given the chance getting on for 50 years ago now; but I didn't - a decision I regret.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[MJI]

Ok a weird one, i will be losing my vision super power soon, took effort to retain some short sightedness.

 

Due to cataracts i will be getting new lenses,  will be going from -5.5 to -2.5.

 

So no more ultra close up, to be honest been struggling due to them recently .

 

Magnifiers, what is good out there?