Wright writes.....

[landscapes]

What a lovely model, David.

 

Your work?

 

Is it a Bachmann A2/Graeme King resin/etched conversion? It looks like it.

 

Two observations/recommendations, if I may, please? Chuck those awful bogie wheels away and fit something which looks like a 3' 2" LNER bogie wheel (Markits or Alan Gibson) and add those delightful (and distinctive) wiggly smokebox-side pipes. 

 

A2 3 60515 01.jpg

 

This is my own Bachmann/King conversion, which Graeme did for me. I detailed it, changed the bogie wheels, patch-painted it, numbered/named it and weathered it. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Hi Tony

 

I only wish it was my work, this was a joint effort between Gareth of Replica Railways and myself started some years ago, as you have already spotted using Graeme's resin and brass etched parts.

 

the majority of the work was carried out by Gareth, this one and 60511 Airborne are the first two of Five conversion, Gareth kindly finished these two for my Haymarket Layout in advance.

 

The other three are at various stages with A2/3 60519 Honeyway being the next one to be completed, all three I believe will be up for sale when they are completed.

 

My part of the work was to apply all handrails, glazing to cab windows, fitting lamp irons, fitting the smoke deflectors, all nameplates and works plates.

 

I also applied all the transfer linings and cab side numbers using Fox Transfers, Real coal to the tenders and crews added and not forgetting weathering both locomotives using the dry brush method.

 

As you can see from my list above I did the easy cosmetic part of the conversions Gareth did all the hard skilfull work required. 

 

Gareth has in my opinion done a superb job in producing these first two A2/3's which included a full respray to both locomotives, tenders, wheels and chassis hence why they required new linings and boiler bands.

 

I will be posting photos of 60511 Airborne on my Haymarket blog in due corse and if you have no objections I will post one here as well.

 

I do take on board your observations and agree with both of them, I have never changed the front bogie wheels to any of my models before but I will make a start with the two Bachmann conversions and take it from there.

 

If I may ask you is there any particular reference number I should quote when ordering the replacement bogie wheels?

 

Thank you for your kind words and interest in the model also may I say 60515 Sun Stream looks superb as well.

 

Regards

 

David

Edited August 15, 2018 by landscapes

[landscapes]

Only in a decent colour scheme. None of that GWR &&@@%%%** colour thanks     

 

 

IMG_6817.JPG

 

Hi Mick

 

I have always admired your work very much but on this occasion I have to disagree with your colour scheme comment in the nicest possible way.

 

Its always been Brunswick Green for me, its how I remember them.

 

Regards

 

David

[jwealleans]

Has weight been added to the RTR locomotives seen in some shots of the 1938 scenario? It was mentioned that some trains were extended for the LB shoot as compared to their representation on Grantham, yet this seems to have little effect on performance. Probably boring stuff for some but always of interest to those who chose to build and operate their own locomotives and rolling stock and expect them to perform.

We didn't have time to do any proper testing (maybe the impending running weekend will allow it) but the 15 car train which 4479 was pictured hauling was also given to 2577 (polished the rails) and 2752 (strolled away with it). Both are Hornby A1/A3 models and neither have been weighted. The performance is highly variable between those models - I finished 2752 and 4480 for the same show and we tested both on the Scotsman set - 4480 (from a Book Law) just about pulled it while 2752 (NRM 4472) took it easily.

 

One of the teak sets was too much for 10000 on LB as well.

 

The carriages which are regularly used on Grantham are oiled from time to time and tested for free running on a 1 in 36 ramp I have in the workshop. Those which live in boxes don't get the same degree of attention, of course.

Edited August 16, 2018 by jwealleans

[Tony Wright]

Good evening Tony,

 

a question if I may. Given that LB 1938 would seem to employ more mixed media locomotives than the preferred all-metal construction of LB 1958, yet trains seem to be of around the same length, what lessons can be drawn from the two approaches with regards to motive power and the working of and construction of the trains? For example, are the 1958 trains heavier and if so why? Has weight been added to the RTR locomotives seen in some shots of the 1938 scenario? It was mentioned that some trains were extended for the LB shoot as compared to their representation on Grantham, yet this seems to have little effect on performance. Probably boring stuff for some but always of interest to those who chose to build and operate their own locomotives and rolling stock and expect them to perform.

