Wright writes.....

[Compound2632]

On 04/01/2024 at 00:46, lezz01 said:

With a two cylinder inside cylinder loco the cranks are set at 180deg to the crank pin and the right hand side is 90deg advanced to that on the left as seen from the cab.

 

Sorry catching up on old posts here. Midland engines were right-hand leading and LNWR engines were left-hand leading - I don't know about other companies but this suggests a hard-and-fast rule may be misleading. Midland engines were RH drive and LNWR engines LH drive; I have no idea if that has anything to do with it! But also, in Midland engines, the steam pipe curved round the LH side of the smokebox (as seen from the cab) and round the RH side on LNWR engines - something that becomes evident when looking at locomotives fitted with vacuum-controlled regulator equipment for motor train working.

 

On 04/01/2024 at 09:02, Northmoor said:

Whichever is the larger cylinder will be the lower pressure one, the larger bore compensating for the lower pressure to even out the force on the cranks.

 

On a two-cylinder or four-cylinder compound, yes, but on a Midland compound with one high pressure cylinder and two low pressure cylinders, the difference was only a couple of inches in diameter (21" x 26" vs 19" x 26"), although the low pressure cylinders were the larger ones. On a Webb compound, with two high pressure cylinders and one low pressure cylinder, the low pressure cylinder was enormous - 30" diameter on the Teutonics, with 14" diameter high-pressure cylinders. 

 

But taking the two-cylinder example, if it was desirable to even out the force on the cranks for both cylinders, the design objective would be to ensure that equal work was done by the steam in each cylinder, which would determine the volume ratio of the two cylinders and the valve events.

[Tony Wright]

26 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Can I pose a question to the experts on here? I’m trying to renumber my O gauge K1.

 

 

I want to renumber it as a West Highland example, 62011 as in the second photo on this page.

 

https://www.keymodelworld.com/article/lner-peppercorn-k1-2-6-0-class-history

 

My question is, what size should the cabside numbers be? I’ve been given a choice of 8,9,or 10” by Railtec. My understanding is that ER locos tended to be 10” while some SCR locos were smaller. The loco seems to have 10” (6mm in scale) numbers at the moment (it’s numbered 62005, a NE or preserved example) and by scaling it off the photo I get about 9.5”, so I’m tempted to go with 10”. But I’d welcome any expert opinion.

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

Good morning Andy,

 

I'd go with 10" numbers - most ER/NER/ScR ex-LNER/BR steam locos had that size, the only exceptions (as far as I know) were those where space was extremely restricted (a tiny cab- or bunker-side, for instance). Doncaster seemed to use 8" for the ER-allocated BR Standards it repaired, but Darlington tended to use 10". 

 

You say some ScR locos had smaller numbers. Which were these, please? In my trainspotting experience, some Scottish-repaired locos (Cowlairs?) tended to use the larger numbers - this always caused great rejoicing among my urchin throng because, say, a 'Jub' or a 'Mickey' with large cabside numbers meant a likely 'cop'.

 

Anyway, some examples..............

 

My DMR K1. 

 

 

And the real thing - definitely 10" numbers.

 

 

A Doncaster-repaired ER 9F.

 

 

And a Darlington-repaired example. 

 

 

A Cowlairs-repaired BR Standard V, descending Shap. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Barry Ten]

2 hours ago, Mark Laidlay said:

I've modified some Keen kinematic couplings as they needed to be shorter for my H0 scale coaches, once I had them cut into two parts it was easy to raise them as well.  Question is do any higher end modellers use them?

If not why not?

And why does Roger Keen just call them "Close Couplings" instead of giving them a name that differentiates them such as kinematic?  Rhetorical question I guess.

 

 

I wouldn't call myself a higher-end modeller but I do use them. I needed them for my old layout which had tight curves, so I converted a few rakes and found them very reliable. I don't need them now but I still use the MK1 conversion items on Bachmann coaches for consistency with the ones I've already done. One thing I like about them is that they make a rake of coaches move as a single unit, with no detectable slack between vehicles, which looks very realistic (in my view).

