Wright writes.....

[Bucoops]

Hmm, I am actually getting dangerously close to finishing something (build wise, anyway - I want a few done before I look at paint and glazing).

 

 

I think it needs the roof domes blending in a bit better, paint, glazing, door furniture and handrails, corridor connections, lighting cables and the cornice (?) end pieces under the end of the domes and that's it (please chime in if you spot anything else!).

 

edit: Oh - rain-strips and destination board brackets too...

Edited May 23, 2022 by Bucoops

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Ray Flintoft said:

 Another model of 60508 in disreputable state . Painted & weathered by brush , this is a NuCast kit and is approaching it's 40th birthday .

                                         Ray .

Just how I remember her (him?) Ray,

 

Thanks for posting.

 

Nice to see (or not see!) as well those missing little steps on the front curved section of the footplate, adjacent to the smoke deflectors. On every other model of 60508 I've seen, apart from mine, they're present; as they were on 60507/9/10. One of those odd quirks of 'loco-picking'. Why 60508 among the quartet of A2/1s never got those steps is a mystery; they were there on the A2/3s...........

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

To illustrate what I mean about the A2/1s' footplate steps..............

 

 

Present on the likes of 60510............

 

 

But not on 60508. 

 

On the real thing, I wonder why not? 

 

My model of DUKE OF ROTHESAY is much too clean; though, fresh from shopping? 

 

 

Edited May 23, 2022 by Tony Wright
to add something

[dibateg]

Talking of grubby Gresleys... I can't believe this photo of 7mm scale E 82235 E was taken in 2009! I'm trying to remember how I weathered it, usually by painting the whole thing with a matt 62/black mix using a half inch brush and then wiped off, maybe before I put the windows in..  Kirk body, Newbold underframe and JLTRT bogies. After spending 10 years in a box, it is now with the others on my layout.. At least it turns a wheel once a month or so now..

 

Oh yes - I remember seeing a pic of those LMS artics on the GC line - with that distinctive sag in the middle!

 

Regards

Tony

Edited May 23, 2022 by dibateg

[dibateg]

Ah there it is - from one of Robert Robotham's books:

 

Photo originally taken by Tom Bousted.

 

Regards

Tony

[Tony Wright]

48 minutes ago, dibateg said:

Ah there it is - from one of Robert Robotham's books:

 

Photo originally taken by Tom Bousted.

 

Regards

Tony

Good morning Tony,

 

Would anyone build a model like that?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[gr.king]

I'm sure there are those who would build, or who have built a model like that (or much worse), albeit inadvertently, also lacking the ability to see what was wrong with it once it was "finished"...

[Willie Whizz]

Some of us might, though not necessarily on purpose … 

[30368]

20 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Would anyone build a model like that?

 

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

This image does seem to show a some sag although I wonder if the destortion is perhaps due to bogie/body ride hights? The centre articulated bogie end of each vehicle seems to riding lower than the other end of each vehicle? Irrespective of that, it is interesting that modellers would not replicate this prototype feature on a model! All those images of locomotive handrails bent in all sorts of angles have not, to my knowledge, appeared in models, except when not intended that is......

 

In the late 1980s when class 90/91 were being built at Crewe, all the frames had a pronounced design positive sag so that the frame was level when all the equipment was fitted, for example, the class 91 had four 1,500 hp traction motors mounted in the body with an articulated drive to the gearboxes, these were rather heavy as was the tranformer! I am less familiar with coach design, particularly those with a large steel underframe which ended with the BR Mk1 design on BR. Given that, it was very likely that some sag was designed into a coach frame to allow for the deflection caused by equipment weight. I vaguely remember some Maunsell coaches stored at Micheldever yard on the way to scrap with very pronounced negative sag in the centre of the vehicle due to extensive "Wear and Tear".

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

 

PS I have also heard the term camber (positive or negative) to describe what has been termed sag in relation to rolling stock. 

 

Edited May 25, 2022 by 30368
Memory restoration....

[Bucoops]

1 hour ago, 30368 said:

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

This image does seem to show a some sag although I wonder if the destortion is perhaps due to bogie/body ride hights? The centre articulated bogie end of each vehicle seems to riding lower than the other end of each vehicle? Irrespective of that, it is interesting that modellers would not replicate this prototype feature on a model! All those images of locomotive handrails bent in all sorts of angles have not, to my knowledge, appeared in models, except when not intended that is......

 

In the late 1980s when class 90/91 were being built at Crewe, all the frames had a pronounced design positive sag so that the frame was level when all the equipment was fitted, for example, the class 91 had four 1,500 hp traction motors mounted in the body with an articulated drive to the gearboxes, these were rather heavy as was the tranformer! I am less familiar with coach design, particularly those with a large steel underframe which ended with the BR Mk1 design on BR. Given that, it was very likely that some sag was designed into a coach frame to allow for the deflection caused by equipment weight. I vaguely remember some Maunsell coaches stored at Micheldever yard on the way to scrap with very pronounced negative sag in the centre of the vehicle due to extensive "Wear and Tear".