An interesting question, Andrew,

 

Jonathan has already mentioned the differences in tractive power between two (ostensibly) identical Hornby Gresley Pacifics.

 

Though hardly scientific, I tried my Hornby A3s on one of the longer 1938 rakes and it handled it with relative ease (with some slipping). Yet, this same loco refuses to shift a train of 13 kit-built bogies from the '58 period. 

 

Are LB's trains generally heavier? They could be, because almost all my kit-built cars are metal, or have metal sides, cast metal underframe details, metal roofs and cast metal bogies. Jesse Sim, whilst putting on some of the trains for me, commented on how heavy some of the cars are (some of the MJT cars have metal interior partitions). 

 

I don't know what the 1938 trains are made from, though many were kits or adaptations. Some might be Kirk kits (much modified?) or others built/modified from plastic, as well as metal. The streamliners are definitely plastic, but they're short anyway. 

 

What I do know is that many of the 1938 locos had no difficulty in taking the heavier trains, yet those same types of RTR locos are of no use to me. 

 

As a footnote, to be fair, one of my V2s slipped with the very heavy (and stiff!) 1938 Scotch Goods. A modified Hornby A1 just polished the rails, but one of Graeme King's V2s did at least as well as mine (I can't remember whether it was the one with the Bachmann chassis or the Comet one), slipping on starting and slipping occasionally at speed. The only loco to completely master it, which I used, was Eric Kidd's (Merlin on here) kit-built P2. 

 

Perhaps the Grantham team will enlighten us further, please. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited August 16, 2018 by Tony Wright

[jwealleans]

The carriage sets we run on Grantham are a bit of a mixed bag. The Coronation is done from Mailcoach kits, but I have a feeling the bogies are MJT. The Jubilee is MARC Models, so all brass. Roy's other two sets, the Flying Scotsman and Scarborough Flyer are Kirk or laser cut Rowmark bodies with MJT bogies and undergubbins. The really mixed set is Teak Set 2, the Junior Scotsman, which didn't appear on LB. That is a joint effort between all four of us, I think - the end Locker Composites are mine, the triplet is Roy's (cascaded from the FS set) and the rest are made up from GK and GN's stock of carriages including some newer Hornby RTR and modified Margate.

 

My sets are a mixture of brass and modified Kirk - what I had to hand when we started, largely. All the sides and/or kits I acquired for the sets are brass. From a Kirk kit I only use sides ends and roof, the rest is replaced with a Paxolin floor, Comet or MJT underframe fittings and MJT bogies. Brass sides are built onto MJT everything else and where kits (e.g. Bill Bedford/Mousa or RDEB) need castings or other components adding they are also all MJT.

Edited August 16, 2018 by jwealleans

[Chamby]

I am sure there will be lots of reasons why the foreshorten is different - exact relative placement of the camera, f stop used, lighting conditions etc.  But I would have thought one of the main ones is that the lens does not know what it is looking at.  Under the same sets of conditions is does not understand that it is looking at something 4feet away as compared with something 300ft away.  It behaves the same way for each instance but the result is very different.  So the foreshortening in the real picture at 4 ft distance is the same as at the scale 300ft distance in the model.  If that makes any sense.

And of course, the pictures will almost certainly have been taken with different cameras using different lenses...

[Lecorbusier]

 As a footnote, to be fair, one of my V2s slipped with the very heavy (and stiff!) 1938 Scotch Goods. A modified Hornby A1 just polished the rails, but one of Graeme King's V2s did at least as well as mine (I can't remember whether it was the one with the Bachmann chassis or the Comet one), slipping on starting and slipping occasionally at speed. The only loco to completely master it, which I used, was Eric Kidd's (Merlin on here) kit-built P2. 

