Wright writes.....

[dibateg]

Seasons greetings Tony

 

The 'virtually unique' telegraph pole is impressive! I'm looking forward to seeing further developments on LB in 2015.

 

Regards

 

Tony

[Rail-Online]

I

 

L1 02.jpg

 

The L1 now prepares to shunt its wagons; would an ex-GWR motor van ever be in an ECML pick-up freight?

 

 

 

Tony,

 

I have a pic of two of these being used as barrier vehicles for a tank train in Brimingham! As traffic for which they were designed dissapeared they were cascaded to general traffic use so I am sure you can get away with running it

 

Cheers Tony

[Tony Wright]

As previously mentioned and as expected, Heljan's consultant arrived this morning with a pair of goodies in the form of O2s. 

 

 

The first to be tried purported to be an O2/2 but something must have got slightly lost in translation because this one had left-hand drive. It had the correct lower footplate but the motion support bracket was off an O2/3, so, because it was higher, it distorted the footplate. These things were duly noted, and off she went, taking 40+ wagons with ease. I had to widen the back-to-backs a bit on the loco to go through 'scale' pointwork and slightly tweak the gear because of a slight bend in one eccentric rod (this loco and its partner have been backwards and forwards between China and England, then back and forth to Denmark, all of which takes its toll). After that, very sweet running; as good as I've seen in the majority of RTR steam-outline mechs.

 

 

The next was an O2/3. This time the drivers' BTBs were wider, so needed less attention. The issue of consistent BTBs was noted - the tender wheels were spot-on. As with the first O2/3 I examined, the coupling rods were on upside down. It too, ran very smoothly and powerfully.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just out of interest, I wonder how many folk contemplate just how many individual parts go into a high-quality RTR loco. As many as these? And these don't include the motor, pick-ups, pony truck and wheels. 

 

 

The issues surrounding the GNR-type tender have mainly been sorted. The horrid obese block surrounding the coal space has gone and there's now a very nice set of etched coal rails. The bends at the end did not fully match the bunker width. This was duly noted. 

 

 

The O2/2 cab eaves' angle has been altered, too; no longer is it in the form of a crease. One side of the etched coal rails was not fully filled-in. This was also noted. 

 

 

Not far off now with the O2/3. The upside-down coupling rods will obviously not be present on the production locos. The rear sections of the rods will also be altered, so that the pivot point is to the rear of the third axle's wheels' crankpins. 

 

The cab fit has been examined and this is far better than the previous sample (or the ones seen at Warley). 

 

This visit is the second now with regard to the Heljan O2s. Every comment/observation/criticism has been noted and acted upon, not just those from me. I'm very impressed with this approach - I examine the models, photograph them, test them and write or dictate a little report. Please don't think I'm over-stating my role in this, but I know a bit about the subject, can take reasonable snaps and have a biggish railway on which to conduct extensive tests. The end results should be outstanding RTR locos,not because of me but because of the diligence and thoroughness of the folk in the whole process. These will be right.

 

The first releases next year will be O2/3s and their O2/4 derivatives. O2/1s and O2/2s (and their O2/4 derivatives) will follow in due course. I believe it's the intention to offer bits as spares - how many GNR tenders will you eventually need?

 

 

Finally, a bit of fun. In view of East Coast's recent problems, a relief was run with locos borrowed from Camden, one made by Bachmann, one by Dapol. They didn't half go!

 

Edited because the computer decided where the pictures should go. I hope it makes sense!

Edited December 28, 2014 by Tony Wright

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi Tony

 

You ask how many GNR tenders will you eventually need? Two, well that is how many different types an ER diesel modeller would need.

 

 

 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Joy unbounded, three different GNR origin classes as RTR models now in prospect between Heljan, Hornby and NRM/Bachmann.

 

...This visit is the second now with regard to the Heljan O2s. Every comment/observation/criticism has been noted and acted upon, not just those from me. I'm very impressed with this approach - I examine the models, photograph them, test them and write or dictate a little report. Please don't think I'm over-stating my role in this, but I know a bit about the subject, can take reasonable snaps and have a biggish railway on which to conduct extensive tests. The end results should be outstanding RTR locos,not because of me but because of the diligence and thoroughness of the folk in the whole process...

