Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

And now for something slightly different.......................

 

I met up with Graham Nicholas yesterday at Gratham Station, where he returned a couple of locos to me. One of them was my model of SIR NIGEL GRESLEY. 

 

 

 

 

This was built with one specific purpose in mind - to run on Shap on the layout's first appearance at the Warley Show a couple of years ago, celebrating 1967; steam's last full year on the great gradient. 

 

Graham was building the layout 'in secret' and he asked me if I'd build the A4 to represent its first revenue-earning runs after preservation. I'd photographed the real loco on Crewe South shed in 1966, still in BR green, and also on the first of her preservation runs from Crewe to Carlisle at the beginning of April 1967. 'It's needed for Warley' I was told, some nine months before. A kit-build was necessary because of the imperative for the loco to climb the bank with at least ten-on. 

 

I built it in less than a week (using a SE Finecast kit) and handed it over to Ian Rathbone (who painted it - perfectly - in record time! Thanks again Ian). 

 

Shap now, of course, is mainly representative of earlier BR days, so the A4 in LNER blue is now of no real necessity. What to do, then?

 

 

 

Here she is yesterday, incongruously hauling the morning York/Hull-Kings Cross express (a hefty load) through Little Bytham. 

 

Despite the excellence of Ian's painting, the loco like this is of no use to LB. That being the case, I'll solder a front numberplate on and get either Ian or Geoff Haynes to repaint her into BR green. In that guise, I can add a year to Bytham's depiction and replicate 60007 breaking the post-War steam record for steam - racing through Little Bytham! 

 

Graham and I spoke (over socially distanced coffees) about exhibitions - both Shap and Grantham were to attend several this year and next, and on into the future. Covid put a stop to that.

 

He takes a more 'optimistic' view of the future than I do (being naturally pessimistic, I'm rarely surprised), but I'm convinced that many 'exhibition' layouts will never be seen by the public again, at least in physical form. I have no crystal ball, but what might be the earliest date for an exhibition in the future? A year? Two? Three? More? By which time many of the operators will either be too old or even worse!  Anyway, because of the age-profile of most show-goers, most would be in the 'at risk' groups, including me; because of age! 

 

I know many who build locos and stock which are only ever used at shows, their having no layouts of their own. Their locos/stock can't even be run at clubrooms because of the current restrictions. 

 

And what about layouts being built with exhibitions in mind? How many will actually be completed?

 

My view, for what it's worth, is that we'll see far fewer exhibition layouts in future (some, as I say, never again) and there'll be a resurgence in the number of 'layouts which never leave home'.

 

We live in unprecedented times!

 

 

[grob1234]

Apparently, that smoke deflector fitted to the V2 worked very well. As you say, why it was fitted is a bit of a mystery.

 

We talked the other day about GN Atlantics - specifically how the DJH version is incorrect proportionally. 

 

May I say also that the C1 is a beautiful engine, they are so graceful, and although lack the pure power of an A1/3/4, their lines give them a wonderful bearing on the railway. The forerunner of the ECML's beasts!

 

Well here is my version of 3283. Bearing in mind I made this about 3 years ago, when I was still (I still am) in my loco building infancy. There are a couple of discrepancies on my part which I have only subsequently realised. This loco may have had the lubricators on top of the splashers removed. Also, the pipe run on the RHS of the smoke box may also not have been present. However, I was aware of the height issue, and have lopped about a mm off the tops of the frames, to help it sit a bit better. It is still too high because I think the boiler is too fat.

 

However, and this is just my personal view, when this is on a layout and you're looking at it from 3' or more, could anyone reasonably notice that it is about 2mm too long, or (unless there are bridge clearance limits) that it is 1.5mm too high? Surely the only way to tell is by comparing it to a drawing and measuring it?

 

So, my priorities when I build a loco are as follows?