 

Couldn't one argue that slipping, particularly on starting is prototypical and therefore to be desired? Just playing devil's advocate as some of my lasting images is of Pacifics slipping wildly upon starting out before gaining traction.

 

If one of your locos happens to be a bit 'light on its feet', do you have any issues with slippage on breaking at all?

[grahame]

With all the recent talk about what shade of green livery is best, I thought I'd post up a pic of some proper green stock. And it's kit/scratch built in N/2mm scale:

 

 

G

[Barry O]

Couldn't one argue that slipping, particularly on starting is prototypical and therefore to be desired? Just playing devil's advocate as some of my lasting images is of Pacifics slipping wildly upon starting out before gaining traction.

 

If one of your locos happens to be a bit 'light on its feet', do you have any issues with slippage on breaking at all?

Big problem is that Hornby wheels and valve gear don't last long..and remember what happened to the real Blue Peter due to excessive slipping.

 

My weathered Hornby A4 Silver Link failed on Grantham at Ally Pally. Due to a bit of added weight it doesn't normally slip. One set of wheels lost their quartering. Thanks to Tony and others the loco was repaired and seems to be ok.

Baz

[Chamby]

Big problem is that Hornby wheels and valve gear don't last long..and remember what happened to the real Blue Peter due to excessive slipping.

My weathered Hornby A4 Silver Link failed on Grantham at Ally Pally. Due to a bit of added weight it doesn't normally slip. One set of wheels lost their quartering. Thanks to Tony and others the loco was repaired and seems to be ok.

Baz

Whilst adding extra weight to RTR locomotives undoubtedly improves traction, enabling heavier loads to be pulled, surely this also increases loading on the mechanism/components, probably beyond their design capability. I would not be surprised if the problem with your A4 was a consequence of the extra loading, with the axle quartering being the victim of excessive strain in a situation when an unweighted model would have simply experienced wheel slip. An illustration that you can only do so much with RTR, perhaps.

 

That said, as has been discussed here before, scale length trains of RTR stock are normally fine behind RTR locomotives.

 

Phil.

[Lecorbusier]

On the subject of RTR haulage I thoroughly enjoyed the videos on Dave Franks Wharfeside thread.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/102152-wharfeside-a-lifetimes-project/page-9

 

If you scroll down to the bottom of the page, the Bachman Jubilee being put through its paces is astonishing.

[TrevorP1]

Whilst adding extra weight to RTR locomotives undoubtedly improves traction, enabling heavier loads to be pulled, surely this also increases loading on the mechanism/components, probably beyond their design capability. I would not be surprised if the problem with your A4 was a consequence of the extra loading, with the axle quartering being the victim of excessive strain in a situation when an unweighted model would have simply experienced wheel slip. An illustration that you can only do so much with RTR, perhaps.

 

That said, as has been discussed here before, scale length trains of RTR stock are normally fine behind RTR locomotives.

 

Phil.

 

 

Agreed. Straightforward engineering really. Reminds me of my youth, tuning cars.

 

Increase the power from the engine, then the clutch can't take it, followed by the gearbox and back axle. Having got the power down on to the road better tyres are called for... and, ah yes the brakes! Wheel bearings now, suspension bushes... and so it goes on!

Edited August 16, 2018 by TrevorP1

[gr.king]

 

As a footnote, to be fair, one of my V2s slipped with the very heavy (and stiff!) 1938 Scotch Goods. A modified Hornby A1 just polished the rails, but one of Graeme King's V2s did at least as well as mine (I can't remember whether it was the one with the Bachmann chassis or the Comet one), slipping on starting and slipping occasionally at speed. The only loco to completely master it, which I used, was Eric Kidd's (Merlin on here) kit-built P2. 

 

 

I can't remember which V2 proved to be the more competent, but while one has the original Bachmann split chassis the other is only dressed up with Comet valve gear, the chassis again being Bachmann but the newer version with one-piece axles, wiping pick-ups, and wheels without extra-deep rims.

