Wright writes.....

[Clive Mortimore]

3 hours ago, MikeParkin65 said:

I wonder if the painting of lamps white was a safety measure so that they were to an extent visible even if the flame went out? Appreciate not all railways had white lamps

Lamps were only lit at night and in bad weather, fog, snow, very heavy rain etc. The illumination from a oil lamp in normal dull British winter daylight would not be seen by the signalman but  itself the lamp would.

Edited September 1, 2022 by Clive Mortimore

[polybear]

2 hours ago, DenysW said:

(More than) a couple of times on this thread @Tony Wright has compared the cost RTR models of UK outline with brass-built kits, generally to the financial disadvantage of the kits. I think this may be comparing apples and strawberries. The US market is big enough and rich enough to have some RTR brass locomotives. When I see the price of these - although it's difficult to get exactly comparable locomotives - I'd say the brass RTR models are 2-3 times the prices of the plastic. Partly this is better detailing, but mostly I'd say it was that constructing models in brass is inherently more costly.

 

Really?  I've lost count of the number of times Tony has mentioned the price of a Kit - plus Markits Wheels, Motor& Gearbox (often DJH) and pointed out that the end result is always** well north of the equivalent RTR example - and that's before finishing.

(** Unless the Builder has a lucky purchase from Ebay etc. for a s/h example)

[30368]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Ready to go off to Geoff Haynes for painting.................

 

 

Good day Tony,

 

Looks lovely!

So you don't recommend building the Proscale chassis etch? Major problems or just prefer the Comet version, which I know are very good. As you may recall, I have a part built one to build that I purchased from you.

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

 

 

[31A]

Were loco headlamps not issued to the crew from the Stores at the start of the shift?

 

See beginning of the film "Elizabethan Express":

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygl1yZE_bBM

 

So probably wouldn't necessarily be as dirty as the engine that carried them.  Although I agree it doesn't hurt to tone them down a bit.  The white metal ones on my locos soon get some of the paint knocked off by the tweezers I use to change them, which helps make them less obtrusive!

 

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, 30368 said:

 

Good day Tony,

 

Looks lovely!

So you don't recommend building the Proscale chassis etch? Major problems or just prefer the Comet version, which I know are very good. As you may recall, I have a part built one to build that I purchased from you.

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

 

 

Good evening Richard,

 

Thanks for your comments. 

 

Of the Pro-Scale chassis I've come across (V2 and A4), they're designed at source to have sprung hornblocks. This, to me, is the wrong way round (which is why I prefer the likes of Comet frames). For those who are competent at making sprung/compensated chassis (not me!), then let them modify a rigid one, which is catered for by the likes of Comet, London Road, South Eastern Finecast and (probably, in some cases) Alan Gibson. 

 

I'm sure this has been aired before on here, but of the two locos I've built which have compensated chassis, neither of them run as sweetly as the hundreds I've built with rigid frames. Not only that (despite the perceived wisdom), they don't pick-up any better and, particularly in the case of my original WC, are more light-footed. 

 

In the case of the two other Pro-Scale A4s on LB, their hornblocks were soldered up solid during assembly, making the axles rigid. The Pro-Scale frames can be made to run well as designed, I'm sure (one PS V2 built by Alan Hammet certainly does), but not by the likes of me. 

 

I recall the late Roy Jackson building two A3s (from DJH kits I think). As an experiment/comparison, he built one rigid (60108) and one sprung/compensated (60103). He told me the latter took much longer, yet performances were just about equal (if anything, the rigid one pulled more!). I believe he penned an article for the MRJ entitled 'The Queer Case of the Flying Scotsman and the Gay Crusader'. It was never published; I wonder why not? 

 

For those who've had the pleasure to see Roy Jackson's motive power at work, I'm inclined to state that nobody ever built better-running locos than he did, and I doubt anyone ever will. These ran (still do) on a taxing, scale-length EM model railway (Retford), hauling heavy loads, often at high speed. Others would crawl to perfection on 'lesser' trains or shunting duties. Visiting locos, built by others, would often be 'killed' as they tried to emulate the master's work! If rigid frames worked for Roy, then that's good enough for me.

 

I'll be interested to see how you get on building the Pro-Scale frames.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

6 hours ago, Steven B said:

Period photos show the majority to be clean but grubby around the edges and the base of the lamp's chimney. I'd guess the lamp-man would give them a wipe over with an oily cloth when they're refilled and wicks trimmed. In the later BR period I'd suggest they were cleaned a lot more often than the locos.