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

 

Certainly LNER Truss rod underframes had a deliberate curvature to them, so when the body was added it was level. Not sure the angle iron ones had or needed that.

[richard i]

Pre grouping with wooden coaches it was the norm to build with a hog so they would level off once finished. If my reading is correct.

richard

[Bernard Lamb]

7 hours ago, 30368 said:

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

This image does seem to show a some sag although I wonder if the destortion is perhaps due to bogie/body ride hights? The centre articulated bogie end of each vehicle seems to riding lower than the other end of each vehicle? Irrespective of that, it is interesting that modellers would not replicate this prototype feature on a model! All those images of locomotive handrails bent in all sorts of angles have not, to my knowledge, appeared in models, except when not intended that is......

 

In the late 1980s when class 90/91 were being built at Crewe, all the frames had a pronounced design positive sag so that the frame was level when all the equipment was fitted, for example, the class 91 had four 1,500 hp traction motors mounted in the body with an articulated drive to the gearboxes, these were rather heavy as was the tranformer! I am less familiar with coach design, particularly those with a large steel underframe which ended with the BR Mk1 design on BR. Given that, it was very likely that some sag was designed into a coach frame to allow for the deflection caused by equipment weight. I vaguely remember some Maunsell coaches stored at Micheldever yard on the way to scrap with very pronounced negative sag in the centre of the vehicle due to extensive "Wear and Tear".

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

 

I would have thought that they would have a bow as built so that when loaded they would be almost level.

I built metal planked floors and these were always built with a bow in the planks and never a dip, so that they would never be higher at the ends than in the middle when installed and loaded.

My understanding of the technical terms are;-

Bow. Higher in the middle than at the ends.

Dip. Higher at the ends than in the middle.

I know what you are trying to say but I think your terminology is rather confusing.

Sag in my book is not an engineering term, but refers to certain parts of the female anatomy in women who are past a certain age.😀

 

Bernard

[Chas Levin]

Evening all, any chance that 'sag' (apologies Bernard, just seen your post!) in Mr Bousted's photo was due to uneven track or underlying subsidence? If I'd happened across the photo without reference to this discussion, that's what I'd have assumed...

Edited May 24, 2022 by Chas Levin

[Tony Wright]

One loco I've taken to shows in the last six months has been a DJH Britannia I'm building. I don't do a lot to it during the show, but then do much more back at home...........

 

Those who saw it at the Ely Show last Saturday might recall that a lot still needed to be done. However, since then I've completed the tender and cab, fitted the chimney (a brass replacement for the rather lumpen white metal thingy supplied), clacks (Comet, ex-Steamline) and the main handrails. Just all those loads of wiggly pipes now, plus the deflectors, etc, on the body, then all that motion! It shouldn't take too long to finish now. 

 

It'll join four other Brits on Little Bytham.....................

 

 

This DJH one was built by Mick Peabody, and it's now my pleasure to own it. I painted it originally, then Mick weathered it. Readers might recall its previous appearances on Leighford, Stoke Summit and Charwelton. It's certainly heavily-weathered, and very-natural. In fact, it's exactly how I remember 70041 - my last Brit 'cop', to complete the whole Class. The lining I used was waterslide transfers, so weathering toned it down. 

 

However,

 

 

It would be insane to weather this Brit to the same degree, hiding all that lovely work by Ian Rathbone. Its yet another DJH kit, started by the late Bob Alderman and completed by me. 

 

I find myself in a bit of a dilemma with this next DJH Brit.......

 

 

It's the last loco Paul Bromige was making at the time of his death last year. It's substantially complete, but there's a problem with the drive. The Portescap runs very smoothly, but there's no transference of motion through the gearbox (which isn't standard Portescap). It really needs stripping and investigating, but I don't have the time.

 

It's thus up for sale for £90.00, should anyone be interested. All the bits to complete are present (many brass substitutes) to make one of the Class (70045-54) which had a larger tender (and 70014 at the end of its life). 

 

Anyone interested, please PM me. 

 

 

 

 

[30368]

1 hour ago, Bernard Lamb said:

My understanding of the technical terms are;-

Bow. Higher in the middle than at the ends.

Dip. Higher at the ends than in the middle.

I know what you are trying to say but I think your terminology is rather confusing.

 

Hello Bernard,

 

If I recall correctly, the term that tended to be used during construction was sag and depending on requirement this could be positive, or as you might say "bow" and negative as you might say "dip". I am sorry that you found it all a bit confusing. I hope the effect of the load on the vehicle structure - the deflection - was understood.