 

I still think Bachmann had very strange priorities when they produced a complete new chassis block and wheels for the loco (similarly the A4) - possibly to stop wheels falling off old or heavily used or abused locos, but rather more I suspect merely to shut up those who want to install electronic gimmicks - yet they perpetuated most of the crude over-scale valve gear and the mis-shapen body. The current state of the Bachmann UK range puzzles me in any case. At one time I would have said that they had Hornby on the ropes, about to collapse, but despite Bachmann's parent company grabbing ownership of the key factory in China they have if anything now fallen far behind Hornby in terms of realism of models and getting new models to market. It's not as if Hornby haven't made some strange or clearly poor decisions along the way either, so it is hardly the case that Hornby's excellence has overcome Bachmann...

[Tony Wright]

Couldn't one argue that slipping, particularly on starting is prototypical and therefore to be desired? Just playing devil's advocate as some of my lasting images is of Pacifics slipping wildly upon starting out before gaining traction.

 

If one of your locos happens to be a bit 'light on its feet', do you have any issues with slippage on breaking at all?

Slipping on starting is rather nice, and many of my locos (given a good dose of 'juice' to begin with) do have that characteristic (which I like). 

 

I dislike (and thus won't tolerate it) locos 'thrashing' along with wheels slipping violently as they move along with a heavy train. 

 

Slipping on braking? Actually, that would be skidding. Because many of the 1958 Bytham trains are very heavy, on stopping, unless care is taken, the train's inertia is enough to push the loco (however heavy it is) through a dead section. 

 

Careful driving makes sense, I suppose. 

Edited August 16, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

The carriage sets we run on Grantham are a bit of a mixed bag. The Coronation is done from Mailcoach kits, but I have a feeling the bogies are MJT. The Jubilee is MARC Models, so all brass. Roy's other two sets, the Flying Scotsman and Scarborough Flyer are Kirk or laser cut Rowmark bodies with MJT bogies and undergubbins. The really mixed set is Teak Set 2, the Junior Scotsman, which didn't appear on LB. That is a joint effort between all four of us, I think - the end Locker Composites are mine, the triplet is Roy's (cascaded from the FS set) and the rest are made up from GK and GN's stock of carriages including some newer Hornby RTR and modified Margate.

 

My sets are a mixture of brass and modified Kirk - what I had to hand when we started, largely. All the sides and/or kits I acquired for the sets are brass. From a Kirk kit I only use sides ends and roof, the rest is replaced with a Paxolin floor, Comet or MJT underframe fittings and MJT bogies. Brass sides are built onto MJT everything else and where kits (e.g. Bill Bedford/Mousa or RDEB) need castings or other components adding they are also all MJT.

Thanks Jonathan,

 

I'd forgotten the SJ was all brass. However, being only eight cars-long, then it should be a relatively easy job for RTR locos to pull. 

 

From my observation of the Coronation, the bogies appeared to be plastic, but I didn't scrutinise it too closely. 

 

Whatever the circumstances, from the anecdotal evidence (some, even empirical) it would appear that my trains, like for like, are considerably heavier than Grantham's. That's not scoring points (not at all), it would appear to be a fact. 

 

Thanks to you, and all the others, once more for making the whole event such a success. Jesse and I have spent the morning with the experts at Warners editing both sets of footage (actually, we watched mainly). We're, and they're, delighted with the results - it really does look fantastic. The whole DVD will be a cover-mount with BRM in November's issue, together with my report of the event. All proceeds will go to CRUK. Any footage not used, will then be put on Youtube. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Hi Tony

 

I only wish it was my work, this was a joint effort between Gareth of Replica Railways and myself started some years ago, as you have already spotted using Graeme's resin and brass etched parts.

 

the majority of the work was carried out by Gareth, this one and 60511 Airborne are the first two of Five conversion, Gareth kindly finished these two for my Haymarket Layout in advance.