 

I'd suggest those on LB could use a wash of black/brown ink to take the shine off a bit.

 

Steven B.

A good suggestion Steven,

 

Looking through about 50 prototype pictures at random after reading your post, well over 30 showed the locos (whatever their condition) displaying pretty clean white-painted lamps (these are ER subjects - some other systems used red- or black-painted lamps).

 

Anyway, here's a selection............

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe lamps were there to denote the class of train (in most cases; in parts of the ex-GE suburban sections, they denoted routes). Thus, they had to be clearly visible to a signalman in daylight, hence the general propensity for keeping them clean. I assume it would be the stores' responsibility for keeping lamps in good order.

 

Anyway, not all Bytham's loco lamps are gleaming white................

 

 

 

 

Though a few more could do with a wash of dirty thinners.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

8 hours ago, DenysW said:

(More than) a couple of times on this thread @Tony Wright has compared the cost RTR models of UK outline with brass-built kits, generally to the financial disadvantage of the kits. I think this may be comparing apples and strawberries. The US market is big enough and rich enough to have some RTR brass locomotives. When I see the price of these - although it's difficult to get exactly comparable locomotives - I'd say the brass RTR models are 2-3 times the prices of the plastic. Partly this is better detailing, but mostly I'd say it was that constructing models in brass is inherently more costly.

Good evening Denys,

 

Why shouldn't a comparison be made when two models (whatever they're made of or by whatever means) are of identical prototypes? 

 

It's true, kit-equivalents are usually more expensive (a lot more in some cases) than an RTR item of the same class, but (and I say this with respect) so what? 

 

I've made it clear (to the point of tautology) that I much prefer to build my own locos; the latest Pro-Scale A4 being a case in point. That's certainly not to say it's better than a Hornby equivalent (body-wise, it's not as correct), but it's unique; it's 'mine' in a highly-personal way (even though its painting won't be my work). It's not a clone of thousands of others made in far-away factories, and, even if my making it is financially disadvantageous, it's much more than just a 'possession'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Compound2632]

Don't forget that when you buy a RTR item, you simply have the pleasure of possessing a mass-produced item. When you buy a kit, you have both the pleasure* of building it and then possessing an item you've made yourself. That has to be worth the extra expense!

 

*OK sometimes the pleasure can become a little twisted!

 

That's viewing the model as a thing-in-itself.

 

If, on the other hand, you have a "need" for the items (say it's umpteen pacifics because you're out to model a station on the ECML in the early BR period) then how the model is produced can become less important in the overall scheme of satisfaction.

Edited September 1, 2022 by Compound2632

[stewartingram]

I remember Cambridge station back in steam (& early diesel) days. A little twisted as the GE section also used discs (which I believe were issued 'on shed' to the crew), and also the GE section was early with diesels; in addition of course the early diesels had folding discs (then blinds, also the dmus had blinds and (dim) electric lights too.

Anyway back to Cambridge, the station with a very long platorm (1 & 4), with bays at either end. Walk south along the Up platform (1), and on the right were the bays (2 & 3). On the platform by the buffer stop of (2), was a large selection of oil lamps, ready filled (and I think ready lit) for crews to use. I'm sure they were a mixture of tail lamps and headlamps, can anyone else remember these?

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

Don't forget that when you buy a RTR item, you simply have the pleasure of possessing a mass-produced item. When you buy a kit, you have both the pleasure* of building it and then possessing an item you've made yourself. That has to be worth the extra expense!

 

*OK sometimes the pleasure can become a little twisted!

 

That's viewing the model as a thing-in-itself.

 

If, on the other hand, you have a "need" for the items (say it's umpteen pacifics because you're out to model a station on the ECML in the early BR period) then how the model is produced can become less important in the overall scheme of satisfaction.

I think your last sentence is true, Stephen; up to a point.

 

A personal point in my case, I admit.

 

The sense of 'satisfaction' is particular prevalent when Little Bytham is run (an ECML depiction in BR steam days), and it's only run (other than my testing new locos) when visitors are present. And, when it's run, the trains are powered by locos I've made (in about 95% of cases - 50 individual locos are needed to run the sequence). Now, I stress again, that's not because I think those locos are better than RTR equivalents, but because I can tell visitors their 'stories'. Yes, I know, in many cases (though certainly not all), the painting is not mine, but that has no bearing on the locos' running. 

