Wright writes.....

[Tetarch60]

On 02/07/2019 at 07:35, Tony Wright said:

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.  

Tony 

       During my researches into A3's I found out that an 0 gauge loco builder charges around £15 an hour, so taking the cost of a Finney A3 0 gauge kit plus Wheels, Tender,motor and gearbox the total cost of the build is around £3500. As for 4mm RTR manufactures getting valve gear wrong, what is annoying is getting the return crank lean wrong, when running the engine doesn't look right. Even Golden Age Models with their expensive brass Eastern Region  BR pacifics have got the return crank lean wrong on the Peppercorn A1 and A2s. In 0 gauge these cost around the £3000 pound mark. It seems these days nobody cares about the small details anymore. As the late David Jenkinson once said " It is the small details that make or break a model"and on the evidence of the last few years it certainly looks like he was right.

[polybear]

On the subject of iconic layout, I'd suggest Dewsbury Midland...

[CF MRC]

5 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

It's not the track plan which restricts movement on Lime Street, it's the control system and route setting - also possibly not enough stock. They have improved things a lot, they can now make two movements simultaneously and (at my suggestion) began stopping incoming trains at the signals in the tunnel. I agree though that it isn't nearly as busy as I remember it in the 1950s.

That was the main reason for making Copenhagen Fields / Belle Isle, rather than KX.  Everything has to stop at a terminus and so requires a tremendous amount of staff and slick operation to match the prototype in full swing.  A roundy-roundy is much simpler from an exhibition layout standpoint. 

 

Tim

Edited July 8, 2019 by CF MRC

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, polybear said:

On the subject of iconic layout, I'd suggest Dewsbury Midland...

Good suggestion Brian,

 

 

Now, if the signals had worked..................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Clive Mortimore]

3 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good suggestion Brian,

 

 

Now, if the signals had worked..................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Hello Tony

 

Or the time I saw it the layout.

 

To be fair it was at Alley Pally on a freakish hot weekend for the time of year and almost every layout was having problems. I was there with Hanging Hill and was lucky to be tucked up in the corner where it didn't get too hot so wasn't effected as badly as some other layouts.  

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, BR A3 113 said:

Tony 

       During my researches into A3's I found out that an 0 gauge loco builder charges around £15 an hour, so taking the cost of a Finney A3 0 gauge kit plus Wheels, Tender,motor and gearbox the total cost of the build is around £3500. As for 4mm RTR manufactures getting valve gear wrong, what is annoying is getting the return crank lean wrong, when running the engine doesn't look right. Even Golden Age Models with their expensive brass Eastern Region  BR pacifics have got the return crank lean wrong on the Peppercorn A1 and A2s. In 0 gauge these cost around the £3000 pound mark. It seems these days nobody cares about the small details anymore. As the late David Jenkinson once said " It is the small details that make or break a model"and on the evidence of the last few years it certainly looks like he was right.

Thanks for that,

 

Firstly, I'm intrigued by your 'name'. Because there never was an A3 numbered 113. Is it because GREAT NORTHERN has already been taken?

 

And so to the purpose of my response.............

 

 'Even Golden Age Models with their expensive brass Eastern Region  BR pacifics have got the return crank lean wrong on the Peppercorn A1 and A2s. In 0 gauge these cost around the £3000 pound mark'.

 

The following two images prove you right.

 

 

Both of these (to be fair) were pre-production models. In the case of the A1, I pointed out to the proprietor that 60156 was Doncaster-built, so should have a (visible) riveted tender, and that it was a roller-bearing example; thus, should only have one lubricator and round-ends to the axlebox keeps on the Cartazzi frames and tender. As for the red-painted tender dragbeam! Whether my observations were acted upon, I don't know, but the proprietor was surprised when I refused to take pictures of two of his O Gauge A4s. 'Why not?' Do you really want to see an image in the mag of an A4 named KING FISHER and another one named LORD FARRINGDON?' I suppose language problems - English/Korean? One would have thought that, at the price, the correct 'lean' to the eccentric crank should be evident. 

