Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

8 hours ago, nzpaul said:

Hello Tony, and readers of WW.

I've followed WW for some time but until now didn't believe that I had anything useful to contribute to the conversation. After consultation with a couple of LNER forum collogues, I've been assured that I'm doing the right thing in bringing this to your attention. The Proscale A4 with Comet chassis from a few pages back has valve guide crossheads of the type found on A3s.  I think the type fitted should be the later, less elegant type common on V2s. A small detail but older type  do  look a little odd on an A4.

I sincerely hope I haven't ruined your day, and apologies if this has already been covered or rectified.

 

Paul

Good morning Paul,

 

Many thanks.

 

I did note the difference in the valve guides on the A4s, and, after consulting numerous books I have on the class, found several A4s in BR days fitted with the type seen on my model. Granted, the other sort was more common.

 

 

Regards,

 

Tony

[Barry O]

I am certain that if you attach an oscilloscope to the controllers on Little Bytham you will see a lot of high frequency "ripple" used to make locos start more easily.  (At one point this was the "in" thing for controllers). Great with older type motors but it does make Portescaps "sing" and doesn't help dcc chips trying to look for a dc signal.

 

Shap uses two sound fitted diesels (a Bachmann Class 47 and a Bachmann Class 40) on trains up the hill.. it sounds really nice when they start notching back at the top of the Bank. Touch wood the H&M Duettes   (and other controllers) give out a cleanish dc signal so no problems there.

 

Baz

[St Enodoc]

2 minutes ago, Barry O said:

Shap uses two sound fitted diesels (a Bachmann Class 47 and a Bachmann Class 40) on trains up the hill.. it sounds really nice when they start notching back at the top of the Bank. Touch wood the H&M Duettes   (and other controllers) give out a cleanish dc signal so no problems there.

Better not use Q-Drivers then...

Edited September 5, 2022 by St Enodoc
speling

[t-b-g]

3 hours ago, 2750Papyrus said:

What a beauty!

 

 

I had the pleasure of drooling over that loco on Ian's demo stand at the GOG Guildex show this weekend. It looks great in the photo but even better close up!

[t-b-g]

4 hours ago, Bucoops said:

 

Good morning Paul, an interesting post - I believe this is the later less elegant type?

 

 

I don't have any pictures of the early type except this:

 

 

If that's what you mean I would be very interested in learning when it started to be used on the A4s.

 

Comparing the model and the real thing, the biggest difference for me is that the real thing has a big lump of 3 dimensional valve guide, including a lovely curved surface whereas the model has a 2 dimensional flat etch. It doesn't seem to matter to me which actual type of valve guide it represents. It just doesn't look very much like it at all. That and the "see through" top slide bar often spoil model LNER valve gear for me.

 

It might look OK rattling past at 100mph but photographed and viewed on a screen it never convinces.

[Chuffer Davies]

1 hour ago, Barry O said:

Touch wood the H&M Duettes   (and other controllers) give out a cleanish dc signal so no problems there.

 

Baz

Hi Barry,

I read on another RM topic several months ago that the rectifiers in very old controllers (such as the Duettes now will be) gradually break down and the AC feed increasingly leaks through to the DC side of the rectifier.  This is not good especially for more sensitive motors.   Not sure whether DCC decoders will be effected or not. The recommendation was to replace the rectifiers with modern diode rectifiers on the basis that the transformers and resistance mats are likely to still be fine.  It might be worth (if you have access to one) putting an oscilloscope on any old controllers you may have to check for AC leakage.

Frank

[Barry Ten]

Re: the controllers on Little Bytham, one thing I've noticed on both my visits is that they seem to get the best of my own locos, when they are hitched up to Tony's trains. Whether it's the extra power in reserve on the controllers, or the track being dead flat, as well as the generous curves, but the locos seem (to me) to run effortlessly. I also like Tony's beefy hand controllers, with the slide to regulate power, rather than a twiddly little knob (no jokes, please). 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

Comparing the model and the real thing, the biggest difference for me is that the real thing has a big lump of 3 dimensional valve guide, including a lovely curved surface whereas the model has a 2 dimensional flat etch. It doesn't seem to matter to me which actual type of valve guide it represents. It just doesn't look very much like it at all. That and the "see through" top slide bar often spoil model LNER valve gear for me.

 

It might look OK rattling past at 100mph but photographed and viewed on a screen it never convinces.

Good afternoon Tony,

 

Unfortunately, 'we' all can't build models which live up to an 'exhalted' standard. I (very lazily) just used the parts supplied by Comet. When painted/weathered, who'll see, especially as it'll be 'rattling past at 100 mph'? Rattling through a depiction of an actual place, mind. Made-up locations, hower well done, never convince.