 

The other three are at various stages with A2/3 60519 Honeyway being the next one to be completed, all three I believe will be up for sale when they are completed.

 

My part of the work was to apply all handrails, glazing to cab windows, fitting lamp irons, fitting the smoke deflectors, all nameplates and works plates.

 

I also applied all the transfer linings and cab side numbers using Fox Transfers, Real coal to the tenders and crews added and not forgetting weathering both locomotives using the dry brush method.

 

As you can see from my list above I did the easy cosmetic part of the conversions Gareth did all the hard skilfull work required. 

 

Gareth has in my opinion done a superb job in producing these first two A2/3's which included a full respray to both locomotives, tenders, wheels and chassis hence why they required new linings and boiler bands.

 

I will be posting photos of 60511 Airborne on my Haymarket blog in due corse and if you have no objections I will post one here as well.

 

I do take on board your observations and agree with both of them, I have never changed the front bogie wheels to any of my models before but I will make a start with the two Bachmann conversions and take it from there.

 

If I may ask you is there any particular reference number I should quote when ordering the replacement bogie wheels?

 

Thank you for your kind words and interest in the model also may I say 60515 Sun Stream looks superb as well.

 

Regards

 

David

Good afternoon, David,

 

Markits 12.5 mm LNER 10 Spoke bogie wheel, all insulated, Ref: BRe1210BS.

 

I hope this helps.

[sp1]

I look forward to seeing the film in November

[Lecorbusier]

Slipping on starting is rather nice, and many of my locos (given a good dose of 'juice' to begin with) do have that characteristic (which I like). 

 

 

Tony,

 

It would be great to see a little video clip of this happening.

[Headstock]

We didn't have time to do any proper testing (maybe the impending running weekend will allow it) but the 15 car train which 4479 was pictured hauling was also given to 2577 (polished the rails) and 2752 (strolled away with it). Both are Hornby A1/A3 models and neither have been weighted. The performance is highly variable between those models - I finished 2752 and 4480 for the same show and we tested both on the Scotsman set - 4480 (from a Book Law) just about pulled it while 2752 (NRM 4472) took it easily.

 

One of the teak sets was too much for 10000 on LB as well.

 

The carriages which are regularly used on Grantham are oiled from time to time and tested for free running on a 1 in 36 ramp I have in the workshop. Those which live in boxes don't get the same degree of attention, of course.

 

An interesting question, Andrew,

 

Jonathan has already mentioned the differences in tractive power between two (ostensibly) identical Hornby Gresley Pacifics.

 

Though hardly scientific, I tried my Hornby A3s on one of the longer 1938 rakes and it handled it with relative ease (with some slipping). Yet, this same loco refuses to shift a train of 13 kit-built bogies from the '58 period. 

 

Are LB's trains generally heavier? They could be, because almost all my kit-built cars are metal, or have metal sides, cast metal underframe details, metal roofs and cast metal bogies. Jesse Sim, whilst putting on some of the trains for me, commented on how heavy some of the cars are (some of the MJT cars have metal interior partitions). 

 

I don't know what the 1938 trains are made from, though many were kits or adaptations. Some might be Kirk kits (much modified?) or others built/modified from plastic, as well as metal. The streamliners are definitely plastic, but they're short anyway. 

 

What I do know is that many of the 1938 locos had no difficulty in taking the heavier trains, yet those same types of RTR locos are of no use to me. 

 

As a footnote, to be fair, one of my V2s slipped with the very heavy (and stiff!) 1938 Scotch Goods. A modified Hornby A1 just polished the rails, but one of Graeme King's V2s did at least as well as mine (I can't remember whether it was the one with the Bachmann chassis or the Comet one), slipping on starting and slipping occasionally at speed. The only loco to completely master it, which I used, was Eric Kidd's (Merlin on here) kit-built P2. 

