Wright writes.....

[unclebobkt]

There are articles in MRJ 143 & 144 covering the [Norman Solomon's]  building, laying and ballasting of 4mm trackwork.

 

 

 -- John.,

 - Thanks for posting the info..

 - One thing that has remained in my memory is NS's. use of a looking glass when checking curves, turn-outs etc.  as an extra aid in ensuring smooth transitions from straight to curve and/or back again.

 - As a matter of interest is it practicable to use Transition/Euler Curves in 00 gauge to enter and to exit the main curves, rather than going directly from straight tangent to main curve?

 --  :-)

Edited November 21, 2013 by unclebobkt

[westerner]

I used a 7ft long flexible strip of metal. Staring on the tightest part of the curve (on Wencombe that's 3ft radius) and just allowing it to bow out, if that's the right term until I was in the platform area where the track became straight.

[chrisf]

I hope this is not too much of a digression but those of us who follow the writings of Tony might like to seek out the December issue of BRILL. There we find part 1 of "A Cestrian's Urchin Tale" by the man himself, reminiscing about his spotting days in Chester.

 

Chris  [edited for incompetent typing!]

Edited November 25, 2013 by chrisf

[Tony Wright]

I haven't posted on this thread for a time, but one or two comments might seem pertinent now.

 

My thanks to all those who commented on the various Princes of Wales. I bow to the knowledge shown in these posts.

 

I'm glad Norman Solomon's work has been highlighted. Without doubt, his work is peerless and, though others make track professionally, the master is in a different league. If you really want to know how to make track, might I suggest attending one of the Missenden Abbey weekends, where Norman is one of the tutors. I used to be one, but circumstances change.

 

As for a further Little Bytham DVD, I don't know. The first one was actually rather poor in my opinion - badly made, with stills not put in where they should have been, much too much of my waffle and far too little of trains moving, even though many minutes were shot. It wasn't done by Activity Media unfortunately; certainly in terms of production quality.

 

Thanks to Chris Foren for his mention of the current BRILL, and my urchin Cestrian scribblings. I hope he liked it. As far as further Irwell publications are concerned, I've actually written a soft-back for them, to be published next year. Guess what, it's all colour and it's all diesel and electrics, featuring pictures I took in the '60s, '70s and '80s. How times change! If it's successful, there might be more.

 

Now, on to modelling - in view of the release of Hornby's latest RailRoad Mk.1s, I've just spent a couple of days 'fiddling' with them. I have to say, as 'layout coaches' these are outstanding value for money and, with just a little bit of work, run perfectly acceptably (visually and mechanically) alongside my Bachmann and kit-built alternatives. A description of all this will be published in the February 2014 issue of BRM. But for now, some pictures. One is a repaint.

 

 

 

 

I hope they load.......

[Mallard60022]

Hornby have a 'winner' again.......thanks T and others for conversations about these coaches (see too Peterborough North). Almost 2 MK1s for the price of one so to speak?

P

[davidw]

They look really good to me Tony. Is the entire rake (with the exception of the BG) Hornby?

Edited December 1, 2013 by davidw

[davefrk]

I just wonder if Hornby had these coaches on the drawing board or 'in tooling' when the Bachmann ones came out and have now decided to carry on with them hence the slightly lower level of detail compared to Bachmann. One would have thought they would try to out do Bachmann with a better product. The Hornby 08 and the BR guards van being cases in point.

 

Dave Franks.

[The Stationmaster]

I just wonder if Hornby had these coaches on the drawing board or 'in tooling' when the Bachmann ones came out and have now decided to carry on with them hence the slightly lower level of detail compared to Bachmann. One would have thought they would try to out do Bachmann with a better product. The Hornby 08 and the BR guards van being cases in point.

 

Dave Franks.

While these coaches seem to press some of the right buttons I think Hornby's greater interest now is in the area of price and production costs rather than fine detail.  The new Mk1s seem to exemplify that approach and maybe this new, primarily cost led, approach to manufacture could work particularly well in the case of coaching stock?

[coachmann]

While these coaches seem to press some of the right buttons I think Hornby's greater interest now is in the area of price and production costs rather than fine detail.  The new Mk1s seem to exemplify that approach and maybe this new, primarily cost led, approach to manufacture could work particularly well in the case of coaching stock?

It probably would for coaches seeing as most RTR folk are not fussy about detail. Moulded door handles make perfect sense and I was suprised when Hornby started fitting separate handles on their original LNER Gresley corridor coaches back in 2007-ish. In anycase, plastic was the wrong material for such separate fittings and would not have lasted two minutes in a kiddies hands.  