[Tony Wright]

Now, as Wws ticks off another 100 pages, a couple of things have crossed my mind. 

 

One is my never making New Year resolutions. However, a sort of resolution is to build as many kits as I can from now on. 

 

Which brings me to my second point; over the last few years I've sold scores of un-built kits from the collections of those modellers who have either died or are now too infirm to ever build anything again. In some cases, it might be close to 100 kits (mainly locos) which will never be built by the person who bought them. Is this a kind of 'collecting mentality'? Or a modeller expecting to live forever? I don't know.

 

What I do know is that it's my intention to never get into that situation, if only on my family's account. Prior to Covid, I had about 20 loco kits (not all mine) ready for building. What happened then? With nothing else to do, I built them, and then re-stocked as restrictions were eased; restocking, especially with regard to wheels, motor and gearboxes as well as loco/rolling stock kits. In fairness, much of this kit restocking came from the collections I've just mentioned, and the ones I've built of late were derived from that same source (with one exception, the Pro-Scale B1, bought from a friend). 

 

Thus, I've now got around a further score of loco kits (and some carriage kits) to build. So, this morning, I blew the dust off yet another box, emptied the contents and fired-up the iron.................

 

 

I mentioned restocking drive components, and this is an example. 

 

Various drives were mentioned some time ago on here, and here's a brilliant combination - a Canon motor and appropriate Comet gearbox. Though not being capable of putting the lot together in ten minutes, no more than an hour was spent erecting this combo; and it was dead-right first time (the old Romford wheel/axle combination is just for test purposes). 

 

 

About twice as much time was spent erecting the etched frames, installing the drive, pick-ups and rods and checking clearances in the footplate.

 

What will it be? A Little Engines J11/1. Some of the Class were on the M&GNR both pre- and post-War, so it might well end up running on the top bit of LB. I saw quite a few examples of this highly-regarded 0-6-0, both in my native Cheshire and, particularly, at Retford.

 

Progress will be slightly stalled because it's the turn of the DJH S15 mentioned a little while ago to have one side of its valve gear put together; my acting as tutor and my friend (to whom it belongs) as pupil. Watch this space............. 

[thegreenhowards]

 

45 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Andy,

 

I'd go with 10" numbers - most ER/NER/ScR ex-LNER/BR steam locos had that size, the only exceptions (as far as I know) were those where space was extremely restricted (a tiny cab- or bunker-side, for instance). Doncaster seemed to use 8" for the ER-allocated BR Standards it repaired, but Darlington tended to use 10". 

 

You say some ScR locos had smaller numbers. Which were these, please? In my trainspotting experience, some Scottish-repaired locos (Cowlairs?) tended to use the larger numbers - this always caused great rejoicing among my urchin throng because, say, a 'Jub' or a 'Mickey' with large cabside numbers meant a likely 'cop'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Thanks Tony,

 

Your 10” examples look about right compared with my prototype photos.

 

I think it was mainly St Rollox which used the smaller numbers but online sources are a bit mixed so I thought I’d ask!

 

Andy

Edited January 10 by thegreenhowards

[Andy Hayter]

Regarding unbuilt kits; I can only speak for myself and I have quite a collection.

 

History says that

Some kits are produced in small numbers and there is never a second run,

many kit manufacturers have ceased trading,

and, if the range is taken over by someone else, not all of the previous range will be re-released.

 

So buy in haste or regret the missed opportunity at your leisure.

 

All of this was at a time of being cash rich and time very poor.  I am now working through the pile but time still seems to be limited.

 

 

Edited January 10 by Andy Hayter

[James Fitzjames]

1 hour ago, thegreenhowards said:

Can I pose a question to the experts on here? I’m trying to renumber my O gauge K1.

 

 

I want to renumber it as a West Highland example, 62011 as in the second photo on this page.

 

https://www.keymodelworld.com/article/lner-peppercorn-k1-2-6-0-class-history

 

My question is, what size should the cabside numbers be? I’ve been given a choice of 8,9,or 10” by Railtec. My understanding is that ER locos tended to be 10” while some SCR locos were smaller. The loco seems to have 10” (6mm in scale) numbers at the moment (it’s numbered 62005, a NE or preserved example) and by scaling it off the photo I get about 9.5”, so I’m tempted to go with 10”. But I’d welcome any expert opinion.