 

1. Does my model instantly look like a C1 (or whatever I've made)?
2. Does it work (well, or better than RTR)?
3. Can it haul a prototypical amount of load at scale speed?
4. Did I make it?
5. Did I paint it?
6. Is it the best model I have built to date? (always looking to improve)?
7. Finally - has it given me pleasure?

If I can answer yes to the above then I have achieved my aim. There will be a little more information on my own thread WRT the methods used and so on, but the next time I show this, it'll be 100% complete, weathered and ready for action.

 

 

[Tony Wright]

2 minutes ago, grob1234 said:

Apparently, that smoke deflector fitted to the V2 worked very well. As you say, why it was fitted is a bit of a mystery.

 

We talked the other day about GN Atlantics - specifically how the DJH version is incorrect proportionally. 

 

May I say also that the C1 is a beautiful engine, they are so graceful, and although lack the pure power of an A1/3/4, their lines give them a wonderful bearing on the railway. The forerunner of the ECML's beasts!

 

Well here is my version of 3283. Bearing in mind I made this about 3 years ago, when I was still (I still am) in my loco building infancy. There are a couple of discrepancies on my part which I have only subsequently realised. This loco may have had the lubricators on top of the splashers removed. Also, the pipe run on the RHS of the smoke box may also not have been present. However, I was aware of the height issue, and have lopped about a mm off the tops of the frames, to help it sit a bit better. It is still too high because I think the boiler is too fat.

 

However, and this is just my personal view, when this is on a layout and you're looking at it from 3' or more, could anyone reasonably notice that it is about 2mm too long, or (unless there are bridge clearance limits) that it is 1.5mm too high? Surely the only way to tell is by comparing it to a drawing and measuring it?

 

So, my priorities when I build a loco are as follows?

 

1. Does my model instantly look like a C1 (or whatever I've made)?
2. Does it work (well, or better than RTR)?
3. Can it haul a prototypical amount of load at scale speed?
4. Did I make it?
5. Did I paint it?
6. Is it the best model I have built to date? (always looking to improve)?
7. Finally - has it given me pleasure?

If I can answer yes to the above then I have achieved my aim. There will be a little more information on my own thread WRT the methods used and so on, but the next time I show this, it'll be 100% complete, weathered and ready for action.

 

 

Good morning Tom,

 

What a brilliant set of criteria. A bench-mark for all modellers.

 

I only wish I could tick-off '5', other than for locos in plain black.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

The other loco returned by Graham Nicholas was the BR Standard Five, mentioned a bit ago on this thread. It had been used on Shap at the Glasgow Show in February.

 

 

 

As mentioned, this was a joint project by two great modellers - the late Roy Jackson and Geoff Kent. It had originally been built for a modeller (in OO) as some form of barter, but that modeller then disappeared without trace for some reason. So Roy then passed it on to me, it being of no use to him and he didn't feel up to re-gauging it (neither did Geoff).

 

Amazingly, given its provenance, it was a shocker of a runner. Noisy, jerky, and the opposite of what one would expect. I stripped the chassis, installed a new drive, tweaked this and that and 'bingo' - a beautiful loco in all departments. 

 

I still need to add lap brackets. That was one huge discrepancy I found in Roy's modelling philosophy. 'Why make brackets when I don't fit lamps?'. 

 

If nothing else, my future contribution to Retford (if allowed) will be to ensure that all locos (and the last vehicles in trains) display appropriate lamps!

Edited July 28, 2020 by Tony Wright
typo error

[Atso]

15 minutes ago, grob1234 said:

Apparently, that smoke deflector fitted to the V2 worked very well. As you say, why it was fitted is a bit of a mystery.

 

We talked the other day about GN Atlantics - specifically how the DJH version is incorrect proportionally. 

 

May I say also that the C1 is a beautiful engine, they are so graceful, and although lack the pure power of an A1/3/4, their lines give them a wonderful bearing on the railway. The forerunner of the ECML's beasts!

