Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

28 minutes ago, Woodcock29 said:

Tony

Further to my earlier post here's a photo of one of Alan Harrison's trio of BR Bachmann V2s. This time the left hand side. You can clearly see the extra thickness of the smokebox front with the rivets set way too far back from the front. Something that's also missing and visible in this photo, but easily rectified are the handrails on the curved sections of the footplate behind the buffer beam. 

Andrew

Thanks again Andrew,

 

Did 60847 lose its nameplates in its final manifestation?

 

This is my version (painted by Ian Rathbone)............

 

 

 

During its Stoke Summit days.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

[thegreenhowards]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

 

I'm sure the latest Bachmann V2 is selling very well. As you say, it's far superior to what went before.

 

Will most purchasers bother about the 'faults'?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

I’d be prepared to live with the faults - I’m sure there are less than on the rest of my fleet of V2s which are mainly Nucast!
 

But I can’t live with £200+ for a 00 RTR loco so I won’t be buying one (unless they hit Mick’s bargain boxes). I agree it’s cheaper than buying a new kit and it’s not that I can’t afford it - more a one man inflation resistance movement! And if I’m buying a new loco I’d rather pick a Nucast one up on ebay for under £100 and do some work on it or spend a bit more and get an O gauge Heljan diesel where I really feel I’m getting some bang for my buck.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Woodcock29]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks again Andrew,

 

Did 60847 lose its nameplates in its final manifestation?

Not that I'm aware of. Etched plates are provided that need to be fitted by the purchaser. However for a novice this would be difficult as there is nothing to fit them to. In due course I'll be fitting the plates and other detailing bits to Alan's trio. One of his others is the Rails exclusive Durham Light Infantry.

[polybear]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I'm sure the latest Bachmann V2 is selling very well. As you say, it's far superior to what went before.

 

Will most purchasers bother about the 'faults'?

 

 

Personally I suspect not - unless you have an encyclopaedic knowledge of V2's or are prepared (intent?) on poring over reference books and drawings looking for faults** then most (all?) will never be aware of any detail faults/dimensional errors etc.; things like the drawbar will of course be more apparent, but may well not concern too many people unless they have a larger layout where long trains can be run.

 

(**Please - don't anyone take this as a criticism as it's not intended to be)

[Headstock]

11 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

Tony

Whilst clearly the new Bachmann V2 is a vast improvement on the 1992 version there are several issues with the 2022 version. It does certainly look like a V2.

 

In the above photo all I've done is substitute the flanged cartazzi wheels (provided with the accessories)  and add the front vacuum pipe and a coupling. The engine to tender drawbar is a diabolical arrangement not suited to steam locos in my view and used previously on the Blue Pullman I'm informed. Its ugly from side on and stretches out as its sprung, when under load making the excessive gap even wider. Also it causes the tender to 'crab' along and on a moderate weight train (9 Hornby and Kirk Gresleys) caused the first carriage to derail a couple of times. I will need to change the drawbar arrangement.

 

The front of the smokebox is too thick and needs to be trimmed back. It doesn't look as bad on this LNER version as a BR version, as it doesn't have the ring of rivets set well back from the front. Fortunately its easily removed by dismantling the body and pushing the weight in the smoke box forward from behind. This pushes the front out at the same time sliding the handrails forward, which are simply bent around and fitted into holes in the smokebox front plate not into handrail knobs as they should be. This will be rectified shortly by filing back the rear of the smokebox front and refitting it, including with handrail knobs for the side handrails.

 

The valve gear is excessively chunky (cf with Hornby A2s or indeed the Bachmann Stanier Mogul). I think, although I can't prove it as I don't have the model, that Bachmann have simply used the valve gear from the chassis upgrade version of a few years ago. Or at least parts of it. On the left hand side the reversing rod is placed too low below the footplate (sorry haven't photographed that side yet). The only plus on the valve gear is that it at least it has a two layered expansion link (should be three of course). I have a plan for dealing with the valve gear - its called Comet.

 

The raised section of the footplate over the driving wheels is about 1mm too high compared with the Isinglass drawing. This accentuates how low the reverser is on the left hand side.

