Wright writes.....

[LNER4479]

4 hours ago, jwealleans said:

 

It's true.  Don't let anyone know but we can't tell them apart.

 

Those aren't tractors. Tractors are green. I know this 'cos I already have one loaded up thus:

Is this another RTR aberration? Apparently, the LMS D.1986 (that the wagon I've just built is a rough approximation of) was the only LMS designed Low. There were some earlier wagons of similar style for container traffic (ex-LNWR) but the closest match I can find for this is the earliest batch of BR Lows, dia. 1/001, drop sides and drop ends (as per the model). Oh dear.

 

Anyway, I've resolved to use this and my new wagon (plus a couple of others) to more closely replicate the latter end of that c.1952 Class D Express Goods we run on Shap.

 

Here - slightly naughtily - is a close up of the wagons concerned (nos 14-19 in the train). Being a Class D, they're far enough back in the train to be unfitted. I THINK they're tractors, certainly look like some form of farm machinery. 

 

Any thoughts / comments gratefully received. 

Edited January 1, 2022 by LNER4479

[Tony Wright]

I think the best piece of model railway news over the last couple of years has been Retford's saving, by Sandra Orpen. It's her intention (with help) to complete Roy Jackson's heroic masterpiece. 

 

I'm helping in a modest way to start with by providing some locomotives. Including.........

 

 

A modified/detailed/renumbered/renamed/weathered Bachmann D11, re-gauged to EM by Ray Chessum.

 

 

This is a 'back and forth' V2. Originally built in OO by John Houlden from a variety of parts for use on his (now cremated) Gamston Bank, it was loaned to Roy, who then made EM frames for it (what happened to the original OO set is not known). After Roy's death, it was given back to John, who then gave it to me (for my help in selling his OO models). I then made another set of OO frames for it, 'pinching' the wheels and motor/gearbox from the EM chassis, just using new axles. I then sold the EM frames to Ray Chessum for CRUK. After Sandra's purchase of Retford, and knowing there can never be too many V2s for the vast system, Ray gave me the EM frames back (for nothing), and then, by fitting all new wheels and a DJH motor/gearbox, I got it running in 18.2. I've now loaned it back to Sandra. Its OO 'boots' are here. 

 

Getting the best of both worlds..........

 

 

I've done a similar thing now with other locos, including this DJH A2 I built (which Geoff Haynes painted for me). Some time ago (years) I'd built a set of EM frames for an A2 so that BRONZINO could run on Retford (keeping her OO set here). Since Roy never appeared to use the loco, I took it back and sold the EM chassis to a friend. Coincidental with Sandra buying Retford, Charlie decided he had no need for the EM A2 chassis, so I bought it back from him! BRONZINO now remains on Little Bytham, and SUGAR PALM's OO chassis is here as well. I'm delighted Sandra uses 60526.

 

 

One ongoing problem on Retford was the resident B17's inability to haul the heavy boat train. All manner of attempts to increase the Footballer's tractive effort (including some kind of snot!) failed.

 

I'd built CLUMBER in OO for use on Little Bytham, but she's really inappropriate for the ECML proper north of Peterborough. So, I built her an EM chassis (keeping the OO one here) and packed every spare orifice (body and frames) with lead. The result? Success, as Robert Carroll has shown on video. 

 

I thought I'd forgotten to take a picture of her complete and in action on Retford, but I must have done.

 

Thanks to Ray Chessum for making the tender sub-frame and to Geoff Haynes for painting/weathering her.

 

I think she'll be on loan to Retford for a long time.....................

 

Such is the generosity of spirit among Wright writes' readers, that I was given a mostly-built Millholme Ivatt 4MT in EM. 

 

 

I made a donation to CRUK for it, but its frames were to full EM width (rendering conversion to OO all but impossible without a major rebuild). No matter, I completed it, painted and weathered it and then gave it to Retford. 

 

What next? I already have the EM loco and tender frames made for DANTE............