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

Tony's already covered the numbers,  but, if I mind correctly, 62011 had smokebox straps that were wider than the norm, during the late crest period. Might want to have a nosey into that, if it'd be of concern.

[Dunsignalling]

4 hours ago, Northmoor said:

So 7/8ths of their business was NOT with Europe and yet that's the problem?  Surely they could have addressed the problem by selling only within the UK.  It's their business - literally and metaphorically - and they can choose to wind it up when, how and why they like, but blaming the B-word seems an odd excuse.  I can think of many businesses with a much more justified grievance.

 

It will be sad though to lose another such a prominent name from the industry.  I've bought mail order, online and in person from the old Smithdown Road (Student-ville) shop when at the 'Poly in the early 90s.  I can see a time when "proper" model shops almost cease to exist; you will buy train sets from toy shops or on-line and everything beyond that will come from specialists at model fairs or online.

Always supposing, of course,that the "lost" one eighth of turnover could be readily replaced by increased UK sales. If they could, why hadn't it already happened....?

 

If one regards the UK sales as the bread and butter, and the EU ones as the jam on top, perspectives start to look a little different.

Edited January 10 by Dunsignalling

[Tony Wright]

Regarding the position of lamps on goods brake vans...............

 

 

These are the relevant pages from the 1950s BR Rule Book (they still applied in 1962). The 'note' refers to brake vans which had swivelling lamp irons/lamps.

 

It looks like some of Bytham's trains might carry the wrong lamps! 

 

 

[Dunsignalling]

4 hours ago, Mark Laidlay said:

I've modified some Keen kinematic couplings as they needed to be shorter for my H0 scale coaches, once I had them cut into two parts it was easy to raise them as well.  Question is do any higher end modellers use them?

If not why not?

And why does Roger Keen just call them "Close Couplings" instead of giving them a name that differentiates them such as kinematic?  Rhetorical question I guess.

 

When the Keen coupler system first appeared twenty-odd years ago, I became, for one of only two occasions in my life, an "early adopter". The word "kinematic" was unheard of in the model railway field. Such items were referred to as Close Coupling Units, CCUs for short. They did, and do, what it says on the label, unlike Kinematic which, unless you are familiar with whatever field of activity it came from, needs to be explained.

 

Kinematic wasn't even used by Bachmann when they introduced the "production version " on their Mk1 coaches.

 

The word only seems to have cropped up in this context over the last 4-5 years, and is probably an attempt by some marketing bod to redefine something that had already become widespread as a "high-tech" USP.

 

John

Edited January 10 by Dunsignalling

[Tony Wright]

59 minutes ago, James Fitzjames said:

Tony's already covered the numbers,  but, if I mind correctly, 62011 had smokebox straps that were wider than the norm, during the late crest period. Might want to have a nosey into that, if it'd be of concern.

Good afternoon James,

 

You're right - 62011 did have its smokebox door straps wider than the norm, resulting in the numberplate being below the top one (Yeadon, page 76). The '6' is also of the incorrect pattern. If not unique (62008 also had a lowered front number) it was certainly unusual. 

 

Wasn't 62011 used on the Alnwick branch towards the end?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[James Fitzjames]

7 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon James,

 

You're right - 62011 did have its smokebox door straps wider than the norm, resulting in the numberplate being below the top one (Yeadon, page 76). The '6' is also of the incorrect pattern. If not unique (62008 also had a lowered front number) it was certainly unusual. 

 

Wasn't 62011 used on the Alnwick branch towards the end?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

Relieved that my memory isn't completely shot! Believe 60211 did head to that area after Fort William shed closed to steam.

[Captain Kernow]

6 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thus, I've now got around a further score of loco kits (and some carriage kits) to build.

