Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, micklner said:

Tony

 

My point is being missed I think. As I said before what is a layout loco, the answer would be from every person asked, something different. 

 

What I have noticed is that you as said above in the earlier post above, tend to centre on certain things on Locos, but then ignore/not mention or notice other faults.

 

Some examples

The Bachmann B1 the "cannonball" size Handrail Knobs as on all old Bachmann offerings , just look at the size of them in picture one above . You often comment on Hornby valve gear being oversize , if you look at some of Bachman's offerings and other companies they are just as poor, I rarely read any comments/criticisms on other companies offerings the latest Bachmann valve gear the expansion link  on the V2 is even more oversize. The Heljan O2 class the valve gear is appalling flimsy , poorly made and designed and simply wrong a one piece expansion and eccentric rod held together with one tiny rivet. Press against the valve gear near said rivet   when picking the Loco up and it falls to pieces (as mine did).

 

As you have said you wouldn't change the dome on eight B1's . I wouldn't either , but I would consider doing so on a current build once I was aware of it , it would annoy me every time I looked at that model and on this occasion the parts (see below) are available to improve the Loco's appearance.

 

The problem on upgrading any Loco and any rolling stock is 1. The costs involved  2. The time to change said parts, repaint etc , and the big no 3 are there any parts from another supplier that actually exist or will fit in place of the offending part. There is so few places to find any replacement parts for anything now days. Scratchbuilding  is beyond most people , simply due to lack of the necessary skills and/or tools.

 

Everybody has their own opinion, on how far they want to go with a model be it a r.t.r or kit. 

 

cheers

 

Mick

If I've missed your point, Mick, I apologise.

 

Of course, the term 'layout loco' is very 'flexible' and every layout builder will probably have a different definition dependent on their own particular needs.  

 

May I illustrate the point with the following images, please?

 

 

 

Where one has a layout built to the standard of Kevin Wilson's 7mm Bucks Hill, then the 'layout locos' running on that would grace any museum display case.

 

 

As would the O Gauge locos shedded at 82G.

 

 

I built this O Gauge Tower Black Five for service on John Emerson's Gifford Street. I put far more detail into this than I would into any LB loco, but it's still a 'layout loco'. A decent one, I hope, especially with Ian Rathbone's painting. 

 

 

I probably did a bit more than I would on a Little Bytham loco when I built this Mercian Super D in EM Gauge for service on Rob Kinsey's Merthyr Riverside. Its 'layout loco' status is illustrated by the 'goalpost' coupling. That top lamp is too big and too modern! Ian Rathbone painted this loco as well. 

 

 

Bachmann B1 bodies on 'proper' chassis are acceptable on Retford in EM. 

 

You've mentioned a fair bit of RTR, and, as the standards have improved, we now find many, many examples of better-quality, out-of-the-box motive power running on exhibition layouts.

 

 

Such as this Hornby 'Arthur' running on Cadiford. Good as a 'layout loco' it is, it would be much-improved by a screw front coupling, vacuum standpipe, front steps, that dreadful NEM pocket removed, discs displayed and for being weathered. All of those things could be easily achieved by any 'average' modeller. 

 

Obviously, my 'layout loco' needs are different from yours. You seem quite happy to use RTR mechanisms, but they're of little use to me because they're not powerful enough. But, that's not their fault, and nowhere in RTR advertising does it claim that, say, a Hornby A3 or A4 will haul 14 heavy, kit-built, all-metal cars. Your locos suit your layout needs entirely satisfactorily. 

 

As I mentioned, we all have our 'blind spots'. For me, my locos have to operate on a (largish) system, hauling very heavy trains, often at high speed on very well-laid track. The only way I can ensure they do that is by building the mechanisms, whether they're to go underneath a modified RTR body or a complete kit-build. If several, close-up details aren't quite right, then I live with those.

 

What I cannot live with is poor running, and I've seen far too many kit-built mechanisms which run really badly. That's not acceptable in any 'layout loco'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited April 28, 2019 by Tony Wright
typo error

[Chamby]

Two layouts opposite each other at a local exhibition, yesterday: 

 

One was a large and exquisitely accurate model of a real location, beautiful to look at and demonstrating very high levels of modelling skill.  It is pre-nationalisation era and has been widely featured in the model press.  However the running on this occasion was not that great, and although it was studiously operated, the “hand of God” was frequently employed, and there were lengthy periods of time when very little seemed to be going on.