 

The footplate is adorned with rivets. Unfortunately a lot are in the wrong places. I've been studying V2 photos continually since receiving this model (Locos Illus 9, RCTS 6C, Yeadon Vol 4, The Book of the V2s, Gresley Obs 154 - The V2 issue, Gres Obs V2 Supplement), also a couple of photos posted for me by Mike Trice on LNER Forum of Green Arrow and an extensive range of V2 photos posted by Neil Dimmer also on the LNER Forum. The rivets along the outer edge above the cylinders and on the up slope to the rear of this all seem to be fiction, and maybe some in front of the smokebox. Whereas the side curves above the buffer beam are almost devoid of what in photos are the most prominent rivets on the loco. Each side piece has two rivets instead of eleven on the prototype. (I know that locally here in Adelaide I'm known as a rivet counter - this simply proves the fact!).

 

The livery is generally well done and I think the colour is about right. However, the thick moulded band at the front of the Vee has caused Bachmann to place the V in the lining too high making the black band look well overscale.

The cab side windows are marginally underscale but look better when the glazing in the rear windows are removed - I've done that since taking the photo.

 

As Tony indicated with the test pieces he had on LB there are some really nice aspects such as the off-set lubricators on the left hand side. the off-set plating around the snifting valve. Something I'm not clear on is whether in fact the safety valves should be set into a longitudinal open section in the front of the cab roof (as on the model) or simply set into the plating of the cab roof like on a A4? Can anyone advise please?

 

I'll be attending to the modifications in a couple of weeks after our daughter and her family have gone home to Qld. Unfortunately when they arrived the youngest granddaughter (4 yrs) brought an unwanted guest with her - Covid so we're in a 14 day lock down period. Both my wife and I and our other granddaughter have all contracted it now. But we're not too bad.

 

I'll post a photo when I've completed the upgrade.

 

St Enodoc will be surprised/interested to hear that I've started on a small scenic project on my layout with the elder granddaughter (7 tomorrow) now they're here for 14 days or more!

 

Andrew 

 

 

Good morning Andrew,

 

it's far too clunky looking for a V2 IMO. My own impression, in addition to your own comments, is that the running board valance on both loco and tender looks to thick. There is also some ill defined ugliness going on with the underside of the boiler, this area is so open on the prototype and hard to get right on a model. The LNER livery looks mostly good, excepting around the spectacle plate firebox band as you mention. I's a shame that Hornby couldn't have applied the same finish to the A2/3, it would have been the finest mass produced 4 mm LNER loco in my opinion. Based on photographs only of this model, I think that there are plenty of kit built V2's about that are better than this loco. I am rather pleased I ordered two of the Mike Trice bodies while the opportunity presented itself.

 

One caveat on your review, are you taking measurements from the written instructions on the isinglass drawing or measuring the drawing itself? If the latter, this is a no no, the isinglass drawings are not accurate enough to do this. Even on a works drawing, you should go by the written sizes and not measure the drawing itself.

[Woodcock29]

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

Good morning Andrew,

 

it's far too clunky looking for a V2 IMO. My own impression, in addition to your own comments, is that the running board valance on both loco and tender looks to thick. There is also some ill defined ugliness going on with the underside of the boiler, this area is so open on the prototype and hard to get right on a model. The LNER livery looks mostly good, excepting around the spectacle plate firebox band as you mention. I's a shame that Hornby couldn't have applied the same finish to the A2/3, it would have been the finest mass produced 4 mm LNER loco in my opinion. Based on photographs only of this model, I think that there are plenty of kit built V2's about that are better than this loco. I am rather pleased I ordered two of the Mike Trice bodies while the opportunity presented itself.

 

One caveat on your review, are you taking measurements from the written instructions on the isinglass drawing or measuring the drawing itself? If the latter, this is a no no, the isinglass drawings are not accurate enough to do this. Even on a works drawing, you should go by the written sizes and not measure the drawing itself.

Andrew

 

The measurements are based on figures on the drawing but also compare well with measuring off the drawing.

 

I agree the valence does also look too thick.