 

 

[Headstock]

23 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

 

 

Here - slightly naughtily - is a close up of the wagons concerned (nos 14-19 in the train). Being a Class D, they're far enough back in the train to be unfitted. I THINK they're tractors, certainly look like some form of farm machinery. 

 

Any thoughts / comments gratefully received. 

 

Bottles of Champaign?

[Headstock]

 

Here's a genuine train taken from a photograph. I had no choice, some fiend had bought up all the tractors. It shows ex military vehicles being tripped to the Ministry of Supply auctions at Ruddington.

 

Author of the photo unknown.

 

 

 

 

[LNER4479]

1 hour ago, LNER4479 said:

I THINK they're tractors, certainly look like some form of farm machinery. 

 

 

Update. Tractors were sometimes (often?) loaded thus:

 

That makes a bit more sense of the apparent jumble of shapes in the image above. Makes more efficient use of the wagons - do the rear of the tractors somehow interlock?

(note - I think - three different wagon types!).

 

Edited January 1, 2022 by LNER4479

[Headstock]

A  more compact version with used tractors rather than brand new. For modelers with not a lot of space.

 

[Atso]

A happy New Year to everyone on Wright Writes!

 

While still more or less in wagon building mode, I've finally gotten some reasonably successful prints of the 65'6" Restaurant First and Pantry Third for my c. 1934-35 Scarborough Flier set.

 

 

 

The toplights are still a little wonky but I've compensated for that by making the lower part slightly thicker so that I can gentle sand them flat(ish). The underframe for the RF hasn't been given a coat of primer as it is actually a failed print (other side is a bit of a mess). I'll be looking to reprint this once the six wheel bogies have finished printing.

 

I'm looking forward to doing more on this set as it is a mix of 52'6", 58'6", 61'6" and 65'6" GNR/LNER Gresley stock which I think will give it some character. 

[31A]

3 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

Is this another RTR aberration? Apparently, the LMS D.1986 (that the wagon I've just built is a rough approximation of) was the only LMS designed Low. There were some earlier wagons of similar style for container traffic (ex-LNWR) but the closest match I can find for this is the earliest batch of BR Lows, dia. 1/001, drop sides and drop ends (as per the model). Oh dear.

 

Seems to be the Bachmann (originally Mainline) LNER Lowfit.  The body is quite good, but it should have had a wooden underframe with the LNER 8 shoe clasp brake arrangement; instead of that they've always put it on their 'standard' steel solebar 4-shoe underframe, and have sold it in various spurious liveries.  In the past I have built a new underframe for one, but using the Parkside kit is an easier way at arriving at the LNER wagon, per my picture above.  Unfortunately I don't think it's very like any LMS wagon!

 

[TheSignalEngineer]

5 hours ago, FarrMan said:

As one to whom GWR is their favourite railway, I do appreciate this comment. In the same spirit that all railway modellers look the same?

 

Lloyd

Nah, there's at least two kinds, bald and grey.

[Headstock]

2 hours ago, 31A said:

 

Seems to be the Bachmann (originally Mainline) LNER Lowfit.  The body is quite good, but it should have had a wooden underframe with the LNER 8 shoe clasp brake arrangement; instead of that they've always put it on their 'standard' steel solebar 4-shoe underframe, and have sold it in various spurious liveries.  In the past I have built a new underframe for one, but using the Parkside kit is an easier way at arriving at the LNER wagon, per my picture above.  Unfortunately I don't think it's very like any LMS wagon!

 

 

Cambrian do quite a reasonable LMS late period Low goods. One of the distinguishing features being the exposed ends to the floor planks.

 

[60027Merlin]

Tony,

 

Your archive feature jogged my memories of visits to you some years ago and hopefully you do not mind me posting a few of the snaps I took from these enjoyable visits which seem like decades ago in these restrictive Covid times.

 

Eric

 

2016

 

 

 

2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[90164]

6 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

Update. Tractors were sometimes (often?) loaded thus:

 

That makes a bit more sense of the apparent jumble of shapes in the image above. Makes more efficient use of the wagons - do the rear of the tractors somehow interlock?