 

Opposite it, a club layout... a round-and-round running blue-era diesels at a ridiculously intensive frequency - mostly RTR but nicely weathered on the whole, and in prototypical formations.  Not a signal in sight, but lots going on, theatrical banter when things didn’t quite go right, continuous chatting with the public and reminiscing about BR sandwiches and the various classes of old diesels that were within the living memory of the audience.  Explanations about the third rail, and much interest in the self-driving bus, an anglicised body on a Faller mechanism... there was much being shared about the modelling therein.

 

Exhibitions open to the public do, of course, demand different priorities as opposed to a gathering of more informed fellow modellers.  I definitely felt reminded though... to not get over immersed within my own modelling all the time!

 

Phil

[CUTLER2579]

Interesting that Mr Jackson will use a RTR Body for a B1.

I wonder what he might say If I suggested the same formula for the V2.  

 

Just as well I am not stupid enough to ask him.

[Headstock]

12 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

We all seem to focus on our individual "things". Andrew obviously has a "thing" about domes, you have one about wheels and lamps. It woudl be hard for any of us to focus on every "thing".

 

 Smokebox doors, chimneys and domes. Face, titfa and errr, something else. They are after all the most important things you can fit to a loco body. They are an engines personality and character, get it wrong and you turn a mild mannered Janitor into a psychopath. It's also an area that both kit and RTR manufactures are most likely to balls up.

 

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

If I've missed your point, Mick, I apologise.

 

Of course, the term 'layout loco' is very 'flexible' and every layout builder will probably have a different definition dependent on their own particular needs.  

 

May I illustrate the point with the following images, please?

 

 

 

Where one has a layout built to the standard of Kevin Wilson's 7mm Bucks Hill, then the 'layout locos' running on that would grace any museum display case.

 

 

As would the O Gauge locos shedded at 82G.

 

 

 

I built this O Gauge Tower Black Five for service on John Emerson's Gifford Street. I put far more detail into this than I would into any LB loco, but it's still a 'layout loco'. A decent one, I hope, especially with Ian Rathbone's painting. 

 

 

 

I probably did a bit more than I would on a Little Bytham loco when I built this Mercian Super D in EM Gauge for service on Rob Kinsey's Merthyr Riverside. Its 'layout loco' status is illustrated by the 'goalpost' coupling. That top lamp is too big and too modern! Ian Rathbone painted this loco as well. 

 

 

 

Bachmann B1 bodies on 'proper' chassis are acceptable on Retford in EM. 

 

You've mentioned a fair bit of RTR, and, as the standards have improved, we now find many, many examples of better-quality, out-of-the-box motive power running on exhibition layouts.

 

 

 

Such as this Hornby 'Arthur' running on Cadiford. Good as a 'layout loco' it is, it would be much-improved by a screw front coupling, vacuum standpipe, front steps, that dreadful NEM pocket removed, discs displayed and for being weathered. All of those things could be easily achieved by any 'average' modeller. 

 

Obviously, my 'layout loco' needs are different from yours. You seem quite happy to use RTR mechanisms, but they're of little use to me because they're not powerful enough. But, that's not their fault, and nowhere in RTR advertising does it claim that, say, a Hornby A3 or A4 will haul 14 heavy, kit-built, all-metal cars. Your locos suit your layout needs entirely satisfactorily. 

 

As I mentioned, we all have our 'blind spots'. For me, my locos have to operate on a (largish) system, hauling very heavy trains, often at high speed on very well-laid track. The only way I can ensure they do that is by building the mechanisms, whether they're to go underneath a modified RTR body or a complete kit-build. If several, close-up details aren't quite right, then I live with those.

 

What I cannot live with is poor running, and I've seen far too many kit-built mechanisms which run really badly. That's not acceptable in any 'layout loco'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Great images Tony, I can see now that the Bachmann B1 smokebox door is of Great Western Heritage. So, the Bachmann B1 is a Hall running around with a boil on its back?

Edited April 28, 2019 by Headstock

[Clive Mortimore]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

If I've missed your point, Mick, I apologise.

 

Of course, the term 'layout loco' is very 'flexible' and every layout builder will probably have a different definition dependent on their own particular needs.  

 

May I illustrate the point with the following images, please?

 

 

 

Where one has a layout built to the standard of Kevin Wilson's 7mm Bucks Hill, then the 'layout locos' running on that would grace any museum display case.

