Wright writes.....

[CF MRC]

I had put my name down for the FS to go with my Mallard, but was disappointed with the wheels and valve gear so decided to save my money.   I don’t think these aspects are going to change into production, Tony. 

 

Where does one get the correct number plate from for Mallard?

 

Tim

Edited July 1, 2019 by CF MRC

[Tony Wright]

20 minutes ago, CF MRC said:

I had put my name down for the FS to go with my Mallard, but was disappointed with the wheels and valve gear so decided to save my money.   I don’t think these aspects are going to change into production, Tony. 

 

Where does one get the correct number plate from for Mallard?

 

Tim

Try Ian Wilson at Pacific Models for the numberplate, Tim.........................

[Anglian]

18 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

It's not a ragtop, but it's relatively rare I believe.

 

It's actually LH drive, having been delivered to California in the '60s. It's the opposite of a British equivalent. Almost no rust, but the paintwork is a bit baked. It came back to Blighty a few years ago. 

 

He's doing all the mechanical restoration, and then he'll have it professionally-painted. When complete, who knows what it might be worth? He paid over £20,000 for it, with masses needing doing. He works for JLR, on the classic car-restoration side, so he knows what he's doing

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

With his skills and given the sunny provenance of the body it sounds as if it'll be fabulous. Will he convert it to RHD?

 

[t-b-g]

I dabble in a bit of 7mm modelling and had been half tempted by one of the new RTR A4 class. It is something I would never build or run but would just look nice in the original grey livery.

 

Now I have seen that A3 it has put me right off. the lining looks poor with the black on the boiler bands being much too narrow compared to the white. The valve gear is no better than the RTR versions in 4mm. The lifting arm is not in line with the valve rod in mid gear. The expansion link is a single layer flat and is too long and the return crank looks to be too long. So as a display model and very much a non essential one, I wouldn't want to spend time fixing it and will give it a miss although it will still be better than many could build. So I will save my money and buy materials and kits instead.

 

For the 7mm layout, as with my 4mm modelling it will be pregrouping GCR and will feature no RTR at all. So there are still a few dinosaurs who don't see RTR as the answer to our needs. 

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, Anglian said:

With his skills and given the sunny provenance of the body it sounds as if it'll be fabulous. Will he convert it to RHD?

 

No, Tim,

 

But it's got an appropriate English 'plate now.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, t-b-g said:

I dabble in a bit of 7mm modelling and had been half tempted by one of the new RTR A4 class. It is something I would never build or run but would just look nice in the original grey livery.

 

Now I have seen that A3 it has put me right off. the lining looks poor with the black on the boiler bands being much too narrow compared to the white. The valve gear is no better than the RTR versions in 4mm. The lifting arm is not in line with the valve rod in mid gear. The expansion link is a single layer flat and is too long and the return crank looks to be too long. So as a display model and very much a non essential one, I wouldn't want to spend time fixing it and will give it a miss although it will still be better than many could build. So I will save my money and buy materials and kits instead.

 

For the 7mm layout, as with my 4mm modelling it will be pregrouping GCR and will feature no RTR at all. So there are still a few dinosaurs who don't see RTR as the answer to our needs. 

although it will still be better than many could build.

 

I think you've hit the nail right on the head there, Tony. 

 

This type of model is not aimed at the likes of you (in the same way that a Hornby A3/A4 is not aimed at the likes of me). It's aimed at the guy/girl who cannot build a 7mm A3/A4 (or any O Gauge loco?), and, as such, I think the whole range will succeed (if pre-orders are anything to go by).

 

Though not irrelevant, many who buy these won't have a clue what you're talking about with regard to items like lifting arms, valve rods, mid-gear, expansion links and return cranks. For the price of less than an equivalent kit (a fair bit less), they'll have a running, fully-finished Gresley Pacific in O Gauge.

 

No doubt, on the models' release, many will wring their hands in despair, complaining about this or that not being right, some even claiming that their 'uman rights have probably been compromised! The answers for those types are simple - build one yourself or get someone else to do it for you. Except, both options will be a lot more expensive. 

 

Hatton's have identified the 'target market' very well. That, after all, is really what it's all about.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

In response to some recent requests regarding the MR/M&GNR bridge........................

 

 

 

In all honesty, I have no idea whether the deck here is right or wrong (probably the latter). It's basically made from the Airfix girder bridge ones, with SMP track (with several sleepers' centres removed) just glued in place. The Airfix deck has huge holes in it between the rails, so these were filled-in with Plastikard. 

 

I have no pictures showing this deck in real life (does anyone out there have any?). The whole bridge was demolished in March 1963. 