 

Well here is my version of 3283. Bearing in mind I made this about 3 years ago, when I was still (I still am) in my loco building infancy. There are a couple of discrepancies on my part which I have only subsequently realised. This loco may have had the lubricators on top of the splashers removed. Also, the pipe run on the RHS of the smoke box may also not have been present. However, I was aware of the height issue, and have lopped about a mm off the tops of the frames, to help it sit a bit better. It is still too high because I think the boiler is too fat.

 

However, and this is just my personal view, when this is on a layout and you're looking at it from 3' or more, could anyone reasonably notice that it is about 2mm too long, or (unless there are bridge clearance limits) that it is 1.5mm too high? Surely the only way to tell is by comparing it to a drawing and measuring it?

 

So, my priorities when I build a loco are as follows?

 

1. Does my model instantly look like a C1 (or whatever I've made)?
2. Does it work (well, or better than RTR)?
3. Can it haul a prototypical amount of load at scale speed?
4. Did I make it?
5. Did I paint it?
6. Is it the best model I have built to date? (always looking to improve)?
7. Finally - has it given me pleasure?

If I can answer yes to the above then I have achieved my aim. There will be a little more information on my own thread WRT the methods used and so on, but the next time I show this, it'll be 100% complete, weathered and ready for action.

 

 

 

What a stunning effort Tom am I completely agree with your listed criteria.

 

I think that the GNR Atlantics can throw up a lot of issues to the modeller, many of which are resolved by juggling the dimensions slightly. I discovered this while trying to build my N gauge example; changings the dimensions slightly was easy, keeping the model looking right was another matter entirely!

 

Apologies for posting this photo of my model of 4452 again, but it is currently the best locomotive I've built.

 

 

The coupled wheelbase is 0.35mm too long, the front bogie is slightly too far forward, all the loco wheels are undersize, the loco body is 0.25mm too long and 0.5mm too wide and the cylinders are slightly too big (to accommodate the cast slide bars). Does it look the part? I think so and I certainly don't think I could make it closer to scale. I really must finish the detailing and weather it (and finish building the other two that are in the works!).

[Atso]

15 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I only wish I could tick-off '5', other than for locos in plain black.

 

I've seen your own efforts at BR lined green Tony and think that you do yourself a disservice in your abilities with the above comment.

Edited July 28, 2020 by Atso

[Tony Wright]

12 minutes ago, Atso said:

 

I've seen your own efforts at BR lined green Tony and think that you do yourself a disservice in your abilities.

As always, that's very kind of you Steve, but I'm not sure my eyes are up to it now............

 

 

 

I painted both these locos over 40 years ago now, when I was in my 30s. 

 

Sable-painted and transfer-lined, I think they're 'acceptable', though there is no lining on the valances.

 

It's just that, under really close-scrutiny, the airbrush finish and bow-pen lining of the pros really does show a difference.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[gr.king]

36 minutes ago, Atso said:

The coupled wheelbase is 0.35mm too long, the front bogie is slightly too far forward, all the loco wheels are undersize, the loco body is 0.25mm too long and 0.5mm too wide and the cylinders are slightly too big (to accommodate the cast slide bars). Does it look the part? I think so and I certainly don't think I could make it closer to scale. I really must finish the detailing and weather it (and finish building the other two that are in the works!).

 

Steve, I won't tell anybody about those errors in dimensions if you don't.....

 

It looks convincingly like a GN Atlantic so it is a GN Atlantic.

[APOLLO]

I have always thought that an A3 fitted with double chimney & German type smoke deflectors gave these locomotives a magnificent look of grace, power and speed - something difficult to describe. "Just right" sums them up for me.  Pity I never saw such a loco in service.

 

 

Over the Pond our American cousins made some wonderful steam locos, but most lacked grace, even their attempts at streamlining most looked really awful. Late in the day of steam (1945/6) the New York Central built the Niagara class for high speed passenger service between New York & Chicago - a success in every department and, for a Yank loco a handsome looking one also, They were a success, and just as good as diesels (cost/mile $ wise) - but the diesels came and ousted them in the 50's. None were preserved.