 

 

As would the O Gauge locos shedded at 82G.

 

 

I built this O Gauge Tower Black Five for service on John Emerson's Gifford Street. I put far more detail into this than I would into any LB loco, but it's still a 'layout loco'. A decent one, I hope, especially with Ian Rathbone's painting. 

 

 

I probably did a bit more than I would on a Little Bytham loco when I built this Mercian Super D in EM Gauge for service on Rob Kinsey's Merthyr Riverside. Its 'layout loco' status is illustrated by the 'goalpost' coupling. That top lamp is too big and too modern! Ian Rathbone painted this loco as well. 

 

 

Bachmann B1 bodies on 'proper' chassis are acceptable on Retford in EM. 

 

You've mentioned a fair bit of RTR, and, as the standards have improved, we now find many, many examples of better-quality, out-of-the-box motive power running on exhibition layouts.

 

 

Such as this Hornby 'Arthur' running on Cadiford. Good as a 'layout loco' it is, it would be much-improved by a screw front coupling, vacuum standpipe, front steps, that dreadful NEM pocket removed, discs displayed and for being weathered. All of those things could be easily achieved by any 'average' modeller. 

 

Obviously, my 'layout loco' needs are different from yours. You seem quite happy to use RTR mechanisms, but they're of little use to me because they're not powerful enough. But, that's not their fault, and nowhere in RTR advertising does it claim that, say, a Hornby A3 or A4 will haul 14 heavy, kit-built, all-metal cars. Your locos suit your layout needs entirely satisfactorily. 

 

As I mentioned, we all have our 'blind spots'. For me, my locos have to operate on a (largish) system, hauling very heavy trains, often at high speed on very well-laid track. The only way I can ensure they do that is by building the mechanisms, whether they're to go underneath a modified RTR body or a complete kit-build. If several, close-up details aren't quite right, then I live with those.

 

What I cannot live with is poor running, and I've seen far too many kit-built mechanisms which run really badly. That's not acceptable in any 'layout loco'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Spruced up Tri-ang Type 3s on Lima chassis make good layout locos.

 

Especially when they are ta the far end of the layout with my eyesight.

[Tony Wright]

5 hours ago, drmditch said:

Please can I make a non-railway point here. I have recently undergone complex, difficult and successful surgery provided by the NHS. We do ourselves and the generations to come no service if by constant denigration we reduce perceptions of the NHS to the level at which it is regarded as 'second rate' or 'failing' and a target for unscrupulous and/or self-interested politicians to dismantle. Obviously, given the extent of the services provided, different people will have different experiences. For complex situations, the same consultants operate in both 'public' and 'private' sectors, the differences being the waiting times.

 

For myself, coming back from Africa very ill in 2010, the welcome I received from my GP's practice when I 'phoned from the airport ('come straight away, we'll fit you in') was deeply comforting and re-assuring. (Mind you, I always take care to be polite and to get on well with the doctors and the practice staff, this being common-sense as common courtesy.)

 

That was also the time when leaving the surgery at a busy time of day, having been travelling for 36 hours, a young 16/17 year old lady offered me her seat on the bus. This country has so much that is good. Let us work to improve the 'not-so-good', but don't let us throw away what we have.

 

I won't apologise for intruding here with my personal views. Thanks to the NHS, I am, at the age of 67, healthy, fit, sane, and (mostly) functional. I need to be because I have a large railway room and at current rates of progress I will need some years to get the railway to a satisfactory condition.

 

Now, back to topic. I have tried to take some pictures of my cattle train headed by one of my J39s - proudly displaying lamps! This loco has a re-worked Bachmann body with a Comet chassis and gearbox and big Mashima motor. Like all my locomotives thus equipped it runs very well. However, I have not yet found a way to produce the lubricator drive on the RH side which Bachmann did produce on their split-chassis.

 

Being a very mediocre modeller (at least in that I have a lot left to learn) I would be very grateful for advice from my betters!

 

Reproducing the lubricator drive on the offside of a J39 can be a bit tricky. Bachmann did it by making it over-scale.

 

A bit over 40 years ago now, I fitted it to a Jamieson J39.

 

 

The lubricator drive is made from bits of a Jamieson valve gear fret, and it, too, is a bit over-scale. I bought lots of these most-useful frets from EAMES donkey's years ago. 

 

What is there to say about this 'layout loco'? It's pretty basic (no brakes, for instance), but it's crisp and runs well. It was also one of the first sheet-metal locos I built, so it has a place in my modelling learning curve.