 

 

It's actually right on the rebuilt 'MN', leaning (as it should) towards the rear. It's right on both sides as well.

 

 

That correct 'lean' is also apparent on the OO Golden Age A4. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Edited July 8, 2019 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[Northroader]

Not knowing how those models were assembled, but in full size practice, you just take the centre driving wheel pair out and swap round right to left, and put back in, which will correct the return crank setting. You find it out when you put the loco in forward gear, and it sets off backwards. Pay attention to “L” and “R” stamping on the drivers!

[mullie]

I am just about to start building a Comet chassis for a J39 in EM. Can I ask how anyone who has built a J39 chassis has dealt with this linkage as no provision is made in the kit for adding it? It would appear that to add it a very precise hole will need drilling in the chassis side and I'm not sure I'm up to that.

 

 

Many thanks for any help offered.

 

Martyn

Edited July 8, 2019 by mullie

[PMP]

8 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

That's a qualified "agree" from me Clive, as if you're building a layout for exhibition I think you should take into account the expectations of the paying audience - which are generally that they want to see moving trains.

 

As you say, we can do what we like in the privacy of our own homes.

 

5 hours ago, StephenB said:

I can see the logic in Clive’s approach to leaving out bits of scenery that get in the way of seeing the trains. Certain well known modellers advocate ‘view blockers’ to do just the opposite. Each to his/her own.

 

Stephen

 

St.E

A good number of us on the ‘circuit’ build a layout for ourselves that subsequently gets invited to a show, so it’s not as straightforward regarding design/display. For example my Albion Yard was one of the few layouts five or six years back with a track bed height of about 55 inches. Managers were advised and it didn’t adversely affect the ‘bookings’. I certainly got comments about the height of the layout, mostly positive. the design of the layout and viewing was done ‘for me’ not Exhibitions but it was certainly well received. 

 

SB

I’ve used view blockers/diffusers/lighting all for visual impact. As well as working with a high degree of reliability, my layouts are designed to be viewed as I want, using blocks, prosceniums etc to force the viewer to look ‘around’ the layout and capture views that a typical ‘open’ design doesn’t emphasise.

 

 

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, PMP said:

 

 

St.E

A good number of us on the ‘circuit’ build a layout for ourselves that subsequently gets invited to a show, so it’s not as straightforward regarding design/display. For example my Albion Yard was one of the few layouts five or six years back with a track bed height of about 55 inches. Managers were advised and it didn’t adversely affect the ‘bookings’. I certainly got comments about the height of the layout, mostly positive. the design of the layout and viewing was done ‘for me’ not Exhibitions but it was certainly well received. 

 

SB

I’ve used view blockers/diffusers/lighting all for visual impact. As well as working with a high degree of reliability, my layouts are designed to be viewed as I want, using blocks, prosceniums etc to force the viewer to look ‘around’ the layout and capture views that a typical ‘open’ design doesn’t emphasise.

 

 

Very nice work, Paul,

 

The colours are beautifully-muted and natural. 

 

I assume it's still work in progress? Guttering and downspouts? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Michael Edge]

14 hours ago, BR A3 113 said:

Tony 

       During my researches into A3's I found out that an 0 gauge loco builder charges around £15 an hour, so taking the cost of a Finney A3 0 gauge kit plus Wheels, Tender,motor and gearbox the total cost of the build is around £3500. As for 4mm RTR manufactures getting valve gear wrong, what is annoying is getting the return crank lean wrong, when running the engine doesn't look right. Even Golden Age Models with their expensive brass Eastern Region  BR pacifics have got the return crank lean wrong on the Peppercorn A1 and A2s. In 0 gauge these cost around the £3000 pound mark. It seems these days nobody cares about the small details anymore. As the late David Jenkinson once said " It is the small details that make or break a model"and on the evidence of the last few years it certainly looks like he was right.

That suggests your 0 gauge builder was going to take an awfully long time to build the kit. Disregarding any comments about how much I currently charge per hour (nowhere near enough apparently), my main point was that it shouldn't take nearly as long as some imagine.