 

Obviously, there are some questions......... Would there be check rails over the span? In some cases, the track was actually ballasted on bridges like this. Might this have been the case here? 

 

How the rails are joined is visible (the little brass 'L's will be painted once the bridge is finished and weathered). 

 

Though the bridge was built for double track, the RH one here was only an extended siding. In fact, the whole formation between Little Bytham Junction and Saxby Junction was built with double track in mind, but only one track was ever laid (with passing loops at the intermediate stations). 

 

In these shots above, the 'Leicester' heads westwards behind a B12/3 (PDK/Wright/Rathbone). 

 

 

[31A]

40 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

No doubt, on the models' release, many will wring their hands in despair, complaining about this or that not being right, some even claiming that their 'uman rights have probably been compromised! The answers for those types are simple - build one yourself or get someone else to do it for you. Except, both options will be a lot more expensive. 

 

 

The pity of it surely is though, that for most if not all of the items Tony has identified, it would have been as easy to model the items correctly as incorrectly and one would have thought (hoped?) that for a 'scale model' costing c. £700, they would have done so and potential buyers would not be deterred or have anything to moan about!  After all it's not as though there isn't an existing prototype to go and look at ....

 

Oh dear, does that make me a 'hand wringer'?

[zr2498]

Tony

Looking at the original drawings there are 4 sets of longitudinal support beams (rail bearers) lying between the cross beams and directly underneath the 4 rail centres (double track). It is possible that the supporting sleepers could be longitudinal with tie bars connecting them or cross sleepering - need that photo! The rail bearers should govern the spacing of the two tracks.

There are also two raised longitudinals (sitting on top of the deck plate) running the length of the span with top plates connected to each truss. This would be a nice feature to add. I expect it would be ballasted up to the beam shown. Check rails as well? Would be good.

 

 

Hope this helps

Dave

 

 

 

 

Edited July 1, 2019 by zr2498

[jamie92208]

I suspect that the upper pair of londitunal beams seem to support walkways. I also suspect that the rails would be supported on londitudinal beams a la Brunel which would make it easier to get the levels correct on the sloping deck plates.  There would, I think, be plenty of drainage slots along the side otherwise corrosion would be a real problem. One idea might be to look at photos of the rails on the Forth Bridge, which was from a similar date and used a special rail section on bearer beams. 

 

Jamie

Edited July 1, 2019 by jamie92208

[Michael Edge]

With that arched deck plate it looks to me more likely to have been ballasted.

[gr.king]

That makes sense in my simple mind.

[zr2498]

1 hour ago, jamie92208 said:

I suspect that the upper pair of londitunal beams seem to support walkways. I also suspect that the rails would be supported on londitudinal beams a la Brunel which would make it easier to get the levels correct on the sloping deck plates.  There would, I think, be plenty of drainage slots along the side otherwise corrosion would be a real problem. One idea might be to look at photos of the rails on the Forth Bridge, which was from a similar date and used a special rail section on bearer beams. 

 

Jamie

Here is a modelled example of the longitudinal rail bearers - possibly add walkways and ballast up to the beams for LB

 

[96701]

2 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

I suspect that the upper pair of londitunal beams seem to support walkways. I also suspect that the rails would be supported on londitudinal beams a la Brunel which would make it easier to get the levels correct on the sloping deck plates.  There would, I think, be plenty of drainage slots along the side otherwise corrosion would be a real problem. One idea might be to look at photos of the rails on the Forth Bridge, which was from a similar date and used a special rail section on bearer beams. 

 

Jamie

This may help, it depends on whether or not one can zoom in.

 

[JamieR4489]

Evening Tony,

The J6 has been primed and is now running very sweetly.

 

As I'm sure you know, the kit doesn't include balance weights so I was wondering, where did you get yours?

 

Regards,

Jamie

[uax6]

1 hour ago, 96701 said:

This may help, it depends on whether or not one can zoom in.

 

 

 

Ah, but they replaced the Forth Bridge Rail for standard sized flatbottom about ten years ago, so it depends on the date of those photos if you will see the forth bridge rail.... ;-)

 

Andy G

[Theakerr]

Thanks for all the bridge decking pictures.  That first one you posted Tony I think is the one that probably I will use as a guide when I rebuild the old (35 years) Kibri bridge next year.  I accept that it is 'not quiet right' but within the confines of my layout I think it will work and look more representative of the real thing that just code 100 track laid on an open sleeper type deck that I have now.  again Thanks

[96701]

1 hour ago, uax6 said:

Ah, but they replaced the Forth Bridge Rail for standard sized flatbottom about ten years ago, so it depends on the date of those photos if you will see the forth bridge rail.... ;-)

 

Andy G

The rails may be different, but I very much doubt that the method of supporting said rails would be changed.

