RMweb Premium Ian Smeeton Posted March 12, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 12, 2019 1 hour ago, Tony Wright said: I'm told that once Bachmann's Austerity 2-8-0 became available, sales of the DJH equivalents fell through the floor. A pity, because it was not too long after Markits introduced the proper Austerity wheel. No need to 'employ' a top painter to do this for me. I must alter that leading wagon. Hornby doesn't seem to know its ar$e from its elbow with regard to which end had a door! Comments, criticisms, observations, disagreements, please............... I wouldn't worry too much about the leading wagon, Tony. After all, BR were known to emulate Hornby's anatomical knowledge on a regular basis. When I find one of the photos that I have seen, I will post a link. Regards Ian 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyC Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 (edited) 7 hours ago, Tony Wright said: .......... I don't think the hobby will die out totally, though it'll become more specialised. Ironically (and happily?), I believe that there'll be an inevitable decline in the RTR market, which will mean (in my view) a return to the actual craft of personally making things. As long as supplies of materials for this are still available (at a greatly-increased price?), then I predict a bright future. Unfortunately I see no reason to believe that a decline in RTR would increase the number of people actually building things as I think they are largely a different group. The danger is that if the number of people building things falls below a critical mass then the supply of specialist parts will no longer be viable. Certain parts would be difficult or impossible for almost any modeller to make, e.g. wheels or motors; if Markits' or Gibson's wheels were to vanish from the market then things would be very difficult and we have already lost Mashima. Edited March 12, 2019 by JeremyC 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted March 12, 2019 Author Share Posted March 12, 2019 1 hour ago, RBAGE said: In the interest of modelling fidelity, does the WD 90146 have the correct boiler for period portrayed? Whether it's Bachmann or DJH, it looks wrong to me. In the interest of modelling fidelity, it does have exactly the right boiler for 1958 (without the Doncaster firebox modification). What lets my model down is that I should have taken off the lower (cast-on) conduit and replaced it with something much more wiggly! 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted March 12, 2019 Author Share Posted March 12, 2019 43 minutes ago, Woodcock29 said: Hello Tony I'm struggling a bit with posting on the revamped RMweb. Everytime I want to post something it brings up my previous post which is easy enough to delete except when there is a quote like the remnants of that above from Steve which I can't seem to delete. Anyway enough of that. What I wanted to ask is whether the revamped NuCast J6 includes 2 alternate chimneys? It should because there were two main types fitted - GNR and up to wartime (WW2) followed by the shorter version from about wartime into BR days. I think the LRM kit only provides one, but I could be wrong as my unbuilt kit was second-hand. Andrew The SE Finecast/revamped NU-Cast J6 has at least two chimneys, Andrew. Maybe three. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted March 13, 2019 Author Share Posted March 13, 2019 (edited) 28 minutes ago, JeremyC said: Unfortunately I see no reason to believe that a decline in RTR would increase the number of people actually building things as I think they are largely a different group. The danger is that if the number of people building things falls below a critical mass then the supply of specialist parts will no longer be viable. Certain parts would be difficult or impossible for almost any modeller to make, e.g. wheels or motors; if Markits' or Gibson's wheels were to vanish from the market then things would be very difficult and we have already lost Mashima. Are they a (largely) different group, Jeremy? You'll see from my images posted earlier, I'm very happy to use (modified) RTR rolling stock. Not locomotives, I accept, but just about all those Mk.1s on view and many of the wagons (all altered/improved, yes) came out of either a red or a blue box. Regards, Tony. Edited March 13, 2019 by Tony Wright to clarify a point Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBAGE Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 16 minutes ago, Tony Wright said: In the interest of modelling fidelity, it does have exactly the right boiler for 1958 (without the Doncaster firebox modification). What lets my model down is that I should have taken off the lower (cast-on) conduit and replaced it with something much more wiggly! Accepted. Boiler change in May of the following year. But with late emblem? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyC Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Tony Wright said: Are they a (totally?) different group, Jeremy? You'll see from my images posted earlier, I'm very happy to use (modified) RTR rolling stock. Not locomotives, I accept, but just about all those Mk.1s on view and many of the wagons (all altered/improved, yes) came out of either a red or a blue box. Regards, Tony. No, I'd agree they're not a totally different group, but I think the crossover isn't even. Kit builders will use / modify RTR when it suits them, but I think those who use predominantly RTR are less likely to try kit building if something is not available RTR. (It's not a matter of being better, but of which group has the necessary skill set.) Edited March 13, 2019 by JeremyC Typo 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodcock29 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 2 hours ago, Tony Wright said: The SE Finecast/revamped NU-Cast J6 has at least two chimneys, Andrew. Maybe three. Thanks Tony Looks like I need to ring David Ellis. Although I have several LRM J6 chimneys of the one type it doesn't really suit either type in my view. Its only marginally too short for the earlier GNR/LNER chimney but it doesn't look right. I think its also a bit too tapered and too tall for the later chimney. I need at least two for J6s and one for an N1. I'm really picky when it comes to chimneys! Andrew Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headstock Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 (edited) 10 hours ago, Tony Wright said: Though not wishing to prolong the debate about kit-built and RTR locos, this afternoon it occurred to me (I'm slow, remember) just how many of the loco types I've kit-built down the years, both out of necessity and the pleasure of doing it, are now available just by spending money and opening a box (actually, the same is partly so for a kit, but there is a big difference). I've, thus, taken some pictures of my examples. Since I own so few RTR equivalents, I cannot do comparison shots as it were. I offer the images below, not to claim that what I've done is better than current RTR, just more-personal. A SE Finecast A3, painted by Ian Rathbone. I will stick my head above the parapet with this one. I think this SE Finecast K3 is far superior to the Bachmann one. And, all my own work in every way here. Comments, criticisms, observations, disagreements, please............... Good morning Tony, I don't think that the Bachmann MK1's have aged very well, they definitely look a bit 'ewww' in close up. A couple of grades down on the finish of the locomotive. In contrast, 1825 may be my favorite Wright locomotive but an altercation on the footplate, over the location of the cab doors, seems to have resulted in a missing arm. Edited March 13, 2019 by Headstock add full stop. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jol Wilkinson Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 8 hours ago, Northmoor said: I have been irritated by the same problem, Andrew. Please, could I also ask that contributors selectively quote in their replies? It is a bit frustrating to scroll through a page that only contains a few messages, because all the (frequently lovely) photos in the original are repeated, with just a few new lines at the bottom of every message. It's easy enough, you just click on each image in your reply and press Delete. I agree completely, annoying especially when viewing on a small screen device. I started a thread on this elsewhere on RMweb but it was removed after a day with no explanation, despite replies in agreement. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Fatadder Posted March 13, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 13, 2019 29 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said: I agree completely, annoying especially when viewing on a small screen device. I started a thread on this elsewhere on RMweb but it was removed after a day with no explanation, despite replies in agreement. One good thing with the new software is that it is very easy to hide quoted text, in the top left of the quote box there is a circle with an arrow, click this and the box shrinks down to say "x minutes ago Jol Wilkinson said:" and nothing else. Not sure if it works on mobile, but it does at least help. Completely agree that its a little tedious to have to scroll through to get to the reply. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted March 13, 2019 Author Share Posted March 13, 2019 8 hours ago, RBAGE said: Accepted. Boiler change in May of the following year. But with late emblem? Granted, impossible to tell from the prototype picture (February '58). Easy enough to change if necessary (though hardly likely). My, don't some correspondents expect really high standards? Quite rightly, actually. If one puts one's work on show, then it must be expected to be open to criticism. I expect that even more of my own work, and if the BR device on 90146's tender is shown to be incorrect for the summer of 1958 (prototype picture, please), then I'll change it. It would be nice on occasions, though, for the 'critics' to also show what they've done by way of a 'critical' comparison. Just a thought. 2 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted March 13, 2019 Author Share Posted March 13, 2019 1 hour ago, Headstock said: Good morning Tony, I don't think that the Bachmann MK1's have aged very well, they definitely look a bit 'ewww' in close up. A couple of grades down on the finish of the locomotive. In contrast, 1825 may be my favorite Wright locomotive but an altercation on the footplate, over the location of the cab doors, seems to have resulted in a missing arm. Cab doors? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodcock29 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 49 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said: I agree completely, annoying especially when viewing on a small screen device. I started a thread on this elsewhere on RMweb but it was removed after a day with no explanation, despite replies in agreement. On my last response the previous quote somehow became highlighted in blue and I was able to delete it with the back key. I'm using only my mobile phone this week as we're on holiday with our daughter and her family. Its certainly easier on a desktop PC. Andrew 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted March 13, 2019 Author Share Posted March 13, 2019 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Tony Wright said: Granted, impossible to tell from the prototype picture (February '58). Easy enough to change if necessary (though hardly likely). My, don't some correspondents expect really high standards? Quite rightly, actually. If one puts one's work on show, then it must be expected to be open to criticism. I expect that even more of my own work, and if the BR device on 90146's tender is shown to be incorrect for the summer of 1958 (prototype picture, please), then I'll change it. It would be nice on occasions, though, for the 'critics' to also show what they've done by way of a 'critical' comparison. Just a thought. I know it's not the best of form to quote one of one's own posts, but with regard to the emblem on 90146's tender. I've just done some checking. The loco in question had a heavy general repair at Gorton in the summer of 1957. By which time the new emblem (replacing the cycling lion) would have been available. So, a reasonable assumption? Especially as the one on the offside faces forward! It's next major overhaul was in the summer of 1959 (when it got a Doncaster firebox?). Source: The WD Austerity 2-8-0 The BR Record by John Hooper. Booklaw. I know that (because of remaining stocks) the older device was still used post-'56 by some works, but how far does one go in the quest for 'absolute accuracy'? Not really that far in my case! Edited March 13, 2019 by Tony Wright to clarify a point 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted March 13, 2019 Author Share Posted March 13, 2019 1 hour ago, Headstock said: Good morning Tony, I don't think that the Bachmann MK1's have aged very well, they definitely look a bit 'ewww' in close up. A couple of grades down on the finish of the locomotive. In contrast, 1825 may be my favorite Wright locomotive but an altercation on the footplate, over the location of the cab doors, seems to have resulted in a missing arm. I'm inclined to agree with you about the Bachmann Mk.1s, Andrew, Though as layout coaches in (long) layout trains.....................................? All have have their roof ribs removed, wheels changed, couplings altered and concertina gangways fitted. With over 90 of them on LB, that's taken me some time! What they have done for me is to free up the time, allowing me to build the appropriate Mk.1 types not made by Bachmann. Regards, Tony. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenB Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 I find it interesting that youngsters becoming involved with railway preservation are having to operate trains the traditional way, whereas those involved in railway modelling have to use the most modern methods available. Stephen 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Chamby Posted March 13, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 13, 2019 24 minutes ago, Tony Wright said: It would be nice on occasions, though, for the 'critics' to also show what they've done by way of a 'critical' comparison. Just a thought. Tony, I wonder how many folks following this thread have stuff they have produced that will stand up to comparison with your own work? You may inhibit the feedback that you have asked for, if this is an expectation? Phil 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headstock Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 55 minutes ago, Tony Wright said: Cab doors? Tony, I don't no what the technical term is. Manually operated, self pivoting gap occupier? As seen below. 29 minutes ago, Tony Wright said: I'm inclined to agree with you about the Bachmann Mk.1s, Andrew, Though as layout coaches in (long) layout trains.....................................? All have have their roof ribs removed, wheels changed, couplings altered and concertina gangways fitted. With over 90 of them on LB, that's taken me some time! What they have done for me is to free up the time, allowing me to build the appropriate Mk.1 types not made by Bachmann. Regards, Tony. How about brass siding one for photographic purposes? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clem Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 10 hours ago, Tony Wright said: Though not wishing to prolong the debate about kit-built and RTR locos, this afternoon it occurred to me (I'm slow, remember) just how many of the loco types I've kit-built down the years, both out of necessity and the pleasure of doing it, are now available just by spending money and opening a box (actually, the same is partly so for a kit, but there is a big difference). I've, thus, taken some pictures of my examples. Since I own so few RTR equivalents, I cannot do comparison shots as it were. I offer the images below, not to claim that what I've done is better than current RTR, just more-personal. Good morning Tony. I don't know how you feel but I think it is more than sentiment that makes me prefer my own kit built locomotives (or at least full replacement chassis) to RTR on their original chassis. It's more the way they run. Even though my direct conversion (to EM) RTRs have adequate pulling power, they don't seem to transmit that feeling of mass and power that a loco with a home built (or Comet) chassis seems to. I can't put my finger on it but they just have a lightweight feel about them. I would be happier if there were replacement chassis available for all RTR types and then at least they would run in a more convincing fashion. I know many replacement chassis do exist (Comet range) but there are some big omissions..... the O4s, J11s, WDs, K1s in my area... They would save me time over a full kit build (I'm not as fast as you, Tony - an understatement if ever there was one!) and in any case, it's hard to get hold of a kit for an O4 these days. ... And finally I agree with you. I also think your kit built locomotives look better, more realistic and more substantial, than any RTR equivalent out of a box. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwealleans Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 Who can fail to appreciate an outside framed fish van to brighten up their morning? 5 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodcock29 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 22 minutes ago, jwealleans said: Who can fail to appreciate an outside framed fish van to brighten up their morning? For many years my fish train has been my favourite train, maybe not quite so much now as I have far more competition for it, but I've been building it since about 1983. It now comprises around 27 vans with about 8 more to construct - I'm not sure where I'll fit it into my storage loops when I add much more? I started it in 1983 with 5 of the D&S LNER outside frame fish vans. I even painted those vans early in the morning when my wife got up to feed our then baby daughter. Of course it needs a kit built loco to haul it, no RTR loco will haul it, so I use either a B5, B2, B3 or even occasionally a C2. In the future I should be able to use a B7! Now we're on holiday with our daughter and our two young grand daughters, my how time flies! Andrew 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RBAGE Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 The Bachmann WD does have quite a few shortcoming. Not least is the chimney which I should have changes for something more convincing. Some of the DJH kits I've built suffer from far more significant errors so the expense of the kit, motor, gearbox, wheels and additional parts to rectify the designers mistakes doesn't always justify the kit route. I generally build kits to fill gaps and buy RTR which are generally modified to match a specific loco. This was one of Wakefield's finest. Hence the "O" on the cab side to signify a "bonus" engine. This loco was later allocated to Hartlepool for a short while which is the condition seen here. Handrails, oil pipes, washout and fusible plug arrangement to match the "Doncaster" boiler. Washout plugs are made from wire and sequins (Ebay all the way from China). Lubrication pipework is a bundle of wires. Additional curved hand grab at the front of hand rail. Fire iron brackets fitted as prototype. I don't have a finished layout (work in progress) so this spends most of it's time in a box so I haven't yet fitted crew, fall plate or lamps. I also intend to close the gap. DCC sound fitted (also by myself) but I can't remember who's sound file. Anyway, I'm waiting for Locoman57 to finish waving his magic want when the decoder will be reblown or replaced. That's the work I have done but the weathering is not by me. On the tender is "WHO'S SORRY NOW" as the prototype. I suppose it signifies the impending doom of this loco and most others. 9 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted March 13, 2019 Author Share Posted March 13, 2019 9 hours ago, jwealleans said: Who can fail to appreciate an outside framed fish van to brighten up their morning? Especially at Retford. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Wright Posted March 13, 2019 Author Share Posted March 13, 2019 9 hours ago, Chamby said: Tony, I wonder how many folks following this thread have stuff they have produced that will stand up to comparison with your own work? You may inhibit the feedback that you have asked for, if this is an expectation? Phil Phil, My point was not necessarily to ask folk to compare what they've done for themselves with what I might have done, but just to show us that they really are 'modellers', not just critics. I certainly hope I haven't inhibited feedback by what I've written. That's the opposite of what I'd like to see. Anyway, having photographed the very best in railway modelling, I must admit to being reluctant at times to show what I've done in comparison. Regards, Tony. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now