 

It's actually Scottish-based. It's underlined in my 1957 Ian Allan Combined Volume, so I must have seen it at Darlington. 

 

I thought, for their time, Jamieson kits were excellent.

 

With B1s having been mentioned, here's my over-40 Jamieson example.

 

 

 

Again, very basic, but crisp enough, and another good runner. The nameplates were made for me by Kings Cross, and had to be cut-out.

 

Neither of these two locos sees much use now, because they've been superseded by superior equivalents. That said, I keep them out of slight sentimentality. Anyway, if I'm not careful, I'll end up with just three locomotives at any one time if I ruthlessly pursue 'accuracy'; one I finished a month ago, one I've just finished and one I've just started - the first one being constantly replaced, and so on! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[Chamby]

Gentlemen, may I tap into the accumulated knowledge on here please?  A quick couple of questions about etched shedcode plates: I’m looking to purchase a batch for the depots on the GCLE between Neasden and Darnall.

 

Do you have any preferences, or perceive any difference in quality between suppliers?  

 

Also, can anyone tell me how many plates Fox Transfers give in each etch?  They don’t say on their website.  

 

The 3D custom waterslide one’s from Railtec also look interesting, but they’re not taking orders for now. 

 

Thanks in anticipation,

 

Phil

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Chamby said:

Gentlemen, may I tap into the accumulated knowledge on here please?  A quick couple of questions about etched shedcode plates: I’m looking to purchase a batch for the depots on the GCLE between Neasden and Darnall.

 

Do you have any preferences, or perceive any difference in quality between suppliers?  

 

Also, can anyone tell me how many plates Fox Transfers give in each etch?  They don’t say on their website.  

 

The 3D custom waterslide one’s from Railtec also look interesting, but they’re not taking orders for now. 

 

Thanks in anticipation,

 

Phil

Phil,

 

I find etched shedplates a bit of a fiddle - they have a habit of pinging into oblivion.

 

I use Modelmasters transfer 'plates'. They come in Regional sheets, are easy to apply and look the part. Granted, they have no relief, but the real things had white-painted symbols, and at normal viewing distances?

 

Here they are in use on some of LB's locos.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have a few with etched shedplates, but these are in brass, so really aren't the right colour.

 

 

I find the ease of use of the transfer 'plates the winning factor. I just cut them into a rectangle as close as possible to the ellipse. They come on a black 'ground' at source.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[landscapes]

11 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Andrew,

 

Love of A2/2s?

 

You mean as models? 

 

I think the big modelling point with regard to the difference between Thompson's only really successful design (yes, the O1 was OK as well) and the unloved and pretty hopeless rebuilds of the P2s is that they have to be made completely. There are the Graeme King conversions of a Bachmann A2, but you're still stuck with the same (if much better than the split-chassis B1) mechanism. Thus, because everything has to be made, then (in my view) one might as well get it 'right' at source rather than accept a compromise (or two). 

 

I have made B1s as well.

 

 

Here's a Nu-Cast one running on Stoke Summit. A better dome? It's on a Comet set of frames with the original too-short eccentric rod (don't believe Roche drawings!).

 

 

It now runs on LB (apologies for the over-scale lamp). Its smokebox door is the one provided by Nu-Cast, and it's probably the rarest type, with close-together hingestraps and numberplate above the top one. It's right for Retford's 61208, though. 

 

 

This type of 'door.

 

 

This is the earlier NER-style 'door. Bachmann's would appear a cross between this and the next one?

 

 

And the most-common? Unusually, the BR device is the small one. Extremely rare on B1 tenders.

 

 

This one most-nearly looks like Hornby's B1 door.

 

Please observe copyright restrictions on the prototype images.

 

With regard to which RTR B1 is better, here is a picture of both of them, the Bachmann one at the top. This one has the much-improved chassis.

 

 

Just look at both sets of bogie wheels! Ugh! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

11 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Andrew,

 

Love of A2/2s?

 

You mean as models? 

 

I think the big modelling point with regard to the difference between Thompson's only really successful design (yes, the O1 was OK as well) and the unloved and pretty hopeless rebuilds of the P2s is that they have to be made completely. There are the Graeme King conversions of a Bachmann A2, but you're still stuck with the same (if much better than the split-chassis B1) mechanism. Thus, because everything has to be made, then (in my view) one might as well get it 'right' at source rather than accept a compromise (or two). 