Makes interesting reading too. I hope Heljan are rewarding you appropriately either from their development budget or advertising budget...

 

 

... I believe it's the intention to offer bits as spares - how many GNR tenders will you eventually need?...

Don't know about other folks, but this model is a mass of useful components for bashing. Certainly two or three GNR tenders, ideally as the parts sprues; and the complete body parts sprue for the O2/2 loco would be a goldmine for components for adaption.

[Tony Wright]

Joy unbounded, three different GNR origin classes as RTR models now in prospect between Heljan, Hornby and NRM/Bachmann.

 

Makes interesting reading too. I hope Heljan are rewarding you appropriately either from their development budget or advertising budget...

 

 

Don't know about other folks, but this model is a mass of useful components for bashing. Certainly two or three GNR tenders, ideally as the parts sprues; and the complete body parts sprue for the O2/2 loco would be a goldmine for components for adaption.

Re-reading my previous post, it might have come across that I'm playing a large role in the development of these models. I'm not; just acting as an independent observer, commentator, photographer and advisor. The fact that Heljan's consultant pays regular visits means mainly that the models can be photographed and thoroughly tested. The really hard work has been done by others - the designers, pattern-makers, tool-makers, assemblers and so on and so on. It's to these that credit should be given. 

 

Because there are so many potential differences amongst the class sub-divisions there are bound to be anomalies in the development models. Does everyone know that the later-build locos (the O2/3s) had long-travel valves, and thus a heightened central footplate section? I didn't when I built my first O2s (did the kit-manufacturers know?) and it was an ex-Grantham fireman who told me. The models will thus require two different footplates and front bufferbeams (O2/3s had radiused bottom corners to theirs) and two different motion-support brackets. Then there's the issue of drive-sides - all the earlier locos had right-hand drive, the later-built ones left-hand drive. The O2/4s could be either or, dependent on their origins. So, at least two different boilers, with the problems of moulding the smokebox to be able to accommodate holes (or blanks) to fit the end of the vacuum exhaust ejector pipe, and two different chimneys. Then there are the different cabs - GNR-style on O2/2s but side-window sorts (later) on O2/1s and all the O2/3s. Plus the GNR-type tender and two types of GS tender. Some undertaking, wouldn't you say? And, what about those older locos which got second-hand GS tenders from withdrawn K3s; a future possibility? 

 

As for my 'reward' - I've helped manufacturers down the years, both RTR and kit-makers in a variety of ways; photographing models, providing prototype pictures/drawings/documents, advising, test-building, writing instructions, reviewing, etc, etc......... I have been rewarded, and I'll leave it at that, if I may. 

 

With regard to future adaptations - if Heljan does offer various parts, then that will be a huge bonus for those who create different models in this way. It might even encourage a return to actual model-making. I hope so. 

Edited December 29, 2014 by Tony Wright

[gr.king]

Very useful to see all of this. Thanks for posting it Tony.

 

Questions:

 

1. Are the axle-ways for the coupled wheels in some sort of separate chassis-bottom component? I can't see any in that main block carrying the gears and cylinders - not unless they are planning a six-coupled version with a very high centre axle.

 

2. Are Heljan aware that the coal rail rear "corners" need to be formed round a tool of decent radius, not merely bent sharply to 90 degrees?

 

3. Is that rear coal division plate a universal feature on GNR class B tenders or was it only selectively fitted, in earlier times at least. In order to cater for tenders that lacked the plate, ought the top of the tank to be at the same level both in front of, and to the rear of the plate?

 

4. Can Heljan be persuaded not to repeat the Garratt assembly technique of gluing to the chassis various fittings that have to be removed by those wishing to carry out any deep servicing?

[cheesysmith]

Looking at the photos, I have to say I'm impressed by what Heljan have done so far. Pity we cannot convince them to release the sprues in a box, with the casting and motors/gears/wheels for you to assemble yourself. It looks like it would be fun to build.

[BMacdermott]

Hello Tony

 

Firstly, all the very best for 2015 to you and everyone else who contributes to this highly entertaining and informative thread!