This is the Finney A4 which took me 71.5 hours to build, including the inside connecting rod and full valve gear. Although I didn't make the crank axle or machine the wheels in this case, these costs would have been irrelevant using Slater's wheels and ignoring the middle engine - which is all but invisible anyway.

Finally painted and photographed by Ian Rathbone.

[Tony Wright]

18 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

That suggests your 0 gauge builder was going to take an awfully long time to build the kit. Disregarding any comments about how much I currently charge per hour (nowhere near enough apparently), my main point was that it shouldn't take nearly as long as some imagine.

This is the Finney A4 which took me 71.5 hours to build, including the inside connecting rod and full valve gear. Although I didn't make the crank axle or machine the wheels in this case, these costs would have been irrelevant using Slater's wheels and ignoring the middle engine - which is all but invisible anyway.

Finally painted and photographed by Ian Rathbone.

That's definitely one of the finest locomotives ever seen in these pages, Mike,

 

I assume you had to modify the tender's rear top to make it appropriate for SEAGULL (or MALLARD or LORD FARINGDON)? 

 

In fairness, very few builders (even professionals) can build as quickly as you. As I've said before, that DJH O Gauge Black Five which I built took me about 140-150 hours; over three/four times longer than it would have taken me to build a 4mm equivalent. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

11 hours ago, mullie said:

I am just about to start building a Comet chassis for a J39 in EM. Can I ask how anyone who has built a J39 chassis has dealt with this linkage as no provision is made in the kit for adding it? It would appear that to add it a very precise hole will need drilling in the chassis side and I'm not sure I'm up to that.

 

 

Many thanks for any help offered.

 

Martyn

Good morning Martyn,

 

As far as I know, no kit-provider or chassis provider has included the lubricator drive for a J39 in their products. 

 

 

On the real thing, it's actually quite delicate (if ever anything on a steam loco could be described as such). I would imagine this would be very difficult to replicate in 4mm scale.

 

 

Over four decades ago, I fitted one to the Jamieson J39 I built, though it's (out of necessity?) over-scale. 

 

 

An indication of the age of this kit can be judged by its box. No Trades Descriptions' Act stuff back then; that's a picture of an ex-GC D9 on the cover!

 

 

I've taken two close-ups for you this morning, which cruelly highlight how crude my lubricator drive is. It was fashioned from bits off Jamieson valve gear frets and brass pins. You don't really need a hole drilled in the frames to fix it in place. I just used a strip of brass, joggled to suit and soldered to the top of the frames. That way it's adjustable. 

 

 

Another really old Jamieson J39, originally built by the late Andrew Kinsella, this one towing a smaller tender. It was part-rebuilt, painted and weathered by Geoff West (by the way, Geoff, you've left that brake van behind yesterday). 

 

Speaking of yesterday, I asked my three visiting chums if they'd observe the numbers of the wagons in the trains going by and of those in the sidings. 'I can't see them from this distance!' was a common statement. When I asked for closer scrutiny, none knew whether the numbers were right or not. Over 250 wagons/vans were in view, and all carried numbers on both sides. I'm not making excuses, but in the grand scheme of things...............................

 

 

Bachmann's J39 isn't a bad model above the frames, though, despite its lubricator drive being present (on the far side in this shot, obviously), it's far too big. Geoff West detailed and weathered this one, as far I I know the only member of the class to tow that type of tender. 

 

I hope the above helps.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[cctransuk]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

Who would dare use an oversized '4' to renumber a model loco ?!?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited July 9, 2019 by cctransuk

[PMP]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Very nice work, Paul,

 

The colours are beautifully-muted and natural. 

 

I assume it's still work in progress? Guttering and downspouts? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Thanks Tony. The things like gutters etc were fitted prior to exhibiting, these were ‘fitting’ test pics of new build structures. The layouts been scrapped but it was a very useful test bed, it did about ten shows and ‘won’ the visitors cup at Manchester show. The main structures and trees could be repositioned on the layout or swapped with others to vary the appearance significantly. This is pretty much the same viewpoints in b&w,  and one showing one of the forced views 

Edited July 9, 2019 by PMP

[Neil]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Martyn,

 

Bachmann's J39 isn't a bad model above the frames,  .....