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, JamieR4489 said:

Evening Tony,

The J6 has been primed and is now running very sweetly.

 

As I'm sure you know, the kit doesn't include balance weights so I was wondering, where did you get yours?

 

Regards,

Jamie

Not much help I'm afraid, Jamie,

 

But from my spares box. Down the decades I've collected all sorts of bits and pieces. DMR used to do various frets of different radii for balance weights, as did Jackson Evans. Some (don't know the source now) were made in cast metal. 

 

All I did was rummage through and find a suitable set. 

 

Try Markits. Mark Arscott does a full range of etched balance weights, some for the diameter of a J6 wheel. 01923 249711. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[jamie92208]

13 minutes ago, 96701 said:

The rails may be different, but I very much doubt that the method of supporting said rails would be changed.

I agree.  I remember seeing an article about the replacement of the rails.  I believe that they put new bearers in to take standard rails as part of the general overhaul.

 

Jamie

[Tony Wright]

15 hours ago, 31A said:

 

The pity of it surely is though, that for most if not all of the items Tony has identified, it would have been as easy to model the items correctly as incorrectly and one would have thought (hoped?) that for a 'scale model' costing c. £700, they would have done so and potential buyers would not be deterred or have anything to moan about!  After all it's not as though there isn't an existing prototype to go and look at ....

 

Oh dear, does that make me a 'hand wringer'?

Steve,

 

Very sound reasoning,

 

But it doesn't always work like that. 

 

Having worked on the development of RTR models (in a small way) helping the likes of Heljan, Bachmann, Oxford Rail, Hattons, Hornby and one which must remain anonymous for now,  one has to eventually go with 'what one has got'. 

 

It is not as easy to model items 'correctly' as it is 'incorrectly'. There are very few ways to get things 'right', but trillions of ways of getting things 'wrong'. 

 

A manufacturer (in any scale/gauge of RTR products) has no way of knowing where his/her products will end up, and what railways they might run on. More 'chunky' bogie wheels will tolerate less-than-perfect track. No manufacturer wants customers complaining that 'it derails all the time!'  They'll blame the product, when it's their poor track which is at fault. For those who want greater fidelity, replacement bogie wheels are available.

 

With regard to the last point, I can draw a parallel with OO. It's well known that I think RTR bogie/pony wheels in OO are awful. They're precious little like the prototypes they're supposed to represent (look at your own Hornby B1 bogie wheels for instance), but they stay on the track. Despite their being (in my book) intolerable, posters on RMweb like Micklner and Gilbert Barnatt (Great Northern) seem more than happy to use them on their LNER locos. Both Bachmann's and Hornby's LNER Pacific wheels are just wheels, bearing little (other than having the same number of spokes) relation to the 'real things'. However, I fully-understand why the likes of Bachmann and Hornby use them; they accommodate less-than-perfect trackwork!

 

As for an 'anorexic' expansion link, I agree; the O Gauge A3s' ones are a bit 'thin'. I imagine it's a manufacturing compromise. Again, a parallel can be drawn with OO. I cite the same two chaps as before. Despite Hornby's A3 and A4 valve gear being rather poor in most areas, Micklner seems happy to use it, and Gilbert pays Tim Easter to alter/improve/renumber/rename/weather his Hornby A3s and A4s, yet the valve gear is left in all its 'less-than-realistic' guises. Bachmann's valve gear, too, leaves something to be desired. Again, it's a manufacturing compromise. 

 

I'm not wringing my hands about the above. As you know, I don't use them, anyway. However, it would appear that some are quite happy with the compromises.Their locos don't derail (because of the chunky wheels) and they turn a 'blind eye' to the poor gear. Might that be the same for users of these new O Gauge A3s and A4s?

 

Finally, how much of a 'scale' model' might one expect for £700.00? A very- well-built equivalent one from a kit would set anyone back at least £2,500.00, maybe more, especially well-painted. In fact, a good paint job in O Gauge would be (at least) half the cost of the full RTR A3/A4, maybe more.  I don't really build in O Gauge, and certainly no longer professionally, but could a professional builder/painter give an indication of how much he/she would charge to build, say, a DJH A3 or A4 in 7mm, and get Ian Rathbone to paint it? Or a Finney LNER Pacific? £700.00 wouldn't even be the deposit, especially if the cost of the parts is factored-in as well! What's an RTR Pacific in OO Gauge cost these days? Near £200.00, or getting that way? Were I still building professionally, I'd charge £750.00 just to build, say, a DJH LNER Pacific in OO. Factor-in the cost of the parts, plus a top Rathbone or Haynes paint job and it's well beyond twelve hundred quid! Getting on for twice what those RTR O Gauge Gresley Pacifics cost!  