 

The alternative is just to say to visitors 'That's a Hornbachheljaccuradap' loco, made in a factory many, many miles away'. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[30368]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I'll be interested to see how you get on building the Pro-Scale frames.

 

Good evening Tony,

 

I thought that your objection to the Pro-scale frames would be due to the compensated nature of the frames. I have only ever built one such chassis and the results were not as good as expected. I am sure that others can build such a chassis but, like you, not me.

 

The Pro-scale V2 that I constructed had the hornblocks soldered in position on my surface plate. I will do the same for the A4 if I use the supplied the chassis components. I guess it has all been covered before but I am a relative newcomer to the hobby so thanks for all your tips - goodness all those years I have wasted not building little loco's.......

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

 

PS some pics.

The compensated G5 Chassis

 

The de-compensated V2 Chassis

 

 

 

[t-b-g]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Richard,

 

Thanks for your comments. 

 

Of the Pro-Scale chassis I've come across (V2 and A4), they're designed at source to have sprung hornblocks. This, to me, is the wrong way round (which is why I prefer the likes of Comet frames). For those who are competent at making sprung/compensated chassis (not me!), then let them modify a rigid one, which is catered for by the likes of Comet, London Road, South Eastern Finecast and (probably, in some cases) Alan Gibson. 

 

I'm sure this has been aired before on here, but of the two locos I've built which have compensated chassis, neither of them run as sweetly as the hundreds I've built with rigid frames. Not only that (despite the perceived wisdom), they don't pick-up any better and, particularly in the case of my original WC, are more light-footed. 

 

In the case of the two other Pro-Scale A4s on LB, their hornblocks were soldered up solid during assembly, making the axles rigid. The Pro-Scale frames can be made to run well as designed, I'm sure (one PS V2 built by Alan Hammet certainly does), but not by the likes of me. 

 

I recall the late Roy Jackson building two A3s (from DJH kits I think). As an experiment/comparison, he built one rigid (60108) and one sprung/compensated (60103). He told me the latter took much longer, yet performances were just about equal (if anything, the rigid one pulled more!). I believe he penned an article for the MRJ entitled 'The Queer Case of the Flying Scotsman and the Gay Crusader'. It was never published; I wonder why not? 

 

For those who've had the pleasure to see Roy Jackson's motive power at work, I'm inclined to state that nobody ever built better-running locos than he did, and I doubt anyone ever will. These ran (still do) on a taxing, scale-length EM model railway (Retford), hauling heavy loads, often at high speed. Others would crawl to perfection on 'lesser' trains or shunting duties. Visiting locos, built by others, would often be 'killed' as they tried to emulate the master's work! If rigid frames worked for Roy, then that's good enough for me.

 

I'll be interested to see how you get on building the Pro-Scale frames.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I can answer you query about the Roy Jackson article Tony. It was written, not so much by Roy but by me. I went over to his place and spent many hours at his computer. He found it almost impossible to sit and type but he could talk the hind legs off a donkey. So I would ask him questions, "So what would you do next, why and how?" sort of things and type his answers. There were a few MRJ articles like that. They were published under Roy's name and in many cases were his words. Another of the gang suggested correcting the grammar and the use of language but by leaving it alone, at least they sounded like Roy even if it was me at the keyboard setting the agenda and typing.

 

Not long after the A3 article was written, he and I had a disagreement over the writing/publishing/editing arrangements and although the article was pretty much completed, apart from a final run through and edit, I don't think he felt comfortable about sending it off to be published due to my involvement. The conclusion of the article was that both locos ran well and pulled the heavy trains but that the sprung one took a lot longer to build and needed a lot of added weight to stop it slipping. The rigid one pulled the heaviest trains with no added weight. The sprung loco was marginally smoother (I think we used the word "sexier") through complex points and junctions where a lot of gaps and crossings were close together.

 

I did suggest that it be published as a posthumous tribute after he died but by that time the computer had long gone and I don't know what happened to the files that were stored on it.

 

Roy was certainly a master at getting his locos to run well. Having said that, there were several others who contributed locos to run on Retford (and who are doing so now) who may not have produced better running locos than Roy but could match what he achieved.

 

What he did manage better than most was to get locos that ran in a rock steady way, with virtually no wiggling about as they went along with their heavy trains. He always reckoned that he could tell one of his from something somebody else had built at a distance by looking at the way the front end was either moving about or wasn't.

