Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

There is only one reason why I replaced you at Missenden Tony and that was when you were not able to carry on for a while. I had mixed feelings about it initially as I am well aware that seeing Tony Wright listed as a tutor was likely to be a bigger draw than seeing Tony Gee.

 

It seems to have worked out well though and we have quite a few people who keep coming back and a group that is about as large as can be managed, so something must be going right.

 

The many different approaches are part of the fun of the hobby for me. There are usually lots of different ways of accomplishing any given task and my advice to modellers is always to try different methods and find the tools, solders and fluxes etc. that suit them the best. I am constantly learning and evolving how I work and I can do things now that I wouldn't have fancied my chances with a few years ago.

 

Malcolm Crawley used to work as you do, with apparently asbestos fingers, a high pain threshold and an ability to ignore the smell of burning flesh until the soldered joint was made properly.

 

It was one aspect where I watched what he did and decided that it wasn't for me.

Good evening Tony,

 

Thanks for your comments. 

 

Like you, my group at Missenden was large (the largest, which shows the popularity of locos in the hobby) and, despite my 'insults', members kept on coming back. 

 

You've now made the position your own, and good on you. Nature abhors a vacuum (which is kind of what I disappeared into), and, in your case 'Cometh the hour, cometh the man!'. 

 

I suppose I was 'popular' with the organisers because I never accepted a fee nor required travelling expenses. I realise this is a 'privileged' position, but I had a company car and, in the case of the week-long summer school (where I was the resident tutor) my enlightened BRM publisher said I need not take a week's holiday to attend, because I always came back with several stories. 

 

They were good times.

 

I'm delighted I have much in common with Malcolm.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited August 16, 2022 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Tony Wright]

More burnt fingers...............

 

 

 

The ongoing Pro-Scale A4 has now been thoroughly layout-tested; I'm pleased to say, with flying colours. 

 

Respective 14-car and 15-car trains (the latter, all kit-built) have presented no haulage capacity problems. Packed with lead (there's a barn-amount of space inside) she now weighs in excess of 1lb (loco-only, with a few more bits to add to complete her). What does an RTR equivalent weigh, I wonder?  

 

 

[Keith Turbutt]

On 15/08/2022 at 10:37, Tony Wright said:

Good morning David,

 

You're too kind, though Ian Rathbone's painting certainly is stunning.

 

Trying to illustrate the ripples in MORTEHOE's construction is quite difficult, but I think the following shots display the 'happy accident' caused by expansion during soldering-on the thin brass overlays for the cladding. 

 

 

 

 

 

I've tried different lighting attempting to emphasise this. 

 

I think a model of an original Bulleid light Pacific made this way looks far more-'natural' than any RTR 'plastic perfection' (though Hornby's renditions are very good). 

 

I built 34094 near 30 years ago, and she ran on Leighford originally. Latterly, she operated on Charwelton (on railtour duty), but now lives in her box; only being 'let-out' on LB when SR-loving friends visit.........

 

 

I think she might have picked up a few more dents and dings in her life, anyway.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Hi Tony

 

I know the irregularities in Bullied pacific casings were discussed a couple of pages back - I find it hard to keep up with the pace that WW moves ! - but I thought you might like to see photos of Salisbury coming off a special at Salisbury.

 

This loco was brought in at short notice to stand in for the V2 which had been brought down to head the LCGB Green Arrow Railtour in July 1966 - hence the title of the special. I have heard several explanations of why the V2 was 'failed' and I'm not sure which was correct but it was a big disappointment at the time. Certainly Salisbury was not in the filthy condition that was typical of the pacifics in this late period.

 

I think you will agree that Morthoe's subtle irregularities closely resemble the real thing on Salisbury. Anyway I hope you enjoy the photos.