 

Perhaps the Grantham team will enlighten us further, please. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Thanks for the reply gents,

 

there would seem to be quite a few white metal kits in the Scotch goods, it looks quite formidable. Am I right in thinking that the train was lengthened ar short notice? I'm a little surprised that the V2 would slip, given your tendency to provide a good safety margin with regard to haulage capacity. I suppose the train had never run as it is presented on LB38 before so there is always the potential for something to upset the apple cart. Did any kit built Pacifics operating on LB38? if so, I would love to see an image of one.

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

 

It would be great to see a little video clip of this happening.

Tim,

 

I'll try..................

[Tony Wright]

Thanks for the reply gents,

 

there would seem to be quite a few white metal kits in the Scotch goods, it looks quite formidable. Am I right in thinking that the train was lengthened ar short notice? I'm a little surprised that the V2 would slip, given your tendency to provide a good safety margin with regard to haulage capacity. I suppose the train had never run as it is presented on LB38 before so there is always the potential for something to upset the apple cart. Did any kit built Pacifics operating on LB38? if so, I would love to see an image of one.

Andrew,

 

The train was considerably longer than its equivalent on Grantham.

 

I don't think it 'upset the apple cart'. Though my V2 slipped a bit on starting, once underway it was OK, but there was little in reserve. Still, 50-odd vans, many in white metal, was a stern test. 

 

There'll be video footage of a Raven A2, but I think the rest are modified RTR.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Barry O]

Whilst adding extra weight to RTR locomotives undoubtedly improves traction, enabling heavier loads to be pulled, surely this also increases loading on the mechanism/components, probably beyond their design capability. I would not be surprised if the problem with your A4 was a consequence of the extra loading, with the axle quartering being the victim of excessive strain in a situation when an unweighted model would have simply experienced wheel slip. An illustration that you can only do so much with RTR, perhaps.

 

That said, as has been discussed here before, scale length trains of RTR stock are normally fine behind RTR locomotives.

 

Phil.

The weight used makes the locomotive more evenly balanced. It is not over heavy, and it can slip if you do a "stall" test on it (all of my locos are set up to slip rather than stall. Again, the problem is that if a Hornby A3 or A4 slips the valve gear is not particularly robust enough to take it.... If it was fitted with Romfords and a Comet chassis  (which it will when the chassis and wheels fail) trust me - it will be a lot heavier but shall still be capable of wheel slip if you put the power on max with a load behind the engine.

 

RTR stock can be very "draggy" - and I have a Royal scot now sitting on a Comet chassis with a Hi Level gearbox and Romford wheels after using it to pull 8 Bachman Mk1 coaches around Chapel-en-le-Frith.

 

If you can bend coupling rods on a real A2 due to slip (Blue Peter) is that due to the "added weight"?

Baz

Edited August 16, 2018 by Barry O

[Manxcat]

I've been asked to write a piece on prototype modelling for BRM, featuring, at least in part, Little Bytham.

 

……..…….. if ever a case could be made for modelling an actual prototype, this might be it. 

I really couldn't agree more. I do hope the article includes those two images. They really could not epitomise any more what an exceptional example your layout is of the model mirroring the prototype. That's even after there has been some selective compression, in my humble opinion of course.

[micklner]

.

 

If you can bend coupling rods on a real A2 due to slip (Blue Peter) is that due to the "added weight"?

Baz

 

 

 

You could probably call it

 

Poor driver, Unlucky, etc etc 

 

As to Hornby the reason is plastic drivers , if you overload beyond the design limits (no idea what Hornby consider a normal load, if they even know themselves) something will always give.

 

I see no reason why r.t.r should be expected to pull prototypical loads, they aren't sold or advertised as being capable of such a loading and never will be.There is not the demand from the vast majority of buyers for such capabilities.

[Headstock]

The other issue is the amount of slop in RTR chassis. Any appreciable weight behind the drawbar and they waddle about like a drunken duck. All that slop makes for comparatively rapid wear and tear, only increased the more weight that is added to the locomotive. Best to keep them to light duties and even then they benefit from a bag full of washers.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Headstock