Edited December 1, 2013 by coachmann

[Tony Wright]

They look really good to me Tony. Is the entire rake (with the exception of the BG) Hornby?

David. In the shot of the BSK and CK, the furthest carriage is Bachmann (you can just make out the prominent roof ribs).

 

The two SKs are Hornby, of course, and the BG just in shot is by Bachmann, with the roof ribs removed and it having being weathered.

 

I just wonder if Hornby had these coaches on the drawing board or 'in tooling' when the Bachmann ones came out and have now decided to carry on with them hence the slightly lower level of detail compared to Bachmann. One would have thought they would try to out do Bachmann with a better product. The Hornby 08 and the BR guards van being cases in point.

 

Dave Franks.

Dave - I hope you're keeping well.

I don't believe Hornby had any such tooling in mind when Bachmann produced its range of Mk.1s in the last decade of the last century. Why? Until Bachmann brought out its range of Mk.1s, no 'serious' modellers would have used what had been previously available, not without extensive 'butchery'. Previously there'd been Lima, Replica, Hornby and Mainline (any more?). Granted, there were one or two in those ranges which required little modification (Replica's BG and Mainline's Restaurant Car) but the rest had armoured window reveals, generic roofs, wrong buffers and the wrong proportions to the windows. Hornby were in the 'trainset' market at the time, so sold as many of their old Mk.1s as they could to such purchasers. Prior to Bachmann's range, anyone who wanted a 'proper' Mk.1 built Comet kits or put Comet sides on donor vehicles (or PC sides or scratch-built or modified Kitmaster's). Thus, why would Hornby have invested thousands of pounds in new tooling for a model, targeted at a market, which, at the time, they weren't aiming for? Supposition, perhaps, but Bachmann obviously saw the 'higher end' market then, and went for it. 

 

As far as I know, the thinking behind these new Hornby cars is for a basically-accurate model, at a budget price which satisfies the 'trainset' market, yet, with a little work, looks fine on a layout. As for trying to 'out do' Bachmann, anyone who wanted dozens of accurate Mk.1s has probably got them by now (Retford has scores of them, for instance) so there is probably no economic point in producing a higher-standard model of a Mk.1, which would cost more than a Bachmann equivalent (and sell to whom?). In truth, particularly with regard to the far less prominent roof ribs, Hornby has out done Bachmann - all those endless hours with a chisel taking the wretched things off!

 

I think it's really a matter of simple choice. If you want separate handrails, full lettering/numerals and metal wheels, then Bachmann is the obvious choice. If those things aren't important, or you're prepared to do a bit (minus struggling with the roofs), then the cheaper option might be tempting. That said, don't you think it's a bit of a pity that Hornby has produced diagrams identical to those already available? To the trainset market it wouldn't matter a jot, but what a pity we didn't get a BSO, BFK or FO? Still, it means kit-building will still be alive for a bit longer.  

[davidw]

 

I think it's really a matter of simple choice. If you want separate handrails, full lettering/numerals and metal wheels, then Bachmann is the obvious choice. If those things aren't important, or you're prepared to do a bit (minus struggling with the roofs), then the cheaper option might be tempting. That said, don't you think it's a bit of a pity that Hornby has produced diagrams identical to those already available? To the trainset market it wouldn't matter a jot, but what a pity we didn't get a BSO, BFK or FO? Still, it means kit-building will still be alive for a bit longer.  

 

I've emailed SK with a request for a BSO, FO and RB, I think the BFK was limited in number and region to the midland. Further models would  open up the market. I suppose a full kitchen would/could also appeal to the trainset market...

Edited December 1, 2013 by davidw

[Tony Wright]

On a totally different subject to my most recent post, I've noticed on Hornby's P2 thread the mention of a sprung drawbar or such-like. 

 

I've been springing the drawbars on my kit-built locos for years. I've written about it on several occasions, but I'll mention it here if I may.It's not my invention - that was the brainchildren of the late Brian van Meeteren and his friend Alistair (?). I just plagiarised it.

 

It consists of no more than a length of 26 SWG (.45 mm) nickel silver wire of about an inch long, soldered at its back end to the tender soleplate (black arrow). As this protrudes through a slot in the tender dragbeam, it's bent downwards through 90 degrees (red arrow). It then engages with the eye of a split pin, protruding through a hole in the loco dragbeam. Behind the dragbeam, the split pin is held in tension by a coil spring (green arrow). Both the pin and coil spring (cut down to three quarter length) come from Jackson/Romford couplings.