 

I'm going to have to be happy once I get around to making the refinements I've alluded to above. Although I did um and arr for bit as to whether to buy one. I'm trying now to spend my time on building what I already have in stock in the way of the kits - which is rather frightening so when a RTR option becomes available I usually take it. I do actually have a Proscale V2 to build one day - I've only had that for 37 years and I know it has a range of faults and difficulties. My first V2 , which I still have was a Bristol Models version which I built in 1978. I got it out recently to give it a run but it really needs a new up to date motor rather than the old MW005. Its obviously quite archaic in many ways but was part of my learning curve.

Andrew  

[micklner]

4 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

Mick the only two things of those I mention that can't be fixed are the height of the centre section of the footplate and the issue with the overscale band on the front of the V. I had actually hoped I could separate the cab (and the V front) from the firebox which is possible with most recent Bachmann locos I have - O4, D11, J11, C1 etc but it seems to be firmly glued together in that area as I think the firebox was initially a separate item. The slightly undersized cab windows look better with no glazing in the rear ones. However, of course none of these matters should have needed to be fixed. One of the most disappointing aspects is the valve gear which is just so chunky compared to any other recent models. But I can replace that - valve gear is something I love tinkering with. 

Andrew

Thanks for the extra information, it doesnt make encouraging reading at £200 plus !!

[Headstock]

5 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

Andrew

 

The measurements are based on figures on the drawing but also compare well with measuring off the drawing.

 

I agree the valence does also look too thick.

 

I'm going to have to be happy once I get around to making the refinements I've alluded to above. Although I did um and arr for bit as to whether to buy one. I'm trying now to spend my time on building what I already have in stock in the way of the kits - which is rather frightening so when a RTR option becomes available I usually take it. I do actually have a Proscale V2 to build one day - I've only had that for 37 years and I know it has a range of faults and difficulties. My first V2 , which I still have was a Bristol Models version which I built in 1978. I got it out recently to give it a run but it really needs a new up to date motor rather than the old MW005. Its obviously quite archaic in many ways but was part of my learning curve.

Andrew  

 

Afternoon Andrew,

 

it seems like you have a similar situation to myself, I will use RTR quite happily when I want to. Though being inspired by the real railway rather than wish lists, the major manufactures rather surprisingly don't deliver that much of use to myself. Once a decade they do and I snap it up.

 

I found myself in a similar position to yourself with the Bachmann V2 but concerning the Hornby A2/3. It was bought as a quick fix, mainly as a B16 backup loco but had a number of assembly issues that required a rebuild. It also needs a repaint so swapping it out for a replacement was pointless. It will probably stand idle for sometime as I have also decided to build the last few of my kits. Having seen the Bachmann effort, a Comet Trice Crownline V2 will probably displace the A2/3 anyway. I haven't given up on RTR locomotives completely, I will try the new A5 tank but if I am dissatisfied in anyway it will go back, no more adding to the cue.

Edited February 19, 2022 by Headstock
missing i

[micklner]

Graeme King resin V2 body  using the upgraded chassis version and Bachmann tender  , is the new one worth £200 plus more better ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, micklner said:

Graeme King resin V2 body  using the upgraded chassis version and Bachmann tender  , is the new one worth £200 plus more better ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Afternoon Mick,

 

you can pick fault with anything. However, I would much rather look at your V2 or Tony's V2 or any of the other stuff that people build, faults and all. This thread is rather rapidly becoming just another display cabinet for RTR loco photography, kind of boring.

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

Not that I'm aware of. Etched plates are provided that need to be fitted by the purchaser. However for a novice this would be difficult as there is nothing to fit them to. In due course I'll be fitting the plates and other detailing bits to Alan's trio. One of his others is the Rails exclusive Durham Light Infantry.

Thanks Andrew,

 

From what I've seen, the nameplates appear to be red.

 

When I built 60847, I phoned up St. Peter's School to see if anyone there knew the colour of the nameplate. Astonishingly, the headmaster answered the phone, and he asked me to wait a moment while he checked. 'We've got one of the actual nameplates in the school hall' he said. He told me the colours............

 

 

Which were black ground with orange stripes (which Ian Rathbone painted perfectly). 

 

I fixed a block of white metal behind the nameplates, and Ian Araldited them in place. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[great northern]

6 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks again Andrew,

 

Did 60847 lose its nameplates in its final manifestation?

 

This is my version (painted by Ian Rathbone)............

 

 

 

During its Stoke Summit days.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

847 did lose its nameplates late on Tony. There are photos in the latest books.