 

 

Brit15

[t-b-g]

With a GNR Atlantic, building a dead scale model is nigh on impossible unless you work in P4 and even then, the clearance between the driving wheels, shrunk down to 4mm scale, is almost nothing. So a slight increase in wheelbase or a slightly smaller wheel are almost unavoidable.

 

Both the Atlantic models featured above, in 2mm and 4mm scales look very nice indeed.

 

I do note that one has green splasher tops, the other black. One day, I will establish which one is right, or it could well be that both are. If both are, I would like to establish whether the difference is down to a date, a change in specification, a works, or whether the people in the paintshop that day thought they should be black or green because it didn't say which in the spec.

 

I am sure that many of my models contain dimensional errors that I know nothing about. Even the present model of Valour I am building has at least one that I do know about, which I am keeping quiet about because nobody other than me will ever tell. I spotted it too late to correct without major work and it stays!

 

I have never found an error such as a loco being 1mm or 2mm too long or short as being of any concern unless it is something that shows up badly if it is placed next to something else.

 

The things that bother me are the when something "doesn't look quite right" which is almost undefinable. It is usually a proportion, or a detail, or something that should line up with something else and doesn't, or something that you should be able to see and can't. A tender footplate and a loco footplate that should be at the same level and are not is one that often jumps out at me, or a footplate that is not level and slopes down at one end or the other. That is more common than many realise! Boiler handrails that are not parallel to the footplate when they should be is another.  

 

In the DJH Atlantic, for me that was the cylinders and the fact that the slidebars and piston tail rods should be tucked up under the footplate and are not. The other faults, like the overall height, might jump out if the loco is next to another one or pulling a train and it towers above the carriages but if they are faults that you have to measure to tell that they are wrong, I can usually live with that.

 

I once spent a long time making a GCR Q4 from a Millholme kit. I altered lots of parts and added much detail but if somebody now told me that it was 2mm too long or short, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.   

Edited July 28, 2020 by t-b-g

[jwealleans]

As far as I have ever seen all the colour photos of a C1 show the splasher tops as green.

 

I have both DJH and K's C1s on Grantham (and a WSM one, but that's for sentimental reasons).  Individually they both look OK, but you can't double head the DJH with a K's as it immediately shows up how different they are dimensionally.

[grob1234]

8 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

With a GNR Atlantic, building a dead scale model is nigh on impossible unless you work in P4 and even then, the clearance between the driving wheels, shrunk down to 4mm scale, is almost nothing. So a slight increase in wheelbase or a slightly smaller wheel are almost unavoidable.

 

Both the Atlantic models featured above, in 2mm and 4mm scales look very nice indeed.

 

I do note that one has green splasher tops, the other black. One day, I will establish which one is right, or it could well be that both are. If both are, I would like to establish whether the difference is down to a date, a change in specification, a works, or whether the people in the paintshop that day thought they should be black or green because it didn't say which in the spec.

 

I am sure that many of my models contain dimensional errors that I know nothing about. Even the present model of Valour I am building has at least one that I do know about, which I am keeping quiet about because nobody other than me will ever tell. I spotted it too late to correct without major work and it stays!

 

I have never found an error such as a loco being 1mm or 2mm too long or short as being of any concern unless it is something that shows up badly if it is placed next to something else.

 

The things that bother me are the when something "doesn't look quite right" which is almost undefinable. It is usually a proportion, or a detail, or something that should line up with something else and doesn't, or something that you should be able to see and can't. A tender footplate and a loco footplate that should be at the same level and are not is one that often jumps out at me, or a footplate that is not level and slopes down at one end or the other. That is more common than many realise! Boiler handrails that are not parallel to the footplate when they should be is another.  