 

 

 

Not too bad below either. I know it's perhaps not a fair comparison to line it up with a couple of old kit built examples but it doesn't have the chassis cut out for the  X04 type motor, exposed worm drive or motor intrusion beneath the boiler. However I can't claim any superiority here as the only J39 I had was the old Wills one on a Triang Jinty chassis with all the inherent faults that combination of products had.

[Tony Wright]

28 minutes ago, Neil said:

 

Not too bad below either. I know it's perhaps not a fair comparison to line it up with a couple of old kit built examples but it doesn't have the chassis cut out for the  X04 type motor, exposed worm drive or motor intrusion beneath the boiler. However I can't claim any superiority here as the only J39 I had was the old Wills one on a Triang Jinty chassis with all the inherent faults that combination of products had.

It's not the appearance of the Bachmann chassis I was commenting on, but the performance, Neil,

 

Though, to be fair, the one in my picture runs all right (though the dreaded splitting of the axles isn't far off!), the usual split-chassis nonsense (not confined to Bachmann) means that its life-expectancy is limited. Many such types just waddle and wobble noisily along, until they collapse!

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Michael Edge]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

That's definitely one of the finest locomotives ever seen in these pages, Mike,

 

I assume you had to modify the tender's rear top to make it appropriate for SEAGULL (or MALLARD or LORD FARINGDON)? 

 

In fairness, very few builders (even professionals) can build as quickly as you. As I've said before, that DJH O Gauge Black Five which I built took me about 140-150 hours; over three/four times longer than it would have taken me to build a 4mm equivalent. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I really can't remember what I did with the tender (I built this in 2006) but as you say I must have modified the kit. I always take a kit as a set of parts enabling me to build the model and modify or change anything as required. Finney kits are very well designed in the sense of how the parts fit together but are utterly infuriating in other respects. My main complaint is the part numbers scattered more or less at random over the identification sheets (they should be etched on or near the parts in my opinion) - finding these probably adds a few hours to the build time.

[Michael Edge]

3 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

Who would dare use an oversized '4' to renumber a model loco ?!?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

I wouldn't have sent a model out with that amount of mismatch between loco and tender - presumably sagging trailing springs, although combined with a dip in the track.

[St Enodoc]

4 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

I wouldn't have sent a model out with that amount of mismatch between loco and tender - presumably sagging trailing springs, although combined with a dip in the track.

I'd blame the very poor track, especially that rail joint under the trailing drivers - but then I would, wouldn't I?

[Neil]

44 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

It's not the appearance of the Bachmann chassis I was commenting on, but the performance, Neil,

 

Though, to be fair, the one in my picture runs all right (though the dreaded splitting of the axles isn't far off!), the usual split-chassis nonsense (not confined to Bachmann) means that its life-expectancy is limited. Many such types just waddle and wobble noisily along, until they collapse!

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

That's a fair point to make. I've had a Mainline 03 mechanism under a much altered Aifix 04 body in DVLR livery (now with a friend) which ran beautifully and showed no sign of quitting and Bachmann's own version of the chassis , which should have been better but which in reality was pants. Lately most of my toys come from the Hornby stable and work well but I wonder if they'll last as well as some of the seventies Fleischmann HO stuff I have.

[Tony Wright]

I always advocate observation of the prototype when building a model.

 

However, how closely should one replicate what one actually sees? 

 

 

Class A4 60002 on top link work, but look at that dent in its front casing!

 

 

My model of the same loco certainly doesn't have it (the time period is the same), though I have added the strip to the tender's soleplate. 

 

 

One would think ex-works A4s would be spot-on. However, 60015's cab leans backwards, and there's a dent in the side casing.

 

 

60060's buffer beam has taken a clout somewhere along the line. 

 

 

Though a few years later its buffer beam is now straighter, would anyone bend a model cab roof to that shape before soldering it in place?