 

Regards,

 

Tony

[Tony Wright]

9 minutes ago, Barry Ten said:

Re: the controllers on Little Bytham, one thing I've noticed on both my visits is that they seem to get the best of my own locos, when they are hitched up to Tony's trains. Whether it's the extra power in reserve on the controllers, or the track being dead flat, as well as the generous curves, but the locos seem (to me) to run effortlessly. I also like Tony's beefy hand controllers, with the slide to regulate power, rather than a twiddly little knob (no jokes, please). 

Thanks Al,

 

Bytham' s controllers are made by Helsman (I don't know if they're still available). What I do know is that they're the O Gauge ones, giving plenty of 'umph' for a heavy  OO Pacific on 14 kit-built bogies.

 

Regards,

 

Tony

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Tony,

 

Unfortunately, 'we' all can't build models which live up to an 'exhalted' standard. I (very lazily) just used the parts supplied by Comet. When painted/weathered, who'll see, especially as it'll be 'rattling past at 100 mph'? Rattling through a depiction of an actual place, mind. Made-up locations, hower well done, never convince.

 

Regards,

 

Tony

 

I am pretty sure that somebody with your skill and ability could improve the valve gear if you really wanted to. There is always a trade off between building many hundreds of locos and the time that you can spend on each one. As I have said, my interest in Gresley Pacifics isn't great but I do recall seeing that correct pattern slidebars and crossheads can be obtained and I am pretty sure that I have seen cast valve guides that look much better than the flat etched ones.

 

So I don't think it would have a major impact on the build time of a loco.

 

As you have enough locos to stock Little Bytham 4 or 5 times over, it would be interesting to see what you could do if you pulled out all the stops and "did a job" (as Roy would have put it) on one or two. You certainly don't need to put them together quite so quickly if you have so many spare locos already. It is not as if you need them in a hurry.

 

As for fictional vs real locations, I have nothing new to add, that I haven't said on here before, so rather than repeat myself, I will say nothing! 

 

 

[ROY@34F]

19 hours ago, Flying Fox 34F said:

Iron Ore traffic from High Dyke to Frodingham, was routed via Sleaford, Boston and the East Lincs line.  There was the Aldwarke run with fitted wagons which ran ECML with Pacific haulage to boot!

 

Paul

We used to have a loose coupled train of loaded tipplers from Highdyke to Doncaster as well Paul , in steam days . Always one of our "Tangos" , we used to leave the train in a yard on the downside (Decoy ? ...not sure} , take the engine to the loco where the foreman would tell us to take the engine home light engine usually . Or sometimes work a train back . Or go home "on the cushions' .  Was that train also destined for Aldwark ? . I don't know . 

    I have been on the Aldwarke job a few times with an A3 , though it was rostered in a higher link , (No. 3 link} to the other Frodingham jobs . It turned off the main line at Doncaster , and did a circular route back to rejoin the mainline at Retford In the early hours of the day . We were "under the wires" in the Sheffield area ... something we were'nt accustomed to at the time .    Happy days though .

 

Regards , Roy .

[Tony Wright]

17 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I am pretty sure that somebody with your skill and ability could improve the valve gear if you really wanted to. There is always a trade off between building many hundreds of locos and the time that you can spend on each one. As I have said, my interest in Gresley Pacifics isn't great but I do recall seeing that correct pattern slidebars and crossheads can be obtained and I am pretty sure that I have seen cast valve guides that look much better than the flat etched ones.

 

So I don't think it would have a major impact on the build time of a loco.

 

As you have enough locos to stock Little Bytham 4 or 5 times over, it would be interesting to see what you could do if you pulled out all the stops and "did a job" (as Roy would have put it) on one or two. You certainly don't need to put them together quite so quickly if you have so many spare locos already. It is not as if you need them in a hurry.

 

As for fictional vs real locations, I have nothing new to add, that I haven't said on here before, so rather than repeat myself, I will say nothing! 

 

 

Thanks Tony,

 

If I had the motivation to 'do a job', I  might, but I don't. You're right - with over 200 locos I've built for various ECML layouts down the years, and with 50-odd needed to operate Bytham's sequence, there are plenty of spares.

 

And, what if I did a 'proper job', with the correct valve guides, sidebars and everything else one might consider? All the previous 200+ locos would be rendered 'inferior'. The latest one would stand out for all the wrong reasons!

 

No, I'm far too indolent now to do a 'proper' job. With four locos now ready for Geoff Haynes to paint, I've already got the bits together to build another A3, J3 and V2, as well as the EM frames for DANTE for Retford - I hope Sandra will forgive the incorrect (Comet) sidebars.