 

With up to 13 carriages, the spring still remains in tension, until a bend is encountered, then the drawbar extends. The 'whip' in the nickel silver allows for bends and, back on the straight, the loco-tender intimacy is re-established.

 

I hope this helps.

 

 

  

[Tony Wright]

Having now thoroughly tested Hornby's latest RailRoad Mk.1s, in trains made up of other stock and by themselves, I've come to a few conclusions.

 

These are -

 

With replacement metal wheels they run just as smoothly as they did on the plastic originals but they're less likely to pick up dirt on the tyres.

With just a few minutes spent on adding more transfer data, they're improved considerably (though I didn't go as far as adding the solebar data).

In comparison with Bachmann Mk.1s, the moulded-on handrails and pipes aren't as good. However, you don't have the onerous task of removing the roof ribs.

Painting the roofs matt grey adds to the realism.

The overall finish is fully up to Bachmann's standard, and the lining is even finer.

Even with the extra cost of the wheels, they're still considerably cheaper than Bachmann's.

As 'layout' coaches they're 'perfect' when viewed from a reasonable distance, and, because they're lighter than Bachmann's they're easier to tow.

In rakes mixed with other Mk.1s, at a 'normal' viewing distance, when running by, it's almost impossible to tell which is which.

 

I've included some shots of them running on Little Bytham. The side-on shots show the cars sandwiched between two Bachmann cars (with their roof ribs removed). One shows my repaint of the WR SK into carmine and cream. I admit to leaving the cornice chocolate band untouched, and, if you look really closely, my painting up to the central lining band is a bit untidy in places (though this is really only apparent via the camera). In comparison, the Bachmann carmine looks much darker. Any comments, please? The comparative guard's ends of the BSKs are illustrated - Bachmann's on the left. Both have been modified/detailed. Here, the differences are more apparent - separate pipes/rails, chalk panels adjacent to the doors and crisper lettering than the transfers. However, when bowling by..............Note also the lower position of the left-hand lamp bracket on the Mike Trice gangway end - much more common than Bachmann's.

 

So, overall? Obviously not up to the detail standard of Bachmann, with a little bit of work, ideal as layout carriages. And, I say again, you don't have to take off the roof ribs! 

 

 

As already mentioned, how I did all the little mods will be reported on in the February, 2014 issue of BRM.

[Barry O]

Tony

 

which ones are the correct ride height as the Bachmann ones appear to be higher than the Hornby ones - or is it just me?

 

Barry O

[Tony Wright]

Tony

 

which ones are the correct ride height as the Bachmann ones appear to be higher than the Hornby ones - or is it just me?

 

Barry O

I don't think it's just you Barry. The appears to be more of the tops of the wheels present above the bogies on the Bachmann carriages (can you have a top of a circle?), which suggests the Bachmann ones ride a bit higher. Looking at prototype pictures suggests Hornby's are nearer the right visual arrangement. But, looking at those same prototype pictures, depending on how old/worn the springs on the bogies are, carriage ride height seemed to differ anyway. Speaking of the bogies, Hornby's are more realistic, in my opinion, because the surface detail is deeper and crisper.   

[Barry O]

Thanks Tony

I thought it was my wonky eyes!  They do look good Value for money - I wonder if Hornby will do the bogies as a "spare" ? 

 

Barry O

[coachmann]

Neat comparisons there Tony, which I have followed with interest. I would replace plastic sides as a matter of course, as I cannot stand lozenge windows, but the moulded end handrails are the killer. To me a Bachmann RTR carriage is a bargain so, even after fitting etched brass sides, I still have a very good scale model with wire handrails/pipes running up onto the roof.

Edited December 3, 2013 by coachmann

[Tony Wright]

Neat comparisons there Tony, which I have followed with interest. I would replace plastic sides as a matter of course, as I cannot stand lozenge windows, but the moulded end handrails are the killer. To me a Bachmann RTR carriage is a bargain so, even after fitting etched brass sides, I still have a very good scale model with wire handrails/pipes running up onto the roof.

I agree entirely, Larry, if you want a carriage to the standards to which you can aspire, especially with your outstanding painting.

 

But, for 'layout' carriages (by that I mean vehicles in rakes of up to 13, and lots of those), I think these Hornbys have a place, as I hope my pictures show. 