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

[Tony Wright]

I had two visitors today, who both enjoyed themselves immensely (thank you for your most-generous donations to CRUK). 

 

Both commented on the smooth and reliable running, almost as if they were surprised that it was possible. However, just as the 'praise' was flowing, yet another SEEP point motor packed up, or at least one coil. Now, Rob Davey and I installed and wired these up over 13 years ago, when my knees were still in their 60s! Not now. Replacement, after much creaking of limbs to shift the dud, was by a surface-mounted Peco point motor - far more reliable. Of the near-100 SEEP point motors I bought at the time, about 15 have subsequently failed - far too high a rate in my opinion, and it was a false economy at the time (they were £1.50 cheaper than Peco). One lives and learns. 

 

Anyway, it's now fixed and all is running well again. Speaking of running, one of my guests bought one of Paul Bromige's locos at Ely, but returned it today, saying it was jerky. This was odd, because that's the last thing Paul's locos are. I asked him about his controllers, and it appears from his description that they might be feedback ones. Now, most of Paul's locos I've sold have been fitted with Portescaps. Do they not like feedback controllers? As expected, the loco ran perfectly on Little Bytham. 

 

It's the Ivatt Class 2 2-6-2T, back on sale again................... Should anyone be interested. 

 

There's only about four left now. 

[Chuffer Davies]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Speaking of running, one of my guests bought one of Paul Bromige's locos at Ely, but returned it today, saying it was jerky. This was odd, because that's the last thing Paul's locos are. I asked him about his controllers, and it appears from his description that they might be feedback ones. Now, most of Paul's locos I've sold have been fitted with Portescaps. Do they not like feedback controllers?

Hi Tony,  

Running coreless motors with feedback is not a universal problem, it depends on the controller.  In my personal experience my coreless fitted loco's have had issues with both the early ECM and some Gaugemaster hand held controllers. 

 

As well as problems with analogue control, when running DCC fitted loco's with coreless motors, to get the very best performance, it is recommended that CV's associated with feedback are adjusted to reflect the high efficiency of the coreless motor.  I always make the following changes (as recommended in the Zimo instruction manual): CV9=12 to reduce the % of time spent sampling feedback from the motor which in turn reduces noise and increases power.  CV56=100 (or above by experimentation) to eliminate jerking.

 

With the demise of the popular Mashima motors modellers are increasingly turning to coreless motors from the likes of Maxxon, Faulhaber and High Level.  A modern high efficiency motor will not necessarily perform well on an old controller that was possibly optimised to operate less efficient motors from the likes of Hornby Dublo and Triang, etc.

Regards,

Frank

[Jol Wilkinson]

The late Stewart Hine developed the Pentroller for use with both coreless and iron cored motors. IIRC, the Escap motor had very fine brush gear which was lifetime  rated  in the number of stop/start cycles. Some older feedback controllers effectively continually stopped/started the motor (which had very little inertia) although this was not apparent when running. Hence Stewart's belief that ordinary feedback motors would appreciably shorten the working life of the Escap motor. As coreless motors are much more commonly used nowadays, I imagine that the life expectancy has been improved with more robust brush gear.

 

Although  Pentrollers are no longer available an alternative and very similar unit, the Pictroller, is now available for those who embrace DC.  This has a motor sensing feature that removes the need to switch the controller to suit which type of motor is fitted. We used Pentrollers on London Road and found them to be excellent for all types of coreless and iron cored motor. I also have a couple of Modelled controllers (I believe these arestill available although the website has disappeared) which were much less expensive and also give smooth control with both types of motor.

 

I find this whole thing about poor running on DC or DCC interesting. On DCC it seems you need an understanding of how to set up the chip to suit the motor, even on DCC equipped RTR models. For DC it seems that some controllers need to be consigned to the bin as they don't work with some modern motors. A friend has just bought a RoS NER Electric Autocar, which runs well on a Gaugemaster but badly on an old KPC.

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Hi Tony,  

Running coreless motors with feedback is not a universal problem, it depends on the controller.  In my personal experience my coreless fitted loco's have had issues with both the early ECM and some Gaugemaster hand held controllers. 

 

As well as problems with analogue control, when running DCC fitted loco's with coreless motors, to get the very best performance, it is recommended that CV's associated with feedback are adjusted to reflect the high efficiency of the coreless motor.  I always make the following changes (as recommended in the Zimo instruction manual): CV9=12 to reduce the % of time spent sampling feedback from the motor which in turn reduces noise and increases power.  CV56=100 (or above by experimentation) to eliminate jerking.

 

With the demise of the popular Mashima motors modellers are increasingly turning to coreless motors from the likes of Maxxon, Faulhaber and High Level.  A modern high efficiency motor will not necessarily perform well on an old controller that was possibly optimised to operate less efficient motors from the likes of Hornby Dublo and Triang, etc.