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

I’d be prepared to live with the faults - I’m sure there are less than on the rest of my fleet of V2s which are mainly Nucast!
 

But I can’t live with £200+ for a 00 RTR loco so I won’t be buying one (unless they hit Mick’s bargain boxes). I agree it’s cheaper than buying a new kit and it’s not that I can’t afford it - more a one man inflation resistance movement! And if I’m buying a new loco I’d rather pick a Nucast one up on ebay for under £100 and do some work on it or spend a bit more and get an O gauge Heljan diesel where I really feel I’m getting some bang for my buck.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good afternoon Andy,

 

There's nothing wrong with Nu-Cast V2s; and, I'd suggest that the latest RTR V2 doesn't have fewer faults than a kit-built one. Different ones, perhaps.

 

I built my first Nu-Cast V2 when the kit first appeared (though I scratch-built a chassis for it to replace the hefty white metal lump). That would be over 40 years ago now. 

 

About three years ago, I built yet another (using a Comet chassis this time).

 

 

Geoff Haynes painted it for me (the cylinders were lined by mistake, and I'll paint out that lining).

 

The livery application does seem to be good on the RTR equivalent. 

 

As a layout loco..............

 

 

 

I think my kit-built one suits.

 

Did it cost me in excess of £200.00? With the painting, certainly, but that was achieved via horse-trading. 

 

I'd had the kit for a few years, so what that cost I've no idea now. What do untouched Nu-Cast kits cost on eBay). Obviously, the Comet chassis, Markits wheels and DJH motor/gearbox combo were bought within the last three years. So, the answer to my first question has to be 'yes', and that's just for the parts.

 

Would I have been better off waiting for the latest Bachmann V2? There's no doubt the RTR product can be made to look very realistic (witness Tim Easter's work for Gilbert Barnatt on Peterborough North). However, that route is not for me, so I'll stick with making my own, even if the Nu-Cast V2 is getting on a bit now.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

7 minutes ago, great northern said:

847 did lose its nameplates late on Tony. There are photos in the latest books.

Thanks Gilbert,

 

I should have looked for myself.

 

Wasn't 60847 the one you had first? Did Tim alter it?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[great northern]

10 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Gilbert,

 

I should have looked for myself.

 

Wasn't 60847 the one you had first? Did Tim alter it?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Yes, that was the review one with spoked wheels.  The one thing Tim and I could not accept was the smokebox door, which he put right on that one, and has refined since with others. He isn't keen on the loco to tender arrangement either, and is working on a fix for that. The nameplates supplied are a very garish red, and didn't impress me much, but mine had its identity changed, so it didn't matter.

[thegreenhowards]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Andy,

 

There's nothing wrong with Nu-Cast V2s; and, I'd suggest that the latest RTR V2 doesn't have fewer faults than a kit-built one. Different ones, perhaps.

 

I built my first Nu-Cast V2 when the kit first appeared (though I scratch-built a chassis for it to replace the hefty white metal lump). That would be over 40 years ago now. 

 

About three years ago, I built yet another (using a Comet chassis this time).

 

 

Geoff Haynes painted it for me (the cylinders were lined by mistake, and I'll paint out that lining).

 

The livery application does seem to be good on the RTR equivalent. 

 

As a layout loco..............

 

I think my kit-built one suits.

 

 

Did it cost me in excess of £200.00? With the painting, certainly, but that was achieved via horse-trading. 

 

I'd had the kit for a few years, so what that cost I've no idea now. What do untouched Nu-Cast kits cost on eBay). Obviously, the Comet chassis, Markits wheels and DJH motor/gearbox combo were bought within the last three years. So, the answer to my first question has to be 'yes', and that's just for the parts.

 

Would I have been better off waiting for the latest Bachmann V2? There's no doubt the RTR product can be made to look very realistic (witness Tim Easter's work for Gilbert Barnatt on Peterborough North). However, that route is not for me, so I'll stick with making my own, even if the Nu-Cast V2 is getting on a bit now.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Good evening Tony,

 

Here are my 5 Nucast V2s lined up at Gresley Jn.