(note - I think - three different wagon types!).

 

They all seem to have LNER style brakegear but the middle one is a BR steel bodied wagon.

 

Regards

 

Frank

[Dylan Sanderson]

Good evening everyone, hope everyone has had a brilliant and safe festive period!

 

Some of you may know I’ve been planning to build Deerness Valley Junction, but I’ve decided this was too much to cram in on my 15x2ft boards, so I’ve had to change my plans, and have since decided to build something resembling Escrick. A relatively small ECML station just south of York (before the Selby Diversion rerouted it)

 

 

 

 

I’ve thrown some loose track and stick down, and it appears to fit nicely and suit all my requirements!

 

 

Only issue is I’m rather set on having a branch line, so I’ve decided to add one. Rule 1 n’ that!

 

 

But, I’ve come a blank with the track plan. I can’t for the life of me think what the permanent way would like that will allow pick up goods to be picked up/dropped off by both up and down branch line trains.

 

So far, the best I’ve come up with is what’s crudely sketched below, but someone pointed out that the single slip doesn’t look right. In this plan, all pick up goods would have to stop in the Down Branch, where the loco can go about its business.

 

Does anyone with more Permanent Way knowledge than me know what the track plan would look like that would allow pick up goods to operate in both directions? I’d much appreciate any advice, my mind’s drawing a blank!

 

Many thanks everyone!

 

Dylan

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, 60027Merlin said:

Tony,

 

Your archive feature jogged my memories of visits to you some years ago and hopefully you do not mind me posting a few of the snaps I took from these enjoyable visits which seem like decades ago in these restrictive Covid times.

 

Eric

 

2016

 

 

 

2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mind Eric?

 

I'm delighted. 

 

Thanks for posting these shots. Do you have any more?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, 90164 said:

They all seem to have LNER style brakegear but the middle one is a BR steel bodied wagon.

 

Regards

 

Frank

 

Good evening Frank,

 

the earliest batches had the LNER vac brake and less ribs on the body. Later batches had the cheap as chips Morton pattern and the final batches had the BR version of the eight shoe clasp brakes. A kit was available from Red Pander for the later version and can still be sourced. Replacement chassis and brake gear are available for the LNER and Morton braked batches from Parkside.

[uax6]

9 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

 

 

Anyway, I've resolved to use this and my new wagon (plus a couple of others) to more closely replicate the latter end of that c.1952 Class D Express Goods we run on Shap.

 

Here - slightly naughtily - is a close up of the wagons concerned (nos 14-19 in the train). Being a Class D, they're far enough back in the train to be unfitted. I THINK they're tractors, certainly look like some form of farm machinery. 

 

Any thoughts / comments gratefully received. 

 

Could they be David Brown tractors from Meltham? They used to send block trains of them out. The bodies would have been white, its difficult to say what the colour of those are from the photo mind....

 

Andy G

[Michael Edge]

1 hour ago, Dylan Sanderson said:

Good evening everyone, hope everyone has had a brilliant and safe festive period!

 

Some of you may know I’ve been planning to build Deerness Valley Junction, but I’ve decided this was too much to cram in on my 15x2ft boards, so I’ve had to change my plans, and have since decided to build something resembling Escrick. A relatively small ECML station just south of York (before the Selby Diversion rerouted it)

 

 

 

 

I’ve thrown some loose track and stick down, and it appears to fit nicely and suit all my requirements!

 

 

Only issue is I’m rather set on having a branch line, so I’ve decided to add one. Rule 1 n’ that!

 

 

But, I’ve come a blank with the track plan. I can’t for the life of me think what the permanent way would like that will allow pick up goods to be picked up/dropped off by both up and down branch line trains.

 

So far, the best I’ve come up with is what’s crudely sketched below, but someone pointed out that the single slip doesn’t look right. In this plan, all pick up goods would have to stop in the Down Branch, where the loco can go about its business.

 

Does anyone with more Permanent Way knowledge than me know what the track plan would look like that would allow pick up goods to operate in both directions? I’d much appreciate any advice, my mind’s drawing a blank!