 

 

Would 'extreme' weatherers scuff a model cab in such a fashion. 

 

 

I keep on altering Bachmann's A1 and A2 loco back ends so that the footplate matches the soleplate on the tender. Though it's a loco in neither class, the real things didn't always match.

 

 

 

 

Were some Scottish dome-fitters particularly corpulent?

 

 

I know this dear old D10 is in the last year of its life, but would any modeller bend the front end like this, and stick such rough patches on the cab? 

 

 

I know this is a D11, but I haven't altered my Bachmann example to such an extreme, though I have weathered it. 

 

 

Ex-GC 2-8-0s and their derivatives tended to get lots of front end clouts.

 

 

I must admit, though I've weathered these (kit-, scratch-built and modified RTR) examples, apart from the Hornby O1s' footplates being a bit bendy, all of these have straight front ends, including the ex-GN 2-8-0. 

 

Has anyone been 'brave' enough to actually model similar features to those shown in these prototype shots? 

[TheSignalEngineer]

57 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Class A4 60002 on top link work, but look at that dent in its front casing!

Looks like a bit of a scrape on the  side behind the buffer as well

[Clive Mortimore]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I always advocate observation of the prototype when building a model.

 

However, how closely should one replicate what one actually sees? 

 

 

Class A4 60002 on top link work, but look at that dent in its front casing!

 

 

My model of the same loco certainly doesn't have it (the time period is the same), though I have added the strip to the tender's soleplate. 

 

 

One would think ex-works A4s would be spot-on. However, 60015's cab leans backwards, and there's a dent in the side casing.

 

 

60060's buffer beam has taken a clout somewhere along the line. 

 

 

Though a few years later its buffer beam is now straighter, would anyone bend a model cab roof to that shape before soldering it in place?

 

 

Would 'extreme' weatherers scuff a model cab in such a fashion. 

 

 

I keep on altering Bachmann's A1 and A2 loco back ends so that the footplate matches the soleplate on the tender. Though it's a loco in neither class, the real things didn't always match.

 

 

 

 

Were some Scottish dome-fitters particularly corpulent?

 

 

I know this dear old D10 is in the last year of its life, but would any modeller bend the front end like this, and stick such rough patches on the cab? 

 

 

I know this is a D11, but I haven't altered my Bachmann example to such an extreme, though I have weathered it. 

 

 

Ex-GC 2-8-0s and their derivatives tended to get lots of front end clouts.

 

 

I must admit, though I've weathered these (kit-, scratch-built and modified RTR) examples, apart from the Hornby O1s' footplates being a bit bendy, all of these have straight front ends, including the ex-GN 2-8-0. 

 

Has anyone been 'brave' enough to actually model similar features to those shown in these prototype shots? 

Hello Tony

 

Not steam , but have a look at James' modelling. He is very happy to put a scrape along the side of a diesel.

[Jamiel]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I always advocate observation of the prototype when building a model.

 

However, how closely should one replicate what one actually sees? 

 

 

Class A4 60002 on top link work, but look at that dent in its front casing!

 

 

My model of the same loco certainly doesn't have it (the time period is the same), though I have added the strip to the tender's soleplate. 

 

........

I completely agree about bashed panels. Sorry to bring up diesels again, but looking at almost any photo of a class 24 or 25 after a few months in use, they always had a dent in the cab front just above the coupling where it had bashed the panel. It would take a lot of guts to get a file, or soldering iron to melt and make a SLW Class 24 have that damage. I might feel braver with a Bachmann one though.

Maybe it is a personal dislike, but the thing I find does not translate into models is a telegraph pole at an angle like in you first photo. I think we have all seen models with badly added poles that have lent that and just look like poor modelling. I find there are a few other architectural details that really stand out like that, platform canopy supports and just about anything that should be vertical and is linear.
 

Maybe a pet hate, or perhaps a pet weakness for not recognising reality and wanting models to be too perfect as opposed to too accurate.
 

Modellers creating the town of Piza can be excepted from this though.
 

Jamie