 

I am an ex-Quality Manager and firmly believe that the Heljan approach to getting it right - including via you and others here - is entirely the correct way to proceed. The sum of the total will always exceed the sum of the individual parts!

 

I am out of my depth in the technicalities, but I hope the following will help. Over on MREmag, we have had some discussion of late concerning:

return cranks;

quartering; and 

leads.

 

I gather from others with 'loco backgrounds' that these areas could benefit from greater fidelity to the prototype in many cases. Please don't ask me, as I don't know; I simply offer the subjects in case they get overlooked. 

 

Regards and thanks to you all.

 

Brian

[Horsetan]

Looking at the photos, I have to say I'm impressed by what Heljan have done so far. Pity we cannot convince them to release the sprues in a box, with the casting and motors/gears/wheels for you to assemble yourself. It looks like it would be fun to build.

...or even the Kato approach, which is a basic, ready-painted shell on its chassis, plus full sprues of detail bits at the bottom of the box.

[Metr0Land]

...or even the Kato approach, which is a basic, ready-painted shell on its chassis, plus full sprues of detail bits at the bottom of the box.

 

I guess it won't be long before someone mentions MTK in that respect .....oops I just did.

[coachmann]

Place the sprues in bags to keep the loco, chassis and tender parts separate. Motor and gearbox parts in another bag. Write and print out assembly instructions, pack the lot securely and place in box. They hit retailers shelves for say £85.00 then folk cry it's too much seeing as they have to assemble them and apply transfers. Then there are those who complain they can't get it to run as smoothly as a RTR loco or find it all too much for them, as it's not like the plastic kits they built as children. Others want replacement parts 'cos they lost 'em and correspondence flows in bucketfuls...................A box of parts or a can of worms?

 

Oh, cynical me...  

Edited December 29, 2014 by coachmann

[Tony Wright]

Very useful to see all of this. Thanks for posting it Tony.

 

Questions:

 

1. Are the axle-ways for the coupled wheels in some sort of separate chassis-bottom component? I can't see any in that main block carrying the gears and cylinders - not unless they are planning a six-coupled version with a very high centre axle.

 

2. Are Heljan aware that the coal rail rear "corners" need to be formed round a tool of decent radius, not merely bent sharply to 90 degrees?

 

3. Is that rear coal division plate a universal feature on GNR class B tenders or was it only selectively fitted, in earlier times at least. In order to cater for tenders that lacked the plate, ought the top of the tank to be at the same level both in front of, and to the rear of the plate?

 

4. Can Heljan be persuaded not to repeat the Garratt assembly technique of gluing to the chassis various fittings that have to be removed by those wishing to carry out any deep servicing?

Good questions Graeme, as usual.

 

I've asked the Heljan consultant to look at this thread. 

 

Answers? Mostly, I don't know. 

 

There must be a separate bottom plate of some sort which I didn't photograph. There was a fair bit of sideways movement in the driving axles and I suggested that it might be too much. It didn't compromise the excellent running and I suppose Heljan (and other RTR manufacturers) have to cater for those who only have train sets with first-radius curves. It did mean that the pick-ups had to be equal-pressure each side to prevent 'crabbing'. One loco did crab ever so slightly (I've seen dozens of kit-built locos which do the same) and I adjusted the pick-ups one side, which immediately cured it. I did point out that these models will be sold in numbers to those who have 'proper' model railways. Other RTR equivalents had just as much side-play - Hornby O1 and Bachmann O4 - so it's obviously an industry requirement. On many occasions I've inserted 'nicked' fibre washers to take out RTR 'slop'. One just cuts a section out of a Peco fibre washer slightly smaller than the axle diameter and, using tweezers, pushes that washer over the axle between the frames and the rear of the wheel's boss. It saves taking the wheels off and takes out too much slop. Usually, two washers per side are enough. The method straightened up a Bachmann K3 and a Hornby A3 recently. 

 

The coal rails should be formed properly on the production models.