 

I have made B1s as well.

 

 

Here's a Nu-Cast one running on Stoke Summit. A better dome? It's on a Comet set of frames with the original too-short eccentric rod (don't believe Roche drawings!).

 

 

It now runs on LB (apologies for the over-scale lamp). Its smokebox door is the one provided by Nu-Cast, and it's probably the rarest type, with close-together hingestraps and numberplate above the top one. It's right for Retford's 61208, though. 

 

 

This type of 'door.

 

 

This is the earlier NER-style 'door. Bachmann's would appear a cross between this and the next one?

 

 

And the most-common? Unusually, the BR device is the small one. Extremely rare on B1 tenders.

 

 

This one most-nearly looks like Hornby's B1 door.

 

Please observe copyright restrictions on the prototype images.

 

With regard to which RTR B1 is better, here is a picture of both of them, the Bachmann one at the top. This one has the much-improved chassis.

 

 

Just look at both sets of bogie wheels! Ugh! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Hi Tony

 

thank you for posting the B1 photos and the information on the smoke box door variations, this shows my ignorance on the subject it will certainly make me research a little bit harder the next time I renumber and name a Hornby B1.

 

And also to check on the ones I have already altered.

 

Regards

 

David

[Chamby]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Phil,

 

I find etched shedplates a bit of a fiddle - they have a habit of pinging into oblivion.

 

I use Modelmasters transfer 'plates'. They come in Regional sheets, are easy to apply and look the part. Granted, they have no relief, but the real things had white-painted symbols, and at normal viewing distances?

 

Here they are in use on some of LB's locos.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have a few with etched shedplates, but these are in brass, so really aren't the right colour.

 

 

I find the ease of use of the transfer 'plates the winning factor. I just cut them into a rectangle as close as possible to the ellipse. They come on a black 'ground' at source.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Many thanks, Tony.  I’m very familiar with the ‘pinging’ etches phenomenon from trying to apply maker’s plates!

 

A great set of photo’s too.  The models stand up very well to ‘larger than life’ images, and you would never know that the shedcode plates were rectangular transfers...

[railtec-models]

The customisable 3d bits will be available again this week. A good number of the "shed codes of your choice" have been sold now and the feedback has been extremely positive.

 

[teaky]

3 hours ago, Chamby said:

Gentlemen, may I tap into the accumulated knowledge on here please?  A quick couple of questions about etched shedcode plates: I’m looking to purchase a batch for the depots on the GCLE between Neasden and Darnall.

 

Do you have any preferences, or perceive any difference in quality between suppliers?  

 

Also, can anyone tell me how many plates Fox Transfers give in each etch?  They don’t say on their website.  

 

The 3D custom waterslide one’s from Railtec also look interesting, but they’re not taking orders for now. 

 

Thanks in anticipation,

 

Phil

247 Developments do very nice name plates and also do shed plates.  Their home page includes details of the exhibitions they are scheduled to attend if you prefer to see the products up close before buying.

[Headstock]

7 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Reproducing the lubricator drive on the offside of a J39 can be a bit tricky. Bachmann did it by making it over-scale.

 

A bit over 40 years ago now, I fitted it to a Jamieson J39.

 

 

The lubricator drive is made from bits of a Jamieson valve gear fret, and it, too, is a bit over-scale. I bought lots of these most-useful frets from EAMES donkey's years ago. 

 

What is there to say about this 'layout loco'? It's pretty basic (no brakes, for instance), but it's crisp and runs well. It was also one of the first sheet-metal locos I built, so it has a place in my modelling learning curve.

 

It's actually Scottish-based. It's underlined in my 1957 Ian Allan Combined Volume, so I must have seen it at Darlington. 

 

I thought, for their time, Jamieson kits were excellent.

 

With B1s having been mentioned, here's my over-40 Jamieson example.

 

 

 

Again, very basic, but crisp enough, and another good runner. The nameplates were made for me by Kings Cross, and had to be cut-out.

 

Neither of these two locos sees much use now, because they've been superseded by superior equivalents. That said, I keep them out of slight sentimentality. Anyway, if I'm not careful, I'll end up with just three locomotives at any one time if I ruthlessly pursue 'accuracy'; one I finished a month ago, one I've just finished and one I've just started - the first one being constantly replaced, and so on! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Evening Tony,

 

I must say that these old sheet metal kits are much more fascinating than the Bachy conversions. The forty year old dome and sokebox door are an improvement on the Bachy ones. Not sure about the chimney but  they are as beautifully crisp as you mention.