 

Cheers

Keith

 

[CF MRC]

Some interesting comments about soldering and teaching hand skills. The name of the game is holding components whilst using whatever devices one gets on with best.  Many kits are difficult in this regard, with small pieces to attach by soldering with very little to hold them: at least when scratch building I can build in ‘sacrificial handles’ that can be removed subsequently. Occasionally stuff gets hot without realising it: I stupidly burnt my thumb on my Ersa soldering iron when changing over the bit, I thought before it got hot, at Missenden last week. They do get hot extraordinarily fast!

 

As for teaching these skills; it’s my day job to train unskilled people in the use of surgical equipment that is capable of great harm.  Like Tony G, I try to impress on modellers how to work safely, but slightly toughened fingers do help…

 

Tim

[Northmoor]

9 hours ago, geoff west said:

That would require some serious editing if it were made available on DVD.

Or it could be the first ever model railway DVD with a 15 certificate.

 

"Warning: contains language many engineers may be entirely familiar with".

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Keith Turbutt said:

Hi Tony

 

I know the irregularities in Bullied pacific casings were discussed a couple of pages back - I find it hard to keep up with the pace that WW moves ! - but I thought you might like to see photos of Salisbury coming off a special at Salisbury.

 

This loco was brought in at short notice to stand in for the V2 which had been brought down to head the LCGB Green Arrow Railtour in July 1966 - hence the title of the special. I have heard several explanations of why the V2 was 'failed' and I'm not sure which was correct but it was a big disappointment at the time. Certainly Salisbury was not in the filthy condition that was typical of the pacifics in this late period.

 

I think you will agree that Morthoe's subtle irregularities closely resemble the real thing on Salisbury. Anyway I hope you enjoy the photos.

 

Cheers

Keith

 

What evocative pictures Keith,

 

Thanks for showing us. 

 

In the last shot, you can see how SALISBURY's tender is slightly 'dented' as well. That doesn't happen with the Crownline tender sides because they're not thin and not half-etched; thus, they don't buckle under soldering heat. 

 

Does anyone have prototype shots of original Bulleid Pacifics with totally flat casings?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[polybear]

8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Tony,

 

That must be one of the reasons why you replaced me at Missenden. My former 'pupils' tell me that you're much more caring and sensitive to their feelings. 

 

 

I recall my very first Missenden Abbey experience (mid 2000's) - I recall a certain Tutor attempting to enlighten someone who was building an A1/2/3 regarding the dome(?) that was about to be fitted;  IIRC the person was struggling with the suggestion of ditching it for the correct one.  It was quite entertaining to watch.... 

Edited August 16, 2022 by polybear

[D.Platt]

I’ve soldered kits , bits and bobs for many years , and never , repeat never ended up with fingers like yours Tony  !

[JamesSpooner]

Tony,

 

This is quoted as a photo of Manston apparently when new and the wrinkles are quite clearly apparent in it.  I know Bulleid was a comparatively early exponent of welding and even in the 1970’s BREL was building wrinkles into its Mk3 coach sides, due to welding distortion, so maybe there was an element of that in addition to the hand formed sheets?
 

best wishes

 

Nigel
 

[30368]

11 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

The ongoing Pro-Scale A4 has now been thoroughly layout-tested; I'm pleased to say, with flying colours. 

 

Morning Tony,

 

The A4 looks great - I see that Mr Thompson had further ideas regarding solving the problems with Gresley's conjugated valve gear! Hope the finger clamps are not too damaged....

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

[Tony Wright]

46 minutes ago, 30368 said:

 

Morning Tony,

 

The A4 looks great - I see that Mr Thompson had further ideas regarding solving the problems with Gresley's conjugated valve gear! Hope the finger clamps are not too damaged....

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

Good morning Richard,

 

Yes, a two-cylinder (inside) A4!

 

Testing like this is my standard practice; get the chassis up and running as an inside-cylinder 0-6-0, then make-up/add the bogie/pony to make sure that there's no interference/shorting, especially on the tightest radii the loco will need to negotiate (there was a little metal needing shaving off the frames above the bogie). Then make-up most of the body, pack with lead and see how she goes. Anything henceforth added to the body will not interfere with the running (though the tender brakes will need careful setting up because clearances are quite tight), then it's the valve gear/motion (divided into two halves) to erect and fit. Any subsequent erratic running will then be down to that last job, and curing it will be so much easier than if I'd built the loco (mechanically) all in one phase, then tested it.