 

Looking at the picture of the parts sprue, the tender top and coal plate are separate pieces, so it might cater for what you're suggesting, though I didn't investigate. In fairness, I don't think any RTR manufacturer can be expected to cater for every tender variation. Yes, we've had LNER GS tenders with different height front plates, side cut-outs and rear coal division plate positions, but this will be the first RTR GNR tender (won't it?). Several O2s (and other GNR-type locos) had tenders with apertures behind the front handrails, water pick-up apparatus (or had it removed), tank vents or not (the last-mentioned still being present in some cases after pick-up gear was removed) and rear coal division plates, or not. These differences were discussed and my suggestion was to go with the most-numerous type, apparent from pictures. The tablet-catching apparatus for those High Dyke branch locos was also discussed.

 

As for glued-on chassis features, I have no idea.

 

I hope this helps. 

Edited December 29, 2014 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

Place the sprues in bags to keep the loco, chassis and tender parts separate. Motor and gearbox parts in another bag. Write and print out assembly instructions, pack the lot securely and place in box. They hit retailers shelves for say £85.00 then folk cry it's too much seeing as they have to assemble them and apply transfers. Then there are those who complain they can't get it to run as smoothly as a RTR loco or find it all too much for them, as it's not like the plastic kits they built as children. Others want replacement parts 'cos they lost 'em and correspondence flows in bucketfuls...................A box of parts or a can of worms?

 

Oh, cynical me...  

Cynical, you Larry? 

 

More, realistic I'd say. 

 

I don't think it's in any part of Heljan's thinking to provide sprues of parts for those who wish to assemble the model themselves.

 

It's not designed like a kit, anyway and I took the pictures to show just how many separate parts there were. A far cry indeed from Tri-ang days when everything, including boiler handrails, was moulded-on in one piece.  

[Clive Mortimore]

Cynical, you Larry? 

 

More, realistic I'd say. 

 

I don't think it's in any part of Heljan's thinking to provide sprues of parts for those who wish to assemble the model themselves.

 

It's not designed like a kit, anyway and I took the pictures to show just how many separate parts there were. A far cry indeed from Tri-ang days when everything, including boiler handrails, was moulded-on in one piece.  

Hi Tony 

 

Even then some people had difficulty getting the bodies off the chassis and/or getting them back on. 

Edited December 29, 2014 by Clive Mortimore

[micklner]

Cynical, you Larry? 

 

More, realistic I'd say. 

 

I don't think it's in any part of Heljan's thinking to provide sprues of parts for those who wish to assemble the model themselves.

 

It's not designed like a kit, anyway and I took the pictures to show just how many separate parts there were. A far cry indeed from Tri-ang days when everything, including boiler handrails, was moulded-on in one piece.  

     

      But those new to modelling may expect "kits" to be made to this standard ?.  If they buy a old Whitemetal kit or a Etched kit without any prior knowledge they maybe/would be horrified as to what they have bought , then either bin it , chuck it in a cupboard never to be seen again or ebay it. What chance is that they will actually build it or get it to work?

      The Heljan parts hopefully all fit each other and therefore it "will be" a fairly easy build for a fairly competent modeller?? If the price did come out at £100 below a built example, they may  sell in droves ? and at the same time get new and/or old modellers modelling again ? perhaps a way forward re kit building for the future?.

 

 

 

 

     A lot of  questions, time will tell for the answers. As Tony has said many times, modelling is decline especially with the young. A new approach is long overdue IMHO.

Edited December 29, 2014 by micklner

[coachmann]

White metal and etched brass kits existed in the past because of the model railway market that existed at the time. Since then, RTR has grown up considerably. While hardened builders will continue to get their pleasure from building those old kits, which incidentally were mostly steam outline, those kits are irrelevant to people that have moved on (like myself) or who model the diesel era. Newcomers will likely go straight into RTR. Maybe modifying, painting and re-decalling RTR models will become more widespread, as in the USA.

[it's-er]

Tony. At post 3321 above you comment that the GNR tender with Heljan's O2 "wiil be the first RTR GNR tender (won't it?)".

 

I suspect this isn't the case. Don't Hornby do a GNR tender with coal rails for their A3 - as for example with 60062 Minoru they have just announced for 2015?