[Headstock]

2 hours ago, landscapes said:

 

Hi Tony

 

thank you for posting the B1 photos and the information on the smoke box door variations, this shows my ignorance on the subject it will certainly make me research a little bit harder the next time I renumber and name a Hornby B1.

 

And also to check on the ones I have already altered.

 

Regards

 

David

 

Evening David,

 

Hornby produce two of the smokebox styles but only one type of tender atached to the B1's, only the early type of locomotive steps, one of the chimneys but two of the running board types.

[Jesse Sim]

Afternoon Tony,

 

Many thanks for the tips on photography and I decided I would take a few photos of some trains running to see how they would turn out. For some reason I cant upload more then 10MB, so only one photo for now, but does anyone know how to increase the size for RMWEB photo uploading?

 

Here is a K3 on an Up express goods. 

 

What do you think? 

 

(I know there are no lamps, I'll be sure to put some on ASAP)

 

Edited April 29, 2019 by Jesse Sim

[CUTLER2579]

10 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Evening David,

 

Hornby produce two of the smokebox styles but only one type of tender atached to the B1's, only the early type of locomotive steps, one of the chimneys but two of the running board types.

 

Dear Headstock,

Am I correct in saying that all the Curved (Infilled) Running Plate B1's were allocated to Scotland ? I also assume they were all built in one batch from the same works ?

Kind Regards,Derek.

[copleyhill007]

Hornby B1 tenders: They produce two types - the early type with coal backboard over the water filler dome and the later version with the coal backboard further forward. It is impossible to find just a Hornby tender body on ebay, though Bachmann loco bodies do appear from time to time.

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

Afternoon Tony,

 

Many thanks for the tips on photography and I decided I would take a few photos of some trains running to see how they would turn out. For some reason I cant upload more then 10MB, so only one photo for now, but does anyone know how to increase the size for RMWEB photo uploading?

 

Here is a K3 on an Up express goods. 

 

What do you think? 

 

(I know there are no lamps, I'll be sure to put some on ASAP)

 

Excellent depth of field, my boy,

 

You're a quick learner! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, CUTLER2579 said:

 

Dear Headstock,

Am I correct in saying that all the Curved (Infilled) Running Plate B1's were allocated to Scotland ? I also assume they were all built in one batch from the same works ?

Kind Regards,Derek.

It was a Cowlairs modification, Derek,

 

The valances used to split at the corners, so Cowlairs welded in those little gussets. Why it only happened in Scotland, I don't know.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[polybear]

35 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Excellent depth of field, my boy,

 

You're a quick learner! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 The Dark Lord has an apprentice... 

[31A]

Although as already mentioned, the alteration to the B1s platform angle, infilling the corners with curved fillets, was carried out in Scotland to Scottish Region locos, a few of the modified locos were subsequently reallocated to English sheds.  I'm not able to check at the moment, but have looked this up previously and think Colwick was one of the sheds.  When Hornby brought out their model depicting this alteration, I thought one would add interesting variety to my English layout.  I hoped they might not sell well and would be 'remaindered' but have never seen any for sale cheaply; however to my knowledge Hornby have only issued models with this modification once, so perhaps it was indeed a poor seller.

[CF MRC]

Shouldn’t it be Light Lord?

 

Tim

[Headstock]

3 hours ago, copleyhill007 said:

Hornby B1 tenders: They produce two types - the early type with coal backboard over the water filler dome and the later version with the coal backboard further forward. It is impossible to find just a Hornby tender body on ebay, though Bachmann loco bodies do appear from time to time.

 

Afternoon copleyhill007,

 

It's still the same type of tender, ie flush sided welded tank. Hornby don't cater for those engines that had for example, the riveted tank with the separate coping plate, they don't produce the converted tenders from ex NE C9's or those with prominent snap head rivets. Nor do they include the final batch with squared off frames. I hope that is of help.     

[Bernard Lamb]

58 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

 Nor do they include the final batch with squared off frames.  

But they do produce a K1.

Most of which, in the real world for most of their existence, used this version.

Bernard

[Headstock]

25 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

But they do produce a K1.

Most of which, in the real world for most of their existence, used this version.

Bernard

 

Unfortunately, Hornby didn't bother to square off the frames on the K1, as it uses the identical tender to that suplied with the B1.