 

Talking of smooth running, have you seen the latest short video of Laurie Adam's "Yeovil Town"? The Dean Goods finally got sorted out and much of the layout is now wired (at least with temporary lash ups) so trains can now run in most places. The GWR railcar is a converted RTR and the M7 was scratchbuilt by Laurie many years ago. Laurie's trackwork is about as good as it gets, in any scale or gauge.

 

  

 

[Barry Ten]

I couldn't tell that was 2mm until the loco ran past the enormous pair of spectacles!!!

[31A]

2 hours ago, stewartingram said:

I remember Cambridge station back in steam (& early diesel) days. A little twisted as the GE section also used discs (which I believe were issued 'on shed' to the crew), and also the GE section was early with diesels; in addition of course the early diesels had folding discs (then blinds, also the dmus had blinds and (dim) electric lights too.

Anyway back to Cambridge, the station with a very long platorm (1 & 4), with bays at either end. Walk south along the Up platform (1), and on the right were the bays (2 & 3). On the platform by the buffer stop of (2), was a large selection of oil lamps, ready filled (and I think ready lit) for crews to use. I'm sure they were a mixture of tail lamps and headlamps, can anyone else remember these?

 

I certainly remember seeing that but long after the end of steam (1970s) and as far as I remember (at that time) just tail lamps.  I also seem to recall one or two 'emergency' screw couplings hanging on the wall in that area, too.

[Tony Wright]

8 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

I can answer you query about the Roy Jackson article Tony. It was written, not so much by Roy but by me. I went over to his place and spent many hours at his computer. He found it almost impossible to sit and type but he could talk the hind legs off a donkey. So I would ask him questions, "So what would you do next, why and how?" sort of things and type his answers. There were a few MRJ articles like that. They were published under Roy's name and in many cases were his words. Another of the gang suggested correcting the grammar and the use of language but by leaving it alone, at least they sounded like Roy even if it was me at the keyboard setting the agenda and typing.

 

Not long after the A3 article was written, he and I had a disagreement over the writing/publishing/editing arrangements and although the article was pretty much completed, apart from a final run through and edit, I don't think he felt comfortable about sending it off to be published due to my involvement. The conclusion of the article was that both locos ran well and pulled the heavy trains but that the sprung one took a lot longer to build and needed a lot of added weight to stop it slipping. The rigid one pulled the heaviest trains with no added weight. The sprung loco was marginally smoother (I think we used the word "sexier") through complex points and junctions where a lot of gaps and crossings were close together.

 

I did suggest that it be published as a posthumous tribute after he died but by that time the computer had long gone and I don't know what happened to the files that were stored on it.

 

Roy was certainly a master at getting his locos to run well. Having said that, there were several others who contributed locos to run on Retford (and who are doing so now) who may not have produced better running locos than Roy but could match what he achieved.

 

What he did manage better than most was to get locos that ran in a rock steady way, with virtually no wiggling about as they went along with their heavy trains. He always reckoned that he could tell one of his from something somebody else had built at a distance by looking at the way the front end was either moving about or wasn't.

 

Talking of smooth running, have you seen the latest short video of Laurie Adam's "Yeovil Town"? The Dean Goods finally got sorted out and much of the layout is now wired (at least with temporary lash ups) so trains can now run in most places. The GWR railcar is a converted RTR and the M7 was scratchbuilt by Laurie many years ago. Laurie's trackwork is about as good as it gets, in any scale or gauge.

 

  

 

That's superlative running Tony,

 

Thanks for showing us. 

 

Regarding 'wiggling'. That's something I've noticed when running RTR in comparison with kit-built locos. Though I have very little RTR, they do wiggle and waddle a lot more than a kit-built equivalent in my experience (Roy used to say that about the re-gauged RTR locos which ran on Retford as well). Could it because of greater OO tolerances, I wonder? 

 

That's not to say that every loco I've built runs without any wiggling. But then, real ones can bounce and sway from side to side as well, especially in tight, front-on perspective. EM might mean less of a side-to-side motion, especially under load, because the tolerances (track-wheel-flangeway interface) are generally tighter than OO, especially if Peco OO pointwork is employed (as in Bytham's fiddle yard). That said, not all EM layouts I've seen, nor P4 (which has the tightest tolerances), run perfectly. 