 

Many thanks everyone!

 

Dylan

You wouldn't normally have a facing slip connection from a running line - although I have one on Wentworth Junction!

[LNER4479]

Here's a sight that'll gladden a few hearts.

 

I do have - ahem - rather too many of these squashed LMS vans so I've come over all Clive and going to have a go at creating one out of two. The spare chassis thus released will come in useful as I've got a few of the old 1970s Mainline chassis that ought to be consigned to history. My recently built ABS LMS van is there for reference. I'll let you know how I get on...

 

 

[Iain.d]

56 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Here's a sight that'll gladden a few hearts.

 

I do have - ahem - rather too many of these squashed LMS vans so I've come over all Clive and going to have a go at creating one out of two. The spare chassis thus released will come in useful as I've got a few of the old 1970s Mainline chassis that ought to be consigned to history. My recently built ABS LMS van is there for reference. I'll let you know how I get on...

 

 

I saw the cut red(ish) wagons, the red on the work surface and the saw.... and for a moment, I thought you'd had a terrible accident...!

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

Edited January 2, 2022 by Iain.d

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, LNER4479 said:

Here's a sight that'll gladden a few hearts.

 

I do have - ahem - rather too many of these squashed LMS vans so I've come over all Clive and going to have a go at creating one out of two. The spare chassis thus released will come in useful as I've got a few of the old 1970s Mainline chassis that ought to be consigned to history. My recently built ABS LMS van is there for reference. I'll let you know how I get on...

 

 

 

That's a rather radical approach. I think it is worth replacing the roof at the same time, or at least thinning the edge, that on the model being as thick as slice of bread, . The rain strip is easily replaced and the T vents are more like pimples, so not much lost there. The only complication is the raised strip under the eaves on the body side, that genuine LMS vans lacked but the BR versions had. It would also be easier to produce it as a BR diagram because of the inverted vertical U channel, unless you fancy a bit more more surgery?

Edited January 2, 2022 by Headstock
add info.

[Dunsignalling]

2 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

Here's a sight that'll gladden a few hearts.

 

I do have - ahem - rather too many of these squashed LMS vans so I've come over all Clive and going to have a go at creating one out of two. The spare chassis thus released will come in useful as I've got a few of the old 1970s Mainline chassis that ought to be consigned to history. My recently built ABS LMS van is there for reference. I'll let you know how I get on...

 

 

Brave. Hope you don't need to make too many cuts before starting to reconstitute them.

 

John

[Iain.d]

A few days ago I started building three Peco/Parkside container wagons – the current discussion on wagons was the kick I needed to get going again with them. I had, many months ago, started the preparation – filing off the flash, drilling holes etc – but I got distracted. There was also some good inspiration on RMweb (a thread on Conflats from 2013 – sorry, don’t know how to make a link) much of the imagery by jweallans, and his pages on The LNER Encyclopedia website.

 

On mine, the bulk of the work is done: L-R, a Conflat A with FM container, Conflat A with BD container and a Conflat S with DX container. I will add weight to the containers as opposed to the wagon undersides. The DX container will likely be sheeted as I’m unsure what load could easily / successfully hide the lead weight that I’ll use.

 

 

There’s nothing particularly special or noteworthy about them. I do like to carve off much of the brake shoe moulded detail and replace it with brass, such as the Bill Bedford brake safety loops and I like to put in the various brake rods and levers. On the Conflat S there will also be safety loops on the brake shoe cross shafts. I have added loops to the containers corners and wagons bases for the securing chains. I have made up vacuum pipes, screw couplings and I’ll fit Gibson sprung buffers once painted

 

 

The securing chains are based on Roxey shackles and hooks. These are them being made up. The shock/spring absorber (I’m assuming that’s what it is) is made from 1.5mm OD tube with wire loops from soft brass wire (untwisted picture hanging wire) to secure the hook and shackle, all carefully soldered. They’re a bit overscale but they’ll do.  I had no chain and am waiting on the arrival of some cheap super fine stuff from the far east to finish them off.