 

Then there is the Locomtion/Bachmann C1 Atlantic, which is due soon, ahead of the O2. Locomotion's press release said "Two tender versions are being produced in the form of an original Great Northern Railway and later LNER types". I can't find confirmation from the relevant thread on RMweb which tender types Locomotion mean, though there is reference to the class B 3670 gallon type with equally spaced wheels used up to 1907, and the 3500 gall tender introduced from 1908 with unequal wheel spacing (6' and 7'), which all large Atlantics had by the early 1920s.

 

Presumably the O2's GNR tender is something bigger - any idea what type and capacity it is?

 

John Storey

[gr.king]

I suppose you have a point, or two there John. The 8 wheeled tenders with coal rails are GN tenders of course but certainly not of a "general" type. I'm not sure whether more than two of these "specials" were in existence before the GNR ceased to exist. It is also true that the NRM loco may well make it to market before the Heljan model, and will have a "typical" GNR tender of one sort or another, although it would seem that it may be available in strictly limited numbers.

 

The O2 tenders were nothing more than the GNR class B, with either 3500 gallon or 3670 gallon water capacity and nominal coal capacity between 5 and 6.5 tons depending on age of tender. I suspect new tenders of the latest type were built to go with the O2s, but GN locos did a lot of tender swapping according to availability of tenders after overhaul and attempts to match tenders to loco duties.

[Tony Wright]

Tony. At post 3321 above you comment that the GNR tender with Heljan's O2 "wiil be the first RTR GNR tender (won't it?)".

 

I suspect this isn't the case. Don't Hornby do a GNR tender with coal rails for their A3 - as for example with 60062 Minoru they have just announced for 2015?

 

Then there is the Locomtion/Bachmann C1 Atlantic, which is due soon, ahead of the O2. Locomotion's press release said "Two tender versions are being produced in the form of an original Great Northern Railway and later LNER types". I can't find confirmation from the relevant thread on RMweb which tender types Locomotion mean, though there is reference to the class B 3670 gallon type with equally spaced wheels used up to 1907, and the 3500 gall tender introduced from 1908 with unequal wheel spacing (6' and 7'), which all large Atlantics had by the early 1920s.

 

Presumably the O2's GNR tender is something bigger - any idea what type and capacity it is?

 

John Storey

Thanks John,

 

Of course you're right about GREAT NORTHERN's and SIR FREDERICK BANBURY's original GNR tenders. They were introduced just before the Grouping. You're also right about Bachmann/Locomotion's C1 being available before the Heljan product. As far as I'm aware, the tender to be supplied with 251 (as representing its state in preservation) is the smaller-capacity, equally-spaced wheelbase one - the one she received after being withdrawn. The later tenders had greater capacity and an unequal wheelbase, and I believe Bachmann is to produce that sort as well for the C1s in the LNER period and (possibly?) BR. When I was chatting to the team over at Barwell, the notion of a model of 62822 was discussed. This was the last C1 in service and ran on a special to Doncaster just prior to withdrawal (26th November, 1950). The problem is, for the last weeks of her life and for the run, she towed a K2 tender, lined-out with 'British Railways' in full. Though this was a GNR type 'B' tender, there were subtle differences and so it's not quite the same as either of the tenders produced by Bachmann (or Heljan). My advice was to do it anyway and ignore the bleaters!

 

 

 

 

The holiday period has seen more scenic work undertaken on Little Bytham. Complementing (I hope) the previous splendid work of Gilbert Barnatt, Rob Davey and Richard Wilson, I've been finishing off the Down platform's surface, areas of the goods yard and loading dock, and starting on the stationmaster's garden. Ian Wilson has been carving Styrofoam to blend in the M&GNR curve off scene, to the far right in the first picture. It really is coming together now, largely because of the input of others, and I'm particularly pleased with the juxtaposition of the various textures/tones/colours. 

 

As I say, big space, little station, but it only 'works' because of that space.

 

In case I don't post tomorrow, all the best to everyone for the New Year. 

Edited December 30, 2014 by Tony Wright

[Anglian]

Thank you for posting these long views of the layout – it's interesting to see the overall presentation.