 

In the DJH Atlantic, for me that was the cylinders and the fact that the slidebars and piston tail rods should be tucked up under the footplate and are not. The other faults, like the overall height, might jump out if the loco is next to another one or pulling a train and it towers above the carriages but if they are faults that you have to measure to tell that they are wrong, I can usually live with that.

 

I once spent a long time making a GCR Q4 from a Millholme kit. I altered lots of parts and added much detail but if somebody now told me that it was 2mm too long or short, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.   

 

I don't know about the splasher tops, I'm also unable to find anything concrete about their colour, and of course, it's a difficult area to photograph in real life. Maybe the next one I make I can finish in green.

[Tom F]

Thank you all for the information regarding 60813, fascinating subject.

 

It's these sort of helpful discussion's which really can help when one's mental health isn't at it's best. Thank goodness for RMweb in what has been a very difficult time for some of us.

 

Thanks chaps.

 

 

[Headstock]

15 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

With a GNR Atlantic, building a dead scale model is nigh on impossible unless you work in P4 and even then, the clearance between the driving wheels, shrunk down to 4mm scale, is almost nothing. So a slight increase in wheelbase or a slightly smaller wheel are almost unavoidable.

 

Both the Atlantic models featured above, in 2mm and 4mm scales look very nice indeed.

 

I do note that one has green splasher tops, the other black. One day, I will establish which one is right, or it could well be that both are. If both are, I would like to establish whether the difference is down to a date, a change in specification, a works, or whether the people in the paintshop that day thought they should be black or green because it didn't say which in the spec.

 

I am sure that many of my models contain dimensional errors that I know nothing about. Even the present model of Valour I am building has at least one that I do know about, which I am keeping quiet about because nobody other than me will ever tell. I spotted it too late to correct without major work and it stays!

 

I have never found an error such as a loco being 1mm or 2mm too long or short as being of any concern unless it is something that shows up badly if it is placed next to something else.

 

The things that bother me are the when something "doesn't look quite right" which is almost undefinable. It is usually a proportion, or a detail, or something that should line up with something else and doesn't, or something that you should be able to see and can't. A tender footplate and a loco footplate that should be at the same level and are not is one that often jumps out at me, or a footplate that is not level and slopes down at one end or the other. That is more common than many realise! Boiler handrails that are not parallel to the footplate when they should be is another.  

 

In the DJH Atlantic, for me that was the cylinders and the fact that the slidebars and piston tail rods should be tucked up under the footplate and are not. The other faults, like the overall height, might jump out if the loco is next to another one or pulling a train and it towers above the carriages but if they are faults that you have to measure to tell that they are wrong, I can usually live with that.

 

I once spent a long time making a GCR Q4 from a Millholme kit. I altered lots of parts and added much detail but if somebody now told me that it was 2mm too long or short, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.   

 

Good morning Tony,

 

there you go.

 

[Atso]

Just now, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Tony,

 

there you go.

 

 

One of my favourite colour photos and the reference for my own model of 3286 that I am building.

[Headstock]

5 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

And now for something slightly different.......................

 

I met up with Graham Nicholas yesterday at Gratham Station, where he returned a couple of locos to me. One of them was my model of SIR NIGEL GRESLEY. 

 

 

 

 

This was built with one specific purpose in mind - to run on Shap on the layout's first appearance at the Warley Show a couple of years ago, celebrating 1967; steam's last full year on the great gradient. 

 

Graham was building the layout 'in secret' and he asked me if I'd build the A4 to represent its first revenue-earning runs after preservation. I'd photographed the real loco on Crewe South shed in 1966, still in BR green, and also on the first of her preservation runs from Crewe to Carlisle at the beginning of April 1967. 'It's needed for Warley' I was told, some nine months before. A kit-build was necessary because of the imperative for the loco to climb the bank with at least ten-on. 

 

I built it in less than a week (using a SE Finecast kit) and handed it over to Ian Rathbone (who painted it - perfectly - in record time! Thanks again Ian). 