 

Regards,

 

Tony

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Tony,

 

If I had the motivation to 'do a job', I  might, but I don't. You're right - with over 200 locos I've built for various ECML layouts down the years, and with 50-odd needed to operate Bytham's sequence, there are plenty of spares.

 

And, what if I did a 'proper job', with the correct valve guides, sidebars and everything else one might consider? All the previous 200+ locos would be rendered 'inferior'. The latest one would stand out for all the wrong reasons!

 

No, I'm far too indolent now to do a 'proper' job. With four locos now ready for Geoff Haynes to paint, I've already got the bits together to build another A3, J3 and V2, as well as the EM frames for DANTE for Retford - I hope Sandra will forgive the incorrect (Comet) sidebars.

 

Regards,

 

Tony

 

I can understand that Tony, which is why my initial comment was a response to a post that wasn't yours. I know just how you feel about such things. I spotted a few things on your latest A4 but as I knew that you would not be correcting them and I didn't want to come across as having a dig at you, I said nothing. It is, after all, another "layout loco".

 

My modelling mentors over the years always taught me to take a kit from a box and use it as a base, improving or replacing the parts that were not quite right. So that is how I work today.

 

I do think it a bit of a shame when models are shown that could have been better with a relatively small amount of extra work but that is just my approach and I don't see why anybody else should feel the same.

 

 

 

[nzpaul]

20 hours ago, Bucoops said:

 

Good morning Paul, an interesting post - I believe this is the later less elegant type?

 

 

I don't have any pictures of the early type except this:

 

 

If that's what you mean I would be very interested in learning when it started to be used on the A4s.

Yes, that's exactly the part I was on about. I'm sorry I can't provide dates of who used what and when, but it would appear that the two types of guides were used almost indiscriminately, and I've found examples of A4's fitted with both types at opposite ends of the same cylinder.

This image is cropped from the original photo that got me started in the first place, 60032 Gannet on the Elizabethan in late BR guise. All it proves is that on the day the photo was taken, it was fitted with the later style valve guides on the right hand cylinder. I think Tony has put the subject to bed with his reply to my original post, perhaps best left to dissolve into history as it will do quite quickly on this thread.

 

Paul

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by nzpaul
fix

[Tony Wright]

5 hours ago, nzpaul said:

Yes, that's exactly the part I was on about. I'm sorry I can't provide dates of who used what and when, but it would appear that the two types of guides were used almost indiscriminately, and I've found examples of A4's fitted with both types at opposite ends of the same cylinder.

This image is cropped from the original photo that got me started in the first place, 60032 Gannet on the Elizabethan in late BR guise. All it proves is that on the day the photo was taken, it was fitted with the later style valve guides on the right hand cylinder. I think Tony has put the subject to bed with his reply to my original post, perhaps best left to dissolve into history as it will do quite quickly on this thread.

 

Paul

 

Thanks Paul,

 

I could change the valve guides to the type shown in the picture (they're just soldered in place). GANNET will be finished in that guise, anyway.

 

It's one of those little detail quirks of loco history which makes modelling them so fascinating.

 

Regards,

 

Tony

[Barclay]

On 03/09/2022 at 08:46, thegreenhowards said:

Without wishing to reopen another favourite debate (well perhaps just a little!), the same can be achieved very simply with a DCC chip and a stayalive!

 

I’ll now duck!

 

Andy

Very simply - just invest in a whole new control system, chip 20+ loco's., some of them tiny, doubtless frying a few expensive chips while I was getting the hang of it, all wasting valuable modelling time because I would hate every minute of it, and my goodness it would make me swear, just to run a one-engine-in-steam industrial layout. Yes, I really should have seen the light before now!! 😃

To be fair I have seen DCC used well on larger layouts, and sound can be good, when done well, which it often isn't. But it's not for me - I'll stick with hornblocks and beams...

 

[nzpaul]

Hello again Tony

One thing that made me nervous about writing the first post was the chance that, despite a number of photos backing up my claim, there could be many more that I haven't seen proving me wrong. Coming across as a fool on this thread is a less than appealing thought.

Overriding that, if  the information turns out to be useful and you decide that it's worth the effort to change the guides, it would be much easier to do it now before it gets painted.

I'm not sure if I've succeeded, but the intention was to be helpful.

 

Paul

 

[gr.king]

4 hours ago, nzpaul said:

Coming across as a fool on this thread is a less than appealing thought.

 

 

I'm proud of my tradition of coming across as a fool, or at least as insane...