 

I'm well aware that there are several locos in use on Retford which were not built by Roy (I count it a great compliment that he accepted the chassis I built to go underneath an A2/2 he was constructing; which is still going strong). Indeed, there are currently a few locos I've built (or at least the frames) running on Retford, including an A2, V2 and two B17s. Sandra reports that they all run fine (though I'd never put myself in the same loco-building league as Roy). I assume there are some of yours, and it's great to see those she's made herself running so well as well. 

 

I think it's the greatest tribute to Roy, Sandra and the likes of yourself that the 'gang' is once more back together, aiming to complete what I once described as 'the greatest model railway ever made'. If I can contribute, in a small way, by building loco chassis for it (I have a set for an A2/3 underway right now - it'll have two sets of frames; one in OO for use on LB and one in EM for use on Retford), I'll be more than happy.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Barclay]

Without wishing to re-open the can of worms that is the great compensation debate, I think the real answer is that it's 'horses for courses', and it's interesting that both you, Tony, and Roy are/were both particularly fond of large multi-wheel loco's hauling big trains at a decent speed. In EM and 00 the biggest benefit of compensation is improved pick up, and it is indeed much improved, it's just that on a big loco., any tender loco. to be honest, you simply don't need even better pick up than you already have. 

 

On one of these, however, shuffling back and forth over 3 ways and other complicated industrial trackwork, it really does have a benefit. However, having said that, like you I do prefer a chassis that has the provision for compensation, i.e. half-etched cut outs, rather than making an assumption...

 

 

[APOLLO]

Long day yesterday, went better than planned funnily enough due to train delays.

 

Firstly, visitors to Wigan from the deep south arriving at Wigan North Western are greeted in the subway with a full range of how to "speyk" in town. Well worth inspecting.

 

 

Anyway, A thankfully on time Pendolino to Lancaster and a quick connection to the Carlisle train via the Cumbrian Coast, this train ran straight through, stopping everywhere, around 4 hours. Stock up with food and drink beforehand.

 

Lovely day and stunning views. That's Scotland in the distance, and The Isle of Man could also be seen a bit earlier on.

 

 

 

A bit late into Carlisle, I was going to catch a Pendolino direct home but Avanti and Trans Pennine express had problems with cancellations (staff issues) and late running trains. Lots of people again waiting, lothered & maul't deerf as we say.

 

 

I spied the afternoon train down to Leeds. A quick enquiry informed me of a half hour wait at Leeds for a direct train to Wigan NW - so third trip on the S&C. and why not, I had a rover ticket, the sun was shining and it was a glorious day.

 

 

Dent Dale

 

 

 

 

Some say God is a Yorkshireman, if he is I'm in trouble being a Wiganer and a while ago an avid Wigan Rugby fan. !!!!

 

On time into a very busy Leeds. 

 

 

Found my platform, and as we say in Wigan, "off wom"

 

 

Last day Mon or Tuesday, probably the S&C again, I've caught a bit of the Settle and Carlisle disease, As David Jenkinson once said.

 

Brit15

[Tony Wright]

30 minutes ago, Barclay said:

Without wishing to re-open the can of worms that is the great compensation debate, I think the real answer is that it's 'horses for courses', and it's interesting that both you, Tony, and Roy are/were both particularly fond of large multi-wheel loco's hauling big trains at a decent speed. In EM and 00 the biggest benefit of compensation is improved pick up, and it is indeed much improved, it's just that on a big loco., any tender loco. to be honest, you simply don't need even better pick up than you already have. 

 

On one of these, however, shuffling back and forth over 3 ways and other complicated industrial trackwork, it really does have a benefit. However, having said that, like you I do prefer a chassis that has the provision for compensation, i.e. half-etched cut outs, rather than making an assumption...

 

 

Thanks Stuart,

 

I'm inclined to agree, but then 0-4-0s at Little Bytham in BR days were not very common.

 

Where I have built smaller locos, and where they have to run slowly over complex trackwork, some (and whisper this very quietly) equipped with dead-frog points, I either employ bogie/pony/tender pick-ups, or, in the absence of such devices, attach them to a match truck fitted with pick-ups.

 

Like these on Grantham..................

 

 

Tender pick-ups on this McGowan D9; painted by Geoff Haynes.

 

 

Bogie pick-ups on this South Eastern Finecast C12; painted by Graham Nicholas, for whom it was made. 

 

 

Tender pick-ups on the DJH C2, but no need for extras on the Jamieson V2 - more drivers and a longer wheelbase; both painted by Geoff Haynes.