 

Shap now, of course, is mainly representative of earlier BR days, so the A4 in LNER blue is now of no real necessity. What to do, then?

 

 

 

Here she is yesterday, incongruously hauling the morning York/Hull-Kings Cross express (a hefty load) through Little Bytham. 

 

Despite the excellence of Ian's painting, the loco like this is of no use to LB. That being the case, I'll solder a front numberplate on and get either Ian or Geoff Haynes to repaint her into BR green. In that guise, I can add a year to Bytham's depiction and replicate 60007 breaking the post-War steam record for steam - racing through Little Bytham! 

 

Graham and I spoke (over socially distanced coffees) about exhibitions - both Shap and Grantham were to attend several this year and next, and on into the future. Covid put a stop to that.

 

He takes a more 'optimistic' view of the future than I do (being naturally pessimistic, I'm rarely surprised), but I'm convinced that many 'exhibition' layouts will never be seen by the public again, at least in physical form. I have no crystal ball, but what might be the earliest date for an exhibition in the future? A year? Two? Three? More? By which time many of the operators will either be too old or even worse!  Anyway, because of the age-profile of most show-goers, most would be in the 'at risk' groups, including me; because of age! 

 

I know many who build locos and stock which are only ever used at shows, their having no layouts of their own. Their locos/stock can't even be run at clubrooms because of the current restrictions. 

 

And what about layouts being built with exhibitions in mind? How many will actually be completed?

 

My view, for what it's worth, is that we'll see far fewer exhibition layouts in future (some, as I say, never again) and there'll be a resurgence in the number of 'layouts which never leave home'.

 

We live in unprecedented times!

 

 

 

Good morning Tony,

 

If model railway exhibitions are of the agenda for a couple of years, there is always RM web. There is no doubt that the current situation will produce some negative and hidden effects on the Hobby. On a brighter note, perhaps an intermission may provide  the opportunity to produce better models for the future. I don't know if what I'm currently producing, will ever get the chance to run on the layout they are intended for, only time will tell. One thing is for sure, it will not stop me building. Anybody up for a B7?

 

What a shame about SNG, it needs rescuing from the green mould by locomotive rights campaigners. Surely the solution is to leave the loco as it is and repaint the stock!

Edited July 28, 2020 by Headstock
add comment.

[LNER4479]

26 minutes ago, Headstock said:

Anybody up for a B7?

 

Very much looking forward to you (and others) having a crack at it - just as soon as I can get the full kit of parts to you.

[Headstock]

5 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Very much looking forward to you (and others) having a crack at it - just as soon as I can get the full kit of parts to you.

 

Good morning Graham,

 

did you ever here of the Black Pig rambler, the famed B7 railtour over Shap?

[LNER4479]

8 minutes ago, Headstock said:

 

did you ever here of the Black Pig rambler, the famed B7 railtour over Shap?

No - do tell ...

[grahame]

On 27/07/2020 at 10:38, great central said:

 

I think it's all to easy to be dispirited by other people's standards. There are some very fine models shown on the internet nowadays, many of them on this very thread. There are also many not so great models shown that, nonetheless, the builder is proud of, but can be then totally deflated by some people's comments.

 

 

I understand the issue concerning critical comments potentially being conceived as hurtful and that seeing great quality models could be dispiriting, but on the flip side is there not the case that those superb models can act as inspiration and galvanise the modeller to make the effort to improve their standards? And, of course, there is no law or mandate that ones modelling efforts have to match the standards of RTR or the finest professional practitioners finished models.

 

Presumably there are many who are happy with their efforts and enjoyed the process and journey in producing them. Often there is no RTR model to compare against which may well mean they have created something unique. Perhaps it's more about joining in the modelling community and having a bash. Most in that community will encourage and help with experienced advise to overcome sticky stumbling bocks. Next time you might even produce a sublime model. Is there really a case to get dispirited or give up if you judge your own initial or current efforts not comparatively worthy?  Or some oik makes a sarky comment about your models.