 

I'm sure I've mentioned all of these procedures before, but I insist on good running. Why is it, I wonder, that so many 'professionally-built' locos which come my way to sell (after a modeller dies), though often looking very pretty, run so poorly? Endemic problems are tight spots in the gearbox/bearings/motion, dodgy pick-ups, no sideplay in the axles (meaning the locos will only run on the straight), bogie wheels catching cylinders causing shorting/jamming and, because some have no added weight, an inability to pull anything, even their tender! I also wish I'd had a fiver for every occasion where I've been told 'Don't worry, it'll run-in'. No it won't!

 

I suppose I could be called a 'zealot', but it would be no joy at all to have so many wonderful visitors to see LB if I had to continually apologise for poor running. I've made most of the locos on it, so I can't blame 'dodgy' RTR if anything does fail.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Dunsignalling]

All air-smoothed Bulleid Pacifics (and Q1s for that matter) were wrinkly to a greater or lesser extent. Whether it was invisible, noticeable, or very obvious, depended on the angle and strength of light falling on them. 

 

Towards the end, a good layer of soot seemed to disguise it quite effectively.🥸

 

If you think they were bad, you should have seen most new diesels (especially WR Warships and Westerns) before the copious application of stopper went on prior to painting....

 

John

Edited August 17, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[landscapes]

13 hours ago, Keith Turbutt said:

Hi Tony

 

I know the irregularities in Bullied pacific casings were discussed a couple of pages back - I find it hard to keep up with the pace that WW moves ! - but I thought you might like to see photos of Salisbury coming off a special at Salisbury.

 

This loco was brought in at short notice to stand in for the V2 which had been brought down to head the LCGB Green Arrow Railtour in July 1966 - hence the title of the special. I have heard several explanations of why the V2 was 'failed' and I'm not sure which was correct but it was a big disappointment at the time. Certainly Salisbury was not in the filthy condition that was typical of the pacifics in this late period.

 

I think you will agree that Morthoe's subtle irregularities closely resemble the real thing on Salisbury. Anyway I hope you enjoy the photos.

 

Cheers

Keith

 

Hi

 

Great photos, if it’s the same rail tour I was at Eastleigh station waiting for its arrival.

 

initially the word went around that A4 No 60004 William Whitelaw was heading it then we was told it was a V2 class loco but a West Country Pacific arrived instead.

 

lots of disappointment at the time , I would take any loco now.

 

Regards

 

David

 

 

[DougN]

52 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 I also wish I'd had a fiver for every occasion where I've been told 'Don't worry, it'll run-in'. No it won't!

 

I suppose I could be called a 'zealot', but it would be no joy at all to have so many wonderful visitors to see LB if I had to continually apologise for poor running. I've made most of the locos on it, so I can't blame 'dodgy' RTR if anything does fail.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Tony, your dead right. I am amazed at the amount that needs to be modified from "tight" to running nicely. I have ended up pulling apart chassis, rods, etc.... chasing down tight spots... my last J26 went back to frames at one stage when it was running badly only to find one of the hornblocks/ guides needed moving about... now she runs nicely. My latest the G6, has had her rods on for the first time and I think it will need the wheels stripped off the bearings opened up and then the rods... and a re assemble afterwards! It is one thing to build a loco tight, then it is another to open every thing out slowly to get it running smoothly. The amount of  running clearance is amazing. This is totally different to slop! 

 

I converted a beautifully built Churchward kit EM 45xx to P4 for a mate. He said it is his best running locomotive. This had a large amount of play in the loco in EM... and worked perfectly with new wheels in P4.... My thoughts are the running clearances where already there and the one change of the wheels once the quartering was resolved showed that the running was equal even though totally fiddled with!  