 

I'm trying to be fair here, and I hope I'm not being perceived as 'hunting with both the fox and the hounds'. As I've said, other than in a 'professional' capacity RTR locos (in any scale gauge) don't interest me. Yet, when a manufacturer asks me for assistance in the development of new models, what should I say? In answer to my own question, it's always 'Yes, how may I help?' I do see then some of the difficulties they have to overcome, first hand.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Edited July 2, 2019 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[Michael Edge]

I've not built any DJH 7mm kits for a while but the A4 took 45 hours and the A2/3 50 hours.

I don't agree with some of the above, building something correctly is just as easy as incorrectly, the hard bit is knowing (or finding out) what is correct.

[polybear]

8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

But from my spares box. Down the decades I've collected all sorts of bits and pieces. DMR used to do various frets of different radii for balance weights, as did Jackson Evans. Some (don't know the source now) were made in cast metal. 

 

DMR Kits went to Precision Paints, so it might just be possible that the balance weights may be available from them.  On a slightly different note, I do recall speaking to Mike Russell several years ago (he had a stand at the BRM Peterborough exhibition) about a forthcoming kit for a Cowans & Sheldon (?) Steam Crane; Mike mentioned that *all* he needed to do was write the instructions; sadly I suspect any prospect of this kit ever materialising is now lost   (especially with the Bachmann offering in the pipeline).  I've asked PP if it came over to them with the other kits, but they appeared to be unaware of it.

[Tony Wright]

8 hours ago, Theakerr said:

Thanks for all the bridge decking pictures.  That first one you posted Tony I think is the one that probably I will use as a guide when I rebuild the old (35 years) Kibri bridge next year.  I accept that it is 'not quiet right' but within the confines of my layout I think it will work and look more representative of the real thing that just code 100 track laid on an open sleeper type deck that I have now.  again Thanks

I'm glad the pictures are of use to you.

 

I'm also glad you stated 'not quite right'', though 'not right at all' might be the case in my case.

 

By the way, thanks once more for all the comments and suggestions regarding the bridge. It could well be that the track was ballasted over it. In which case, the arrangement of the decking is, to some extent irrelevant, since it won't be seen, apart from either sides of the track bed. However, were I to add ballast, I'd then have to reinstate those missing sleeper centres. 

 

The point is (at least to me) is that it doesn't look 'wrong'. Looking at pictures of other real through-girder bridges, not many appear to be ballasted (if any). At Peterborough, the ECML crosses the Nene, its flood plain and the line to the erstwhile Peterborough East on four mighty bridges; three through-girder and one 'open' steel arch. The through-girders' tracks are not ballasted (the deck is different on each one) but the open bridge's track is. There are no sleepers present on the tracks on the through girders. 

 

On the M&GNR the 'open' girder bridge at Tydd had track which was not ballasted (with quite deep depressions between the rails in part - a bit like mine?). West Lynn's large 'open' girder bridge over the Ouse had track across it which was not ballasted, with a deep longitudinal channel (with cross members to maintain gauge) running between the rails. Obviously, the swing bridge across the Nene at Sutton Bridge had track which was not ballasted. The great through-girder bridge at Breydon had non-ballasted track going through it, with huge longitudinal timber baulks running between the rails. The through-girder bridge at Potter Heigham had track which was not ballasted either. That's five M&GNR girder bridges with non-ballasted track on them, no two having the same arrangement. 

 

Who has the 'definitive' answer, I wonder?

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 

[Tony Wright]

24 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

I've not built any DJH 7mm kits for a while but the A4 took 45 hours and the A2/3 50 hours.

I don't agree with some of the above, building something correctly is just as easy as incorrectly, the hard bit is knowing (or finding out) what is correct.

Thanks Mike,

 

Might I ask what your hourly rate is now, please? And, does anyone know the price of a complete DJH O gauge kit for an LNER Pacific? Or a Finney one? Or what a top paint job in O Gauge costs? 

 

I'm also in agreement (in part) with your last statement, but what about RTR manufacturing constraints? The expansion link has been mentioned on the O Gauge A3s. I accept it's 'wrong' because it's only a single piece (it should be a 'thick'sandwich, with the radius rod going through it, of course). Though I don't know the exact cost-imperatives, clearly to do it properly would increase the end-price. Beyond the target markets' purse? 

 

Certainly, in 4mm Scale, most valve gears in kits just has a single-piece expansion link, as does most RTR. The same is so for the union links, where the ends are not forked. 

 

As for building something correctly being as easy as building something incorrectly, how come I'm much better at the latter? I find that much easier!

 

Regards,

 

Tony.