 

I also agree about the lozenge window effect (which no manufacturer of plastic-sided carriages has ever solved) but, ironically, it does give an effect, from certain angles, of the wooden surrounds to the inside of the windows. I've only ever seen interior wooden window rebates/reveals modelled once, in 4mm, by Rodney and Vera Cooper. It was at a Scaleforum some years ago, and their carriage justifiably won first prize. Whether they put the moisture-capturing grooves in the bases or not, I wouldn't know, but I'd not be surprised if they did!

 

So, whilst agreeing in principle with everything you say, I still think these budget cars have a place with just a bit of work. As I imply, on a layout, the compromises are less apparent, and, I can't tell, in the 'going-away' shot of the three Hornby carriages whether they have moulded-on handrails or not, even though I know they do. But, in the close-up comparison of the two brake ends, I agree, you can. 

 

By the way, I've got a couple of friends coming over to operate tomorrow. One has seen these cars, one has not. My intention is to put the four into different trains and run them round. These trains are a mixture of Comet, Bachmann, Southern Pride and Comet/PC overlays making up the Mk.1s, plus Comet, Trice, Southern Pride, BSL, etc for the Gresley/Thompson stock. I'll not say anything, but ask them if they noticed afterwards.

 

Many thanks for your interest and comments. 

[Tony Wright]

In answer to the tests, it had to be pointed out to my friends which carriages were which as the trains rolled by.

 

Those observers familiar with Great Northern's justifiably most-popular Peterborough North layout might note a reference there where I consider some A4 modelling options in OO, posting them here. I hope these are of interest. 

 

Coachman considers the slab sides to the Hornby A4 cylinders let the models down a bit, and I agree with him. but, the bodies have to come off, so there's a bit of a compromise.

 

 

 

Here's a Hornby A4 repainted by Ian Rathbone. I've close-coupled the tender and added decent bogie wheels. The cylinders remain flat and it's a pity the return crank leans the wrong way on this side. It's also a pity that the piston rod, crosshead and slidebars lean up towards the rear - the opposite of what they should do. On a layout, it looks OK though.

 

 

Here's another Hornby A4, this time renumbered/renamed by me and weathered by Ian. Improvements and criticisms as for 60008 remain the same, though this one hasn't lost its (very brittle) slidebar supports. It, too, looks all right on a layout.

 

 

This is a SE Finecast A4, built by me and painted by Ian. It tows a Crownline streamlined non-corridor tender. The lubricator drive is scratch-built. The loco proportions are a bit lumpen and it doesn't capture that subtle A4 shape as well as Hornby. That said, it's much more powerful and will pull a much greater load. The cylinder bases are slightly more rounded because the body comes off above the cylinders.

 

 

The 'ultimate' OO gauge A4? In terms of price, this Golden Age example probably is. However, in my opinion, it's nowhere near ten times better than a re-painted Hornby example (it costs over ten times more) and I think IR's painting of 60008 beats the painting on this. It's also impossible to close-couple the tender because of the plug-in arrangement for DCC operation. Since I have no use for DCC (I wholeheartedly dislike it), and it's by-passed on this model, I find the umbilical arrangement a real fag. And, despite claims that this loco will pull just about anything, it's not as powerful as my SE Finecast A4s and won't run quite as smoothly. Still, the smokebox opens and the middle cylinder drive is fully represented. In defence as well, the valve gear is outstanding. The cylinder bases are true-round as well - by far the best representation. On a layout, though, can you really tell the difference?

 

 

A  Bachmann body on a SE Finecast chassis, with a modified SE Finecast tender towed behind. The original split-chassis nonsense disintegrated so I made a proper one. This loco, too, separates above the cylinders, so the cylinder bases are more rounded. As usual, Ian Rathbone did the superb painting, and I did the usual mods. The tender's been modified to represent one of the trio cut down at the rear for the '48 exchanges, which 60034 kept until 1963 in a swop with FLYING SCOTSMAN.

 

I hope these prove to be of use as ideas.    

 

 

[will5210]

I can't believe the difference in shape of the running plates between the Golden Age & Hornby models! Which one is more correct I wonder?

[Tony Wright]

I can't believe the difference in shape of the running plates between the Golden Age & Hornby models! Which one is more correct I wonder?

Looking at my drawings, the highest point on the running plate should be just where the slidebar support bracket fits underneath it - so Hornby's is more correct it would seem, though it might be just a twitch too high. In respect of the most accurate shape for the running plate that probably goes to Bachmann, even though the Bugatti nose isn't quite right.

 

Interesting..........  

[davidw]

In answer to the tests, it had to be pointed out to my friends which carriages were which as the trains rolled by.