 

 

[landscapes]

12 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

What evocative pictures Keith,

 

Thanks for showing us. 

 

In the last shot, you can see how SALISBURY's tender is slightly 'dented' as well. That doesn't happen with the Crownline tender sides because they're not thin and not half-etched; thus, they don't buckle under soldering heat. 

 

Does anyone have prototype shots of original Bulleid Pacifics with totally flat casings?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Hi Tony

 

I hope you don't mind a few more Bulleid Pacific photos, these two were both taken back in 2009 just to show the same problem now on two different Pacific's in preservation.

 

Regards

 

David

[Barclay]

This is an effect that Tim Shackleton achieved very nicely with the Bullied he made for his 'Plastic Bodied Loco's' book. He took the carcase of a Hornby model, and clad it in 10 thou plastikard panels, with all the rivets embossed. The result looked just like these photo's, and the brass one - just enough ripple to make it look real, because the RTR model does look too perfect unfortunately.

[Bucoops]

55 minutes ago, landscapes said:

Hi Tony

 

I hope you don't mind a few more Bulleid Pacific photos, these two were both taken back in 2009 just to show the same problem now on two different Pacific's in preservation.

 

Regards

 

David

 

I'm not sure I would call it a problem? It all adds to the character and individuality of the machine.

[St Enodoc]

3 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

If you think they were bad, you should have seen most new diesels (especially WR Warships and Westerns) before the copious application of stopper went on prior to painting....

...and coaches.

[Chas Levin]

On 13/08/2022 at 20:27, Tony Wright said:

Returning to A4s..........

 

These are two RTR comparisons............

 

 

Bachmann.

 

 

And Hornby.

 

Both are certainly 'perfect' in that there are no bodywork-construction wobbles, dings, dents, cockles or ripples. 

 

Not for me, though.

 

 

Good afternoon Tony, just catching up, apologies for being out of date order, but I was very struck by how different these two look in all sorts of small ways - I don't think I've ever seen photos of A4s from the two makers side by side like this, similarly posed and lit.

Given that both makers must use similar methods and tools for measurement and manufacture - very possibly the same factory production lines in fact - it seems odd to me that they aren't closer to being identical.

I'm full of admiration for anyone building an A4 from a kit - it seems a terrific challenge to me, it's such a complex shape and such a well-known one too.

Maybe one day though...

Very much enjoying all the entertaining and informative discussions, as usual! 🙂

[t-b-g]

49 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

Good afternoon Tony, just catching up, apologies for being out of date order, but I was very struck by how different these two look in all sorts of small ways - I don't think I've ever seen photos of A4s from the two makers side by side like this, similarly posed and lit.

Given that both makers must use similar methods and tools for measurement and manufacture - very possibly the same factory production lines in fact - it seems odd to me that they aren't closer to being identical.

I'm full of admiration for anyone building an A4 from a kit - it seems a terrific challenge to me, it's such a complex shape and such a well-known one too.

Maybe one day though...

Very much enjoying all the entertaining and informative discussions, as usual! 🙂

 

I agree with you very much indeed.

 

I have always thought that the A4 must be one of the most difficult real locos ever built to model correctly. There is hardly a straight line to work from and even the best drawings produced by the LNER are flat and two dimensional and cannot show how the curves are formed. I suppose it is an ideal prototype for modern 3D scanning methods and even those rely on the preserved examples being the same as they were 60 or more years ago.

 

Then you have the previously discussed difficulties of modelling the curve at the lower half of the cylinders correctly, yet allowing for the body to be removed which usually ends up with the flat slab sided cylinder seen on most models.

 

I am not sure that the Proscale version really captures some of the complex shapes very well. To start with, the cut out ahead of the cylinders has a sharp corner (at the upper front)  where there should be a rather more visually appealing curve and they always look to me as if there is a change in angle in the footplate where the firebox meets the cab.

 

What would be an interesting exercise is to compare photographs the various models at the same angle and viewpoint as a real A4. To me, that is an even better indicator of what looks right than comparing one model against another model.  