 

 

You sold me two of them - the lime green one and my namesake, 60835, The Green Howard. The other three were eBay purchases, all for between £50 and £87 - I also have an unstarted kit bought off eBay. All rather eBay ones needed some work to get them running smoothly and 869 recently chewed up its valve gear, but I enjoy that fettling part of the hobby.

 

835 (DJH GB1) and 814 (quiet Portescap) are both superb locos. The others all run OK, but with older motors and in the case of 869, on the original Nucast white metal chassis.

 

I do like a Nucast V2! 
 

Andy

 

 

 

[MarkC]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

When I built 60847, I phoned up St. Peter's School to see if anyone there knew the colour of the nameplate. Astonishingly, the headmaster answered the phone, and he asked me to wait a moment while he checked. 'We've got one of the actual nameplates in the school hall' he said. He told me the colours............

 

 

How wonderful. And, apropos of nothing in particular, I believe that Durham School has a nameplate off 60860...

[rowanj]

I built this V2 several years ago, as an old fashioned cut-and -shut. If I recall correctly, it was based on a suggestion made by Graeme King when he was developing his resin version.

The boiler is a shortened Triang A3, I think the smokebox is from the same source, but can't quite remember, The cab is a Hornby tender-drive A4, and the footplate is either Bachmann or GBL. I added a few wiggly pipes a la TW, and paired it with a Bachmann stepped GS tender .For variety, I lined the firebox band, as Darlington did when they started servicing the class after Doncaster ceased. It runs on an original split chassis, and runs well.

Edited February 19, 2022 by rowanj

[Headstock]

15 minutes ago, rowanj said:

I built this V2 several years ago, as an old fashioned cut-and -shut. If I recall correctly, it was based on a suggestion made by Graeme King when he was developing his resin version.

The boiler is a shortened Triang A3, I think the smokebox is from the same source, but can't quite remember, The cab is a Hornby tender-drive A4, and the footplate is either Bachmann or GBL. I added a few wiggly pipes a la TW, and paired it with a Bachmann stepped GS tender .For variety, I lined the firebox band, as Darlington did when they started servicing the class after Doncaster ceased. It runs on an original split chassis, and runs well.

 

That's and interesting wagon, should I be triggered?

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Good evening Tony,

 

Here are my 5 Nucast V2s lined up at Gresley Jn.

 

 

You sold me two of them - the lime green one and my namesake, 60835, The Green Howard. The other three were eBay purchases, all for between £50 and £87 - I also have an unstarted kit bought off eBay. All rather eBay ones needed some work to get them running smoothly and 869 recently chewed up its valve gear, but I enjoy that fettling part of the hobby.

 

835 (DJH GB1) and 814 (quiet Portescap) are both superb locos. The others all run OK, but with older motors and in the case of 869, on the original Nucast white metal chassis.

 

I do like a Nucast V2! 
 

Andy

 

 

 

An impressive line-up Andy,

 

I'm glad 60835 (which I re-motored before selling it to you) is still running well. It was built/painted by Bern Munday of the East Beds Club (sadly, the club looks like it'll struggle to hold any more exhibitions - something becoming more common with clubs because of members' ages/health). 

 

I have just four Nu-Cast V2s (as far as I can remember!). The one shown earlier and these............

 

 

This is not the first one I built (I sold the first one), but it's still over 40 years old. On its scratch-built chassis, it's given yeoman service, and I painted it. 

 

 

Acquired from the estate of the late Geoff Brewin, I finished it, built a new etched brass tender and Geoff Haynes painted it. 

 

 

Given to me by Jesse Sim, this was originally finished in the most-hideous shade of bright green. I detailed it, built a new chassis (Comet) for it (replacing the white metal lump) and painted/lined it in BR black. Geoff Haynes weathered it.

 

All these Nu-Cast V2s go like stink and are very powerful (just like V2s should be). 

 

To me, they're more characterful than any RTR equivalents and certainly more personal.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

 

[Barry Ten]

8 hours ago, Headstock said:

This thread is rather rapidly becoming just another display cabinet for RTR loco photography, kind of boring.

 

This'll go down well then 

 

What to do with an old Hornby tender-drive A3? Other than throwing it in the bin...