 

Hopefully I can rise above any damning criticism or learn from that which is constructive. I know that I've improved over time but accept that I've still got a long way to go. And I'm not about to throw it all in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Edited July 28, 2020 by grahame

[Headstock]

13 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

No - do tell ...

 

Apparently, a record run was on the cards, until the locomotive pulled up at Tebay box and the crew started jeering and hurling coal at locomotives in the North Eastern Yard. The engine was last seen at Barnard castle, were it ran out of fuel after pursuing a rather cheeky J21.

[Northmoor]

3 hours ago, Atso said:

 

The coupled wheelbase is 0.35mm too long, the front bogie is slightly too far forward, all the loco wheels are undersize, the loco body is 0.25mm too long and 0.5mm too wide and the cylinders are slightly too big (to accommodate the cast slide bars). Does it look the part? I think so and I certainly don't think I could make it closer to scale. I really must finish the detailing and weather it (and finish building the other two that are in the works!).

Anyone who hasn't read the above but claims they can actually see those dimensional errors on this masterpiece needs to be taken aside and be told to not be such a complete and utter

.

.

.

.

<Connection terminated>

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Tony,

 

there you go.

 

 

Not much doubt about that one and I wish it was conclusive but that doesn't prove that all splasher tops were green all the time.

 

I am not bothered enough about it to start a major search through all my books and photos but I do recall finding very clear photos of ex GNR locos with black splasher tops in LNER Green livery, when I was working with Malcolm Crawley many years ago.

[Barry Ten]

Here's another DJH loco which probably isn't quite right in a number of ways, but at least it's of a type (southern 4-4-0s) where there's not much available in the RTR market, so you won't see many of these on layouts, and does at least run nicely.

 

I've posted pics of this before but I've now added guard irons, lamp brackets (still some to be done) and a few other gubbins. I think Tony mentioned that the pony wheels have the wrong number of spokes so they'll be changed in due course, and wheel balance weight added to the drivers. Once I've decided what duties the loco is most suited for, I'll add indicator discs.

 

Now that it's all but done, I'll mention a few struggles, mostly self-inflicted. Although I took what I thought was reasonable care in assembling the body, when I put primer on it, I began to realise there was something not quite right in the angle of the front cab plate relative to the firebox, on this side only. In the end I soldered a shim of thin brass onto the front of the cab, then filed it back, to get the cab looking square. You can just see the evidence of this beneath the front window. Then a real cock-up: somehow (being a careless berk) I managed to put a hot iron right through the cab side above the handrail on this side.  I built it back up with low melt, then filed and sanded it back, and reinstated the beading around the side cutout with brass wire. After all that, I still felt there was something off in regards to the boiler pitch/angle relative to the running plate, so I sawed through the smokebox saddle in order to get a little leeway for adjustment, basically the width of the saw blade, and then straightened things up and resoldered the saddle.

 

These were all avoidable problems, without a doubt (the moral is to take more care next time) but in digging myself out of various holes, I feel I've added a few tricks to my set of modelling skills, so in a way, they weren't entirely unwelcome.

 

 

Al

Edited July 28, 2020 by Barry Ten
typos and spelling

[Headstock]

33 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Not much doubt about that one and I wish it was conclusive but that doesn't prove that all splasher tops were green all the time.

 

I am not bothered enough about it to start a major search through all my books and photos but I do recall finding very clear photos of ex GNR locos with black splasher tops in LNER Green livery, when I was working with Malcolm Crawley many years ago.

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

nothing is conclusive. There are plenty of colour photographs that show green splasher tops, not one of black has been put forwards. Invariably, those images that have  been claimed to be black are from black and white photographs, that makes no sense, or just dirt as in the photo below. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, checking the records of individual works may supply some results,  though I believe that all the ex GN Atlantics were shopped at Doncaster? Early LNER liveries, when standardization may have been less enforced, is a possible place to look.