[gr.king]

If, as it seems to me fair to suspect, the Bachmann A4 body is still fundamentally the one that was tooled up by / for Trix (in the 1970s?) when general standards and expectations in RTR models were not so exacting, and when tooling / techniques for injection moulding were necessarily simpler, is it any surprise that the Hornby version, from circa 2005 and later, is somewhat different (and more accurate?) benefitting as it does from CAD/CAM, the availability of multi-part moulds (allowing release of shapes from moulds that would otherwise be impossible) , various separately fitted body parts etc?

[polybear]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

I agree with you very much indeed.

 

I have always thought that the A4 must be one of the most difficult real locos ever built to model correctly. There is hardly a straight line to work from and even the best drawings produced by the LNER are flat and two dimensional and cannot show how the curves are formed. I suppose it is an ideal prototype for modern 3D scanning methods and even those rely on the preserved examples being the same as they were 60 or more years ago.

 

Then you have the previously discussed difficulties of modelling the curve at the lower half of the cylinders correctly, yet allowing for the body to be removed which usually ends up with the flat slab sided cylinder seen on most models.

 

I am not sure that the Proscale version really captures some of the complex shapes very well. To start with, the cut out ahead of the cylinders has a sharp corner (at the upper front)  where there should be a rather more visually appealing curve and they always look to me as if there is a change in angle in the footplate where the firebox meets the cab.

 

What would be an interesting exercise is to compare photographs the various models at the same angle and viewpoint as a real A4. To me, that is an even better indicator of what looks right than comparing one model against another model.  

 

Hello Tony,

 

How does the SEF A4 compare?

[t-b-g]

4 minutes ago, polybear said:

 

Hello Tony,

 

How does the SEF A4 compare?

 

I have no idea. If you want an expert on modelling A4s, I am not the person to turn to. I haven't built anything that modern for several decades now. 

 

I just look at photos of the real things and models and play "spot the difference".

[micklner]

1 hour ago, gr.king said:

If, as it seems to me fair to suspect, the Bachmann A4 body is still fundamentally the one that was tooled up by / for Trix (in the 1970s?) when general standards and expectations in RTR models were not so exacting, and when tooling / techniques for injection moulding were necessarily simpler, is it any surprise that the Hornby version, from circa 2005 and later, is somewhat different (and more accurate?) benefitting as it does from CAD/CAM, the availability of multi-part moulds (allowing release of shapes from moulds that would otherwise be impossible) , various separately fitted body parts etc?

I have read Lilliput as the basis  for the Bachmann version , no idea if that is the same maker?. It doesnt compare with the Hornby version , theirs was one of the first "superdetail" Locos produced to current standards. I remember Mr Wright in a BRM review  article using the words  "Dont bother building kits of the A4 ever again" or very similar at the time . They are not perfect but much better than the very old Finecast version. I have never seen a Proscale version "in the flesh"

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

Good afternoon Tony, just catching up, apologies for being out of date order, but I was very struck by how different these two look in all sorts of small ways - I don't think I've ever seen photos of A4s from the two makers side by side like this, similarly posed and lit.

Given that both makers must use similar methods and tools for measurement and manufacture - very possibly the same factory production lines in fact - it seems odd to me that they aren't closer to being identical.

I'm full of admiration for anyone building an A4 from a kit - it seems a terrific challenge to me, it's such a complex shape and such a well-known one too.

Maybe one day though...

Very much enjoying all the entertaining and informative discussions, as usual! 🙂

Good evening Chas,

 

The Bachmann A4's body has its origins in the Trix/Liliput product from 50 years ago. The Hornby A4 is much newer, and more-accurate. That said, Bachmann's rendition of BR green is superior to Hornby's, though the Bachmann tender (again originally from Trix) is weak - it was even fitted to the firm's A2!

 

I'll take some more comparative shots tomorrow; not of out-of-the-box models, but ones where some work has been done on them.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.