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, nzpaul said:

Hello again Tony

One thing that made me nervous about writing the first post was the chance that, despite a number of photos backing up my claim, there could be many more that I haven't seen proving me wrong. Coming across as a fool on this thread is a less than appealing thought.

Overriding that, if  the information turns out to be useful and you decide that it's worth the effort to change the guides, it would be much easier to do it now before it gets painted.

I'm not sure if I've succeeded, but the intention was to be helpful.

 

Paul

 

Thanks Paul,

 

The last thing you come across as is a fool. Your contributions are much-appreciated.

 

I've said on many occasions, anyone who thinks the models he/she makes should not be subject to 'critical' comment is, indeed, a fool!

 

Regards,

 

Tony

[Northmoor]

7 hours ago, Barclay said:

Very simply - just invest in a whole new control system, chip 20+ loco's., some of them tiny, doubtless frying a few expensive chips while I was getting the hang of it, all wasting valuable modelling time because I would hate every minute of it, and my goodness it would make me swear, just to run a one-engine-in-steam industrial layout. Yes, I really should have seen the light before now!! 😃

To be fair I have seen DCC used well on larger layouts, and sound can be good, when done well, which it often isn't. But it's not for me - I'll stick with hornblocks and beams...

 

I suspect that I've watched many well-operated DCC layouts without knowing, but the layouts I've seen operated badly, or at least in ways that encourage me to wander off and see something else, are almost invariably DCC.  I've seen trains driven (by one of the layout's regular operators) in to the back of the (moving) train in front; trains stopping with a lurch in the middle of nowhere and refusing to move while the operators fumbled with a laptop menu.  Diesel depots with all the locos idling at once, but no sound of anything else living or man-made.

 

On a roundy-roundy watch-the-trains-go-by like LB (and I know it's much, much more than that!), DCC would it seems to me, have very little value, with much more cost but very little extra functionality.  On layouts with multiple locos arriving, departing and shunting across each other's paths, I can absolutely see the point of DCC.  

[Andy Hayter]

If I were starting out today, I might well be seduced by DCC but I am not starting today.  When I read @Barclaytalking about the cost of converting 20 locos, my reaction was "so few".  Then add on the cost of controls systems, boosters, stay alives and the like.

 

In many cases, layouts can be planned in DC to provide everything that the user could want including double heading, bankers and the like.  Where DCC does score is sound (if that is your thing), smoke (including diesels) but this is top of the range chips and accessories; and as already suggested an area like a loco shed where the density of locos is very high - and even then I think I could design a DC equivalent.

 

While I think it is now widely accepted that DCC is not just "2 wires", there is an undoubted saving in copper wire.  My 30 x 8 French layout has around 1km of wire - albeit of finer gauge than that needed for DCC.   For all that, it is simplicity itself - electricity goes in one way (via a switch) and comes out the other.  Turn the switch on and things can run.  DCC on the face of it is the same except that instead of a simple switch, you have in every loco a small motherboard covered with components, the purpose of which remains forever a mystery.  

[davidw]

I've close on 100 locos. 70/80% chipped. I was seduced by the fable of two wires. But I've never needed boosters and so on.  What I have been SO irritated by are decoders losing their settings. (Early Bachmann). I'd probably go DCC again. But it's a closer run thing than it was.

More can go wrong.

 

Edited September 7, 2022 by davidw

[nzpaul]

9 hours ago, gr.king said:

I'm proud of my tradition of coming across as a fool, or at least as insane...

Graeme, I can't recall any instance where you, or anybody, should call you foolish or insane. Mad perhaps, but in a "unusually determined to build a locomotive from little more than the contents of a rubbish bin, driven my the mechanism of a former robot barbie" kind of way. Whereby mad translates to quiet admiration or you lateral thinking and model making skill.

 

8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Paul,

 

The last thing you come across as is a fool. Your contributions are much-appreciated.

 

I've said on many occasions, anyone who thinks the models he/she makes should not be subject to 'critical' comment is, indeed, a fool!

 

Regards,

 

Tony

 

 

Thanks Tony.

Introducing myself to you and Wrights Writes by pointing out what I believed was an error was undoubtedly heavy handed and I was aware that I could be setting myself up to be made an example of. I'm thankful that didn't happen.

 

Paul

 

 

[30368]

(with apologies to Tony and Carry on fans)

 

As Peter Butterworth (Brother Belcher) said in Carry On Up the Khyber

 

"Of course, they're all completely mad you know"

 

Welcome to the funny farm Paul.

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

[gr.king]

So long as it all stays light hearted we can honestly claim that no railway modellers were harmed in the course of this discussion.