 

I built both these locos for myself, but they're now the property of Grantham team members. 

 

 

The need to be able to crawl across dead-frog crossings without stalling is imperative. 

 

 

Just visible to the left is the pick-up-attached match truck for the SEF J69; painted by Graham Nicholas, for whom it was built.

 

 

And, a clearer view.

 

 

Tender pick-ups on a London Road D2 I built for Mark Allatt; painted by Ian Rathbone. Note the dead-frog pointwork, at least in part.

 

 

No need for extra pick-ups here. Built from an ACE kit (with extensive modifications), also for Mark Allatt, and also painted by Ian Rathbone. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[gr.king]

Re: "wiggling" steam loco models, in the case of RTR examples much of it must be due to the huge amounts of un-controlled sideplay allowed to the wheelsets to allow the locos to go round hairpin bends on toy track. Introduction of washers to limit the sideplay on the coupled wheels helps a bit, if the loco is only to run on easier curves, and also helps to reduce the chances of clashes between parts of the outside motion. I've found that gently restraining the leading and/or trailing trucks (where present) does more to settle down the ride, either by means of some suitable added springing or ballast to weight the truck, and (possibly as part of the springing arrangement) maybe a rubbing strip of some sort between the truck and the main frames, so that the main frames cannot "wag" without tending to push the truck aside too - which its wheel flanges prevent of course. I've had less trouble with rubbing strips than with side-control springing which can have too much effect when the loco meets a rail joint, a point blade or a crossing on a curve. The action of the rubbing strip is a neutral one that merely damps oscillation rather than trying to straighten up the truck all the time.

When I produced (as requested) A1/1 and W1 models for Roy, as EM gauge variants of my then "standard" conversions of OO RTR models, merely "washering up" the longer axles to suit the narrow OO frames, they ran "satisfactorily" to OO RTR standards, but Roy subsequently refined the running by adding Brassmasters frame overlays to widen the frames and to control both the sideplay and the concentricity of the wheelsets, the original Hornby bearings for the middle coupled wheels in particular having allowed them to shuffle up, down, back and forward in an unacceptable way. 

Edited September 2, 2022 by gr.king

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, Barclay said:

Without wishing to re-open the can of worms that is the great compensation debate, I think the real answer is that it's 'horses for courses', and it's interesting that both you, Tony, and Roy are/were both particularly fond of large multi-wheel loco's hauling big trains at a decent speed. In EM and 00 the biggest benefit of compensation is improved pick up, and it is indeed much improved, it's just that on a big loco., any tender loco. to be honest, you simply don't need even better pick up than you already have. 

 

On one of these, however, shuffling back and forth over 3 ways and other complicated industrial trackwork, it really does have a benefit. However, having said that, like you I do prefer a chassis that has the provision for compensation, i.e. half-etched cut outs, rather than making an assumption...

 

 

 

Please don't include me with Messrs. Wright and Jackson when it comes to my operating preferences!

 

Neither of them has or had much interest in operating layouts, whereas I do.

 

I do like to see an express running but watching a whole parade of them one after the other soon bores me and when I see points and sidings that never get used, I think it a bit of a waste. 

 

If offered a choice between a big roundy roundy with a parade of expresses that all just rattle round one after the other, or a layout with lots of shunting and remarshalling of trains, then the second category wins hands down for me every time.

 

Building a small shunting loco that will creep slowly up and down all day long, starting, stopping and changing direction, is quite a bit more challenging than building a big express loco in my view. You don't get all the advantages of mass and momentum to help you.

 

Of the locos I have built, the ones that give me the most satisfaction are those that are good for shunting.

[t-b-g]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

That's superlative running Tony,

 

Thanks for showing us. 

 

Regarding 'wiggling'. That's something I've noticed when running RTR in comparison with kit-built locos. Though I have very little RTR, they do wiggle and waddle a lot more than a kit-built equivalent in my experience (Roy used to say that about the re-gauged RTR locos which ran on Retford as well). Could it because of greater OO tolerances, I wonder? 

 

That's not to say that every loco I've built runs without any wiggling. But then, real ones can bounce and sway from side to side as well, especially in tight, front-on perspective. EM might mean less of a side-to-side motion, especially under load, because the tolerances (track-wheel-flangeway interface) are generally tighter than OO, especially if Peco OO pointwork is employed (as in Bytham's fiddle yard). That said, not all EM layouts I've seen, nor P4 (which has the tightest tolerances), run perfectly. 