 

Those observers familiar with Great Northern's justifiably most-popular Peterborough North layout might note a reference there where I consider some A4 modelling options in OO, posting them here. I hope these are of interest. 

 

Coachman considers the slab sides to the Hornby A4 cylinders let the models down a bit, and I agree with him. but, the bodies have to come off, so there's a bit of a compromise.

 

60008 Hornby.jpg

 

Here's a Hornby A4 repainted by Ian Rathbone. I've close-coupled the tender and added decent bogie wheels. The cylinders remain flat and it's a pity the return crank leans the wrong way on this side. It's also a pity that the piston rod, crosshead and slidebars lean up towards the rear - the opposite of what they should do. On a layout, it looks OK though.

 

60017 Hornby.jpg

 

Here's another Hornby A4, this time renumbered/renamed by me and weathered by Ian. Improvements and criticisms as for 60008 remain the same, though this one hasn't lost its (very brittle) slidebar supports. It, too, looks all right on a layout.

 

60026 SE Finecast.jpg

 

This is a SE Finecast A4, built by me and painted by Ian. It tows a Crownline streamlined non-corridor tender. The lubricator drive is scratch-built. The loco proportions are a bit lumpen and it doesn't capture that subtle A4 shape as well as Hornby. That said, it's much more powerful and will pull a much greater load. The cylinder bases are slightly more rounded because the body comes off above the cylinders.

 

60027 Golden Age.jpg

 

The 'ultimate' OO gauge A4? In terms of price, this Golden Age example probably is. However, in my opinion, it's nowhere near ten times better than a re-painted Hornby example (it costs over ten times more) and I think IR's painting of 60008 beats the painting on this. It's also impossible to close-couple the tender because of the plug-in arrangement for DCC operation. Since I have no use for DCC (I wholeheartedly dislike it), and it's by-passed on this model, I find the umbilical arrangement a real fag. And, despite claims that this loco will pull just about anything, it's not as powerful as my SE Finecast A4s and won't run quite as smoothly. Still, the smokebox opens and the middle cylinder drive is fully represented. In defence as well, the valve gear is outstanding. The cylinder bases are true-round as well - by far the best representation. On a layout, though, can you really tell the difference?

 

60034 Bachmann SEF chassis and tender.jpg

 

A  Bachmann body on a SE Finecast chassis, with a modified SE Finecast tender towed behind. The original split-chassis nonsense disintegrated so I made a proper one. This loco, too, separates above the cylinders, so the cylinder bases are more rounded. As usual, Ian Rathbone did the superb painting, and I did the usual mods. The tender's been modified to represent one of the trio cut down at the rear for the '48 exchanges, which 60034 kept until 1963 in a swop with FLYING SCOTSMAN.

 

I hope these prove to be of use as ideas.    

 

I've 60033, a certain GRK altered the tender for me. I'd not realised that the original 1928 corridor tenders weren't symmetrical. Hornby seem to have copied UofSA, which as perserved is....

Edited December 5, 2013 by davidw

[micklner]

I prefer the look of the Hornby version.  Perhaps the valve gear on Dwight could be gently persuaded to go a bit lower? they can easily get bent same on A3's where they can leave a pronounced gap between the valve gear and the footplate.

 

The Golden Age version for the price  has a very spindly looking Ashpan lever and the Oil Lubricator drive looks most odd does it work ? it looks like it has been damaged and repaired ? Would the Cylinder Draincocks been still bent ?

Lastly Cabside wind defectors slightly  bizarre shape?

 

 

Nice models.

Edited December 5, 2013 by micklner

[will5210]

Yes all interesting stuff. Hornby seems to be the best to me too:

Dwight D Eisenhower by stormdog42, on Flickr

[Brian D]

Sorry if my following remarks drag this off topic somewhat or have been adequately addressed elsewhere on RMWeb but to my relatively untrained (sorry for the pun - couldn't resist) eye, all of these A4s look superb, only spoiled in my eyes by the disproportionate size and whiteness of the headlamps which I also find glaringly obvious in all model railway magazine photos etc. where headlamps are fitted.  Whilst it is imperative I think we would all agree to add correct head lamp codes to your layout trains, the size and whiteness is not realistic IMHO.  There is surely a market for scale size lamps, admittedly the lamp handles themselves may be difficult to replicate to scale (is it this that makes them look disproportionately huge?).  If you look at 1950s/1960s photos, even in colour, the headlamps are as not glaringly obvious as modelled currently.

Just a thought.

Regards,

(edited to sound less like a rant)

Edited December 5, 2013 by Brian D