Regards,

Frank

Thanks Frank (and Jol),

 

I didn't witness the jerky performance of the Portescap-powered loco in question, but, obviously, the purchaser was disappointed because he liked the loco. He said his controllers were hand-held Gaugemasters, which might be a feedback type; I don't know, and neither did he. From what he was saying, he has some tight radii. Now, despite my telling him that the Paul Bromige locos (of more than four drivers) needed a minimum of 3' radius, he still bought the loco. It could be that the 'jerky' running was because the loco was struggling to get round his curves.

 

This is a problem which confronts anyone selling locos, whether they be RTR, kit-built or scratch-built, new or second-hand. In many (most?) cases, the seller has no idea which type of trackwork what they're offering is expected to run over; nor what control equipment is present. From the comments of yesterday, I gained the impression that 'perfect running' was not something achieved on the bloke's trackwork; at least if his 'astonishment' at LB's running was anything to go by. 

 

He also said the Ivatt 2-6-2T was 'noisy'. Well, welcome to the Portescap whine! Anyway, he's had his money back and that's that. 

 

Though it did whine a bit (which is why I'm not a fan of Portescaps), running on Little Bytham, controlled by my Helmsman (7mm) 'boxes, it ran perfectly; no jerking and easily negotiating all four of the main line circuits (minimum radius 3'). It runs just as smoothly on my ancient H&M controllers as well! 

 

 

Surely someone must be interested in it? I'm now asking £165.00.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

[Willie Whizz]

12 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

 

I would have thought that they would have a bow as built so that when loaded they would be almost level.

I built metal planked floors and these were always built with a bow in the planks and never a dip, so that they would never be higher at the ends than in the middle when installed and loaded.

My understanding of the technical terms are;-

Bow. Higher in the middle than at the ends.

Dip. Higher at the ends than in the middle.

I know what you are trying to say but I think your terminology is rather confusing.

Sag in my book is not an engineering term, but refers to certain parts of the female anatomy in women who are past a certain age.😀

 

Bernard

I don’t know whether it’s the same across all engineering, but in naval architecture (where the issue is important for how well a hull stands-up to being, in effect, suspended between waves of varying distance apart), the opposite to ‘sagging’ is called ‘hogging’. 

[Tony Wright]

In an attempt to sell the few remaining Paul Bromige locos, I've reduced the prices. These now being...........

 

 

Johnson 3F. £150.00

 

 

Motorised Kitmaster 'Pug'. £90.00

 

 

Ex-LNWR Coal Tank. £150.00.

 

 

Ex-MR 1F. £150.00.

 

Plus £10.00 P&P. Anyone interested, please PM me. 

 

 

[Chuffer Davies]

1 hour ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

The late Stewart Hine developed the Pentroller for use with both coreless and iron cored motors. IIRC, the Escap motor had very fine brush gear which was lifetime  rated  in the number of stop/start cycles. I imagine that the life expectancy has been improved with more robust brush gear.

I have not read anything in the literature from Faulhaber to suggest that they have made changes to their brush gear so the same precautions are still necessary.  Remember that model railways are not a significant consumer of such motors which are primarily designed for use in high precision instruments.

 

I sometimes use the analogy that fitting a DCC chip is like relocating your analogue controller to the inside of the locomotive and then sending instructions to it through the rails from another controller.  Changing the switch on a Pentroller for different types of motor is the equivalent of modifying the CVs on the DCC chip.  In this way each loco is carrying its own dedicated controller optimised for the motor installed in that particular model.

Regards,

Frank

[MJI]

Controllers.

 

I found that one of the most versatile was an old H&M, controls anything from Portescap to Lima via old Triang motor bogies.

 

The plug in controller is OK with old iron core motors (X04 and the like) but no good with coreless.

 

Since getting a Gaugemaster D that has been used with lots modern RTR locos and High Level Lowriders. Not sure if RG4 has been used with it.

 

The main controller was at the time the second best in H&M catalogue with only the Powermaster being better, the plug in was an early electronic controller but designed for iron core jobbies.

 

 

[Tony Wright]

An interesting selection of new books this month.............

 

 

 

 

 

 

[St Enodoc]

25 minutes ago, MJI said:

Controllers.

 

I found that one of the most versatile was an old H&M, controls anything from Portescap to Lima via old Triang motor bogies.

 

The plug in controller is OK with old iron core motors (X04 and the like) but no good with coreless.

 

Since getting a Gaugemaster D that has been used with lots modern RTR locos and High Level Lowriders. Not sure if RG4 has been used with it.

 

The main controller was at the time the second best in H&M catalogue with only the Powermaster being better, the plug in was an early electronic controller but designed for iron core jobbies.

 

 

The Powermaster and Safety Minor used variable transformers not variable resistances. They were without doubt the best of the bunch in those days.