[ROY@34F]

Tony,

In post 3311 , the photo of the O2/3 side view , the valve gear/radius link bracket and reversing rod look too close together . The rev. rod would'nt be able to swing upwards without fouling the rad. link ,  it looks to me . I guess the bracket and integral slidebars could move forward a bit , but not much as the crosshead would then hit the rear end of the slidebars . What do you think ?

I'm sure we're all very grateful to you ,and of course many others others,  for the input on this project , and you are too modest I'm sure . After all you must have enlightened the necessary people of the long travel valve / high footplate variant which other previous kits did'nt incorporate . (after the "Grantham fireman's advice ! )

Happy new year to you , and all on this very popular thread . Keep it going Tony , it is just the time and area of my cherished few years on the footplate .

 

Regards , Roy.

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

In post 3311 , the photo of the O2/3 side view , the valve gear/radius link bracket and reversing rod look too close together . The rev. rod would'nt be able to swing upwards without fouling the rad. link ,  it looks to me . I guess the bracket and integral slidebars could move forward a bit , but not much as the crosshead would then hit the rear end of the slidebars . What do you think ?

I'm sure we're all very grateful to you ,and of course many others others,  for the input on this project , and you are too modest I'm sure . After all you must have enlightened the necessary people of the long travel valve / high footplate variant which other previous kits did'nt incorporate . (after the "Grantham fireman's advice ! )

Happy new year to you , and all on this very popular thread . Keep it going Tony , it is just the time and area of my cherished few years on the footplate .

 

Regards , Roy.

You're also too modest Roy, because you're that fireman.

 

The components of the gear you mention might be too close together; I'm not sure. Of course, the reversing rod is fixed and doesn't need to move. As it's presented, the loco is in full forward gear, and there's certainly no interference in the running.  What'll happen for those travelling 50% of their time in reverse on the High Dyke-Stainby branch, I don't know.

[PGC]

This thread must be catching - I was in WHS today and noticed that the latest Steam Days has an article about ECML steam in Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire in Colour (has anyone else posted about this? If so, apologies for not checking).

 

I looked through the pictures hoping for one of LB, but sadly none and I felt quite let down. However, pictures of High Dyke and other places - took me back to the days of the Roy Jackson layout!

 

Happy New Year to one and all, and especially Tony for the inspirational work you do.

 

Phil

[St Enodoc]

Thanks John,

 

Of course you're right about GREAT NORTHERN's and SIR FREDERICK BANBURY's original GNR tenders. They were introduced just before the Grouping. You're also right about Bachmann/Locomotion's C1 being available before the Heljan product. As far as I'm aware, the tender to be supplied with 251 (as representing its state in preservation) is the smaller-capacity, equally-spaced wheelbase one - the one she received after being withdrawn. The later tenders had greater capacity and an unequal wheelbase, and I believe Bachmann is to produce that sort as well for the C1s in the LNER period and (possibly?) BR. When I was chatting to the team over at Barwell, the notion of a model of 62822 was discussed. This was the last C1 in service and ran on a special to Doncaster just prior to withdrawal (26th November, 1950). The problem is, for the last weeks of her life and for the run, she towed a K2 tender, lined-out with 'British Railways' in full. Though this was a GNR type 'B' tender, there were subtle differences and so it's not quite the same as either of the tenders produced by Bachmann (or Heljan). My advice was to do it anyway and ignore the bleaters!

 

Dsc_0356.jpg

 

DSC_0363.JPG

 

Dsc_0366.jpg

 

The holiday period has seen more scenic work undertaken on Little Bytham. Complementing (I hope) the previous splendid work of Gilbert Barnatt, Rob Davey and Richard Wilson, I've been finishing off the Down platform's surface, areas of the goods yard and loading dock, and starting on the stationmaster's garden. Ian Wilson has been carving Styrofoam to blend in the M&GNR curve off scene, to the far right in the first picture. It really is coming together now, largely because of the input of others, and I'm particularly pleased with the juxtaposition of the various textures/tones/colours. 

 

As I say, big space, little station, but it only 'works' because of that space.

 

In case I don't post tomorrow, all the best to everyone for the New Year. 

Tony, I do like the two elevated views along the length of the layout.