 

I'm well aware that there are several locos in use on Retford which were not built by Roy (I count it a great compliment that he accepted the chassis I built to go underneath an A2/2 he was constructing; which is still going strong). Indeed, there are currently a few locos I've built (or at least the frames) running on Retford, including an A2, V2 and two B17s. Sandra reports that they all run fine (though I'd never put myself in the same loco-building league as Roy). I assume there are some of yours, and it's great to see those she's made herself running so well as well. 

 

I think it's the greatest tribute to Roy, Sandra and the likes of yourself that the 'gang' is once more back together, aiming to complete what I once described as 'the greatest model railway ever made'. If I can contribute, in a small way, by building loco chassis for it (I have a set for an A2/3 underway right now - it'll have two sets of frames; one in OO for use on LB and one in EM for use on Retford), I'll be more than happy.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I have never contributed a loco to Retford Tony. I decided that I would leave that side of things to Roy and I would work on the things that he didn't enjoy or want to do.

[dibateg]

I built nearly everything compensated or sprung in my 4mm building days, but they were always out performed haulage wise on Stoke and Charwelton by the rigid chassis locomotives. I was following the trend at the time - compensation, Portescap motors. The only advantage was marginally improved pick up perhaps... but I always put as many pick ups on as I could. All my locos have/had tender pick ups..

 

As always - interesting discussions..

 

Regards

Tony

[St Enodoc]

38 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Please don't include me with Messrs. Wright and Jackson when it comes to my operating preferences!

 

Neither of them has or had much interest in operating layouts, whereas I do.

 

I do like to see an express running but watching a whole parade of them one after the other soon bores me and when I see points and sidings that never get used, I think it a bit of a waste. 

 

If offered a choice between a big roundy roundy with a parade of expresses that all just rattle round one after the other, or a layout with lots of shunting and remarshalling of trains, then the second category wins hands down for me every time.

 

Building a small shunting loco that will creep slowly up and down all day long, starting, stopping and changing direction, is quite a bit more challenging than building a big express loco in my view. You don't get all the advantages of mass and momentum to help you.

 

Of the locos I have built, the ones that give me the most satisfaction are those that are good for shunting.

Yes, the distinction between running and operating, which I think we've discussed here before.

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

Yes, the distinction between running and operating, which I think we've discussed here before.

 

Indeed. We do seem to keep coming back to the same discussions. I have spent the morning running Buckingham with a couple of friends, having the odd look at RMWeb while they were both engaged shunting at Buckingham and Grandborough.

 

It was the first running session for a few weeks due to holidays and other commitments but it was lovely to be back in 1907 for a few hours again.

 

Watching the Buckingham pilot pottering about, collecting empty coal wagons from the goods yard, gasworks and loco shed and attaching a brake van, then leaving the wagons in a suitable departure road and an 0-6-0 tender loco backing off shed and coupling on to take them to Grandborough, where more empties will be attached for a return working to the "Midlands" is as good a model railway operating experience as I have known. 

Edited September 2, 2022 by t-b-g
typo

[Guest Simon A.C. Martin]

Noting the excellent Jamieson example of a Gresley V2, and having shared this with LNER Modellers on Facebook, I thought I might venture to show one of Graeme King's resin V2 kits as completed by me recently, in the spirit of "layout loco" modelling.

 

 

 

 

I originally purchased a trio of his resin kits and they are all now complete after having sat waiting for painting after nearly five years since they were bought. They are all on the 2011/2012 release of Bachmann's warmed over Gresley V2 model, with lots of added parts (whitemetal buffers from Lanarkshire models for example). Graeme's kit is a virtual straight swap for the Bachmann original but is far more accurate in many areas. I had to make a couple of modifications to the cylinders to be correct for the other locos (Green Arrow has the earlier torpedo shaped ends to the valve spindles for the conjugated gear).

 

I chose to make one of them as 4771 Green Arrow as she was early on in the second world war. Wartime livery isn't modelled that much (is my observation anyway), and I am hoping after getting this model weathered and coaled, she will look the part on my Ganwick Curve layout.

 

In terms of running, I doubt this model could pull what the Jamieson loco pulls, but having added some lead to the bodyshell over the front of the drivers, she will pull 12 of the Hornby Gresley coaches, and has had some nice running on some lengthy mixed goods rakes (up to 20 wagons with no slipping).