 

 

I bought this A3 at the Model Engineering show in Kensington Olympia, I'm guessing somewhere around 1998? It was one of the models Hornby were touting as their new super-detailed range, with finer wheels, a newer motor and a few extra details. I thought it was quite nice (not knowing anything about A3s) but once I got it back to Holland, it was a real disappointment. It ran well for a few laps, then the valve gear fell off. Not being competent enough to repair it, I sent it back to the shop and got another one sent out to me without any quibbling. However, the second one wasn't much better. It ran judderily despite the supposed better

motor; in fact it was worse than any of my older 70s and 80s tender-drive engines. Looking at the loco, it appeared that the flimsy pickups were not making good contact with the wheels. I tried adjusting them, but only made things worse. Then at some point I tried adding my own pickups, but that only made a slight improvement.

 

I decided to revisit the A3 with a fresh pair of eyes and - hopefully - the benefit of a few more years of modelling experience. The first thing was to bin my old pickups which were far too stiff, impeding (so it seemed) the free rotation of the drivers. I made new ones from 0.33m wire to give the maximum springiness. But, the chassis was still stiff, so more investigation was required. Lubrication didn't help much. However, once I got the keeper plate off, I could see that one of the bearings had unseated. Once

put back, the desired free-running returned. It's possible I buggered it up during my earlier attempts at adjusting the pickups.

 

The loco-tender electrical connection was that Hornby type with two springy contacts, and in this instance it just wasn't working properly. I already knew that the tender drive worked smoothly when power was applied, so the problem had to be in the connector. The Hornby method was abandoned, and a hard-wired connection made using a Comet two-pin connector. 

 

 

The result was a total transformation, with all the judderiness gone and the loco capable of - dare I say it - rather good running. Not quite up there with a new RTR loco drive or a Comet/DJH type mechanism, but very acceptable indeed for tender-drive. Since I don't model the ER, models like this are really only in my collection for the occasional bit of fun, and unless the existing performance was very bad, or the chassis hopelessly compromised in other respects, it really wouldn't be worth the time and money to substitute it for something more sophisticated. For the occasional ER jolly, it's more than adequate. Mainly, though, it's quite nice to finally have a Scotsman that runs decently.

 

Al

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 19, 2022 by Barry Ten
formatting

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, great northern said:

Yes, that was the review one with spoked wheels.  The one thing Tim and I could not accept was the smokebox door, which he put right on that one, and has refined since with others. He isn't keen on the loco to tender arrangement either, and is working on a fix for that. The nameplates supplied are a very garish red, and didn't impress me much, but mine had its identity changed, so it didn't matter.

Thanks Gilbert,

 

I don't know how many readers of Wright writes dip into Peterborough North (a few, I'd imagine), but would you mind showing us what Tim Easter has done for you with regard to Bachmann's latest V2s, please? Even if it might bore one party.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, MarkC said:

How wonderful. And, apropos of nothing in particular, I believe that Durham School has a nameplate off 60860...

Good evening Mark,

 

I read somewhere that Newcastle School was approached to see if it would like its name on a V2. The headmaster refused!

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

[landscapes]

7 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Afternoon Mick,

 

you can pick fault with anything. However, I would much rather look at your V2 or Tony's V2 or any of the other stuff that people build, faults and all. This thread is rather rapidly becoming just another display cabinet for RTR loco photography, kind of boring.

Hi

 

There is nothing wrong or boring about RTR railway photography 

[robmcg]

Good evening Tony, or morning...

 

With the nature of scale modelling being forefront, and I did rather over-do my reaction to your invitation regarding 9F photos, here is an example of just how well Bachmann did with their 2006 version,  in this case a Modelzone limited edition, of the preserved Bluebell Railway 9F 92240 in weathered BR condition.

 

I photographed it in its normal condition then superimposed a photo of the wheels and motion and injector pipes over the relevant parts.

 

How hard it is to replicate railways in model form!  The textures of metal on prototypes will be forever and elusive effect!

 

 

Standard condition as supplied by Bachmann, detail pack parts added.

 

 

Wheels and motion from prototype, about 90 degrees rotated alas, but the comparison is interesting. What a challenge for modellers and manufacturers to achieve this 'look', for want of a better word.

 

I agree Tim does beautiful work on Gilbert's Peterborough North locomotive fleet.

Edited February 19, 2022 by robmcg
typo