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

Edited April 1, 2022 by Iain.d
Re-added photos

[Woodcock29]

Tony 

Here's a taste for you of 10000.

These were taken before I started to play around with it. The detail in the unusual cab is most impressive.

Since then I've removed the troublesome steps and have refitted them below the valence and further in from the edge.

I also removed a small amount from the top of the step fittings and reduced the depth of the actual steps.  On one side I've also chamfered the edges. Its all a bit of trial and error to see what works best before I decide whether I need to make some from brass. I'm also likely to remove the moulded handrails on the steps and replace with wire but I've left them there for strength at the moment. I've reduced the overall width from 44mm to 40.6mm. It doesn't interfere with any of the platform edges on my layout now.

 

Andrew

[cctransuk]

4 hours ago, Iain.d said:

 

 

It is my understanding that open containers were always carried in open wagons, not CONFLAT wagons.

 

This would explain why photos of open containers in trains are few and far between - you couldn't see them in an open wagon!

 

CJI.

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

Tony 

Here's a taste for you of 10000.

These were taken before I started to play around with it. The detail in the unusual cab is most impressive.

Since then I've removed the troublesome steps and have refitted them below the valence and further in from the edge.

I also removed a small amount from the top of the step fittings and reduced the depth of the actual steps.  On one side I've also chamfered the edges. Its all a bit of trial and error to see what works best before I decide whether I need to make some from brass. I'm also likely to remove the moulded handrails on the steps and replace with wire but I've left them there for strength at the moment. I've reduced the overall width from 44mm to 40.6mm. It doesn't interfere with any of the platform edges on my layout now.

 

Andrew

Thanks Andrew,

 

I hope the model of 10000 can be found at HQ. I'd like to take a close look at it, then write my review. 

 

Since I played no part in this model's development (and, thus, have no need to express an interest), I think I can write an impartial review (Howard Smith has asked me to). 

 

With regard to the Hornby A2/2s and A2/3s, since I assisted the designers with the models' developments, I thought it out of the question that I write the review. It was similar with the Bachmann V2; though I had little in the way of input compared with the Thompson Pacifics, I still told the designers, when the proving models were tested on LB, that it wouldn't be right for me to consider writing the review. 

 

As for the Oxford J27 (for which I wrote the BRM review), apart from loaning drawings and books, my input to that was nothing, other than the offering of some advice to the product manager. 

 

This sort of thing always raises some tricky questions. It's a privilege to be asked to contribute (in a small way) to RTR products' developments, but it does raise the issue of how impartial I might be if asked to write a review. As mentioned, in most cases, if I've assisted, then I won't write a review (the Heljan LNER Tangos spring to mind). In some cases, it's no more than providing prototype photographs and writing publicity pieces for a model - Accurascale's forthcoming Deltics, for instance. 

 

Of course, with the rise of the internet, anyone now can write and present a review. If they've paid for the model, then that is their privilege. Generally, RTR manufacturers send review samples to magazines FOC. They're then (in my case) used as guinea pigs for further improvement/alteration/weathering/etc and then sold-on for charity (or I keep them to run on LB - EARL MARISCHAL - for instance), or they're offered as prizes. I always send a copy of my review to the manufacturer beforehand (well, almost always - occasionally, a deadline is too tight), giving him/her the opportunity to respond via a right to reply. I consider that just common courtesy. 

 

Occasionally, my comments are acted upon - my mentioning to Simon Kohler about the out-of-gauge W1 steps will result in future runs having them as separate items, to be added by the purchaser, or not. Speaking of those steps, by moving them inboard a little, presumably they still cleared the motion? 

 

I also write book reviews. Here, the 'definitions' are a little blurred, and I must admit that I'll have often been asked by the publishers to proof-read works, provide photographs and/or write captions. Whether that sort of thing should preclude my writing of a review is a moot point. It's a similar thing when I'm a friend of the author(s).

 

Regards,

 

Tony.