I don't know if it's of interest to you, Tony, but I see that a Scalefour Society member has a Brassmasters-Finney V2 kit for sale on the S4 forum. He states that it is unstarted and the etches and castings haven't been removed from their packaging. The kit is for the loco and the GS tender. He's asking £245 with free postage, but will consider offers.

 

https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=28&p=102337#p102337

 

[bbishop]

I posted a couple of books on LSWR locomotives to a friend in Italy.  Completing the paperwork and waiting in the Post Office for the clerk to check it took about an hour which, if I were working, I would cost at £20.  The alternative would be to register at a cost of some £20,000pa, which Hatton's did for Ireland.  Either way, a considerable cost which may have eliminated any profit on European sales.  

 

And 13% is a significant amount of a company's outturn.  Bill

 

 

[31A]

9 hours ago, Mark Laidlay said:

I've modified some Keen kinematic couplings as they needed to be shorter for my H0 scale coaches, once I had them cut into two parts it was easy to raise them as well.  Question is do any higher end modellers use them?

If not why not?

And why does Roger Keen just call them "Close Couplings" instead of giving them a name that differentiates them such as kinematic?  Rhetorical question I guess.

 

 

Hi Mark,

 

Not sure whether I'd call myself 'high end' or not!  But a while back I fitted the Keen Systems close coupling units to several Bachmann BR Mk1 Suburban coaches, and it went well enough.  The coaches run as semi fixed sets together with Hornby ex LNER Suburban coaches (Gresley and Thompson types) which have their own kinematic system, and they work together very well.  I had to remove quite a lot of material from the Keen moulding to allow it to fit within the recess in the Bachmann underframe moulding, and I attached them using countersunk self tapping screws, partly in case it didn't work and I wanted to revert to bogie mounted couplings!  I also had to remove quite a bit from the bogie headstocks to allow the couplings and bogies to swing separately without interfering with each other.

 

 

 

The pictures show both ends of the same coach, which is an 'end' coach of the set, hence one end has a tension lock coupling fitted to couple to a loco and the other end has a Roco-type coupling to couple to the next coach.  As you can see, on this coach I added a self-centring mechanism with phosphor bronze wire springs, which the instructions allude to but don't really give much detail of how to achieve.  With the other coaches that I modified I didn't bother with these springs, and where one was an 'end' coach I only fitted the Keen coupling at the 'inner' end and left the bogie-mounted tension lock at the 'outer' end to couple to locos.

 

Anyway, I was quite pleased with the results and have got some more to do when I get around to it.  Hope this helps!

[t-b-g]

Anybody pondering the idea of adding a few loco kits to their "stash" may be interested to see that DJH have a sale on, with 25% off their usual prices. Not a bad time to stock up!

[Tony Wright]

15 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

I don't know if it's of interest to you, Tony, but I see that a Scalefour Society member has a Brassmasters-Finney V2 kit for sale on the S4 forum. He states that it is unstarted and the etches and castings haven't been removed from their packaging. The kit is for the loco and the GS tender. He's asking £245 with free postage, but will consider offers.

 

https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=28&p=102337#p102337

 

Thanks Captain,

 

I'm afraid Martin Finney kits are way out of my league. I was once asked by Martin why I never built any of his kits for articles. My answers were simple and twofold. One, I think they're beyond my building capabilities and, two, even if I had the requisite skills (and patience), were, say, a Finney V2 requested by one of my customers, the end cost would be way beyond anything my clients would pay.

 

That's not to say they're not superb kits; they are, but incredibly complex - several laminates to make a crosshead, for instance, when a single casting would suffice. 

 

They're much, much more than 'layout locos'.

 

The late John Hayes used to build them on commission, the difference being that he was a master model-maker, and his customers would pay the going rate for the highest-quality work. I'm not saying my customers were parsimonious (they were very generous), but when the end product would have cost thousands (in 4mm!), it was a different league.

 

No, my V2s are derived from much more humble origins............

 

Including..........

 

 

Nu-Cast, from many years ago, though not their white metal lump for a chassis. No, a scratch-built one in brass.

 

After miles running on Fordley Park, Leighford and Stoke Summit......

 

 

She still can romp round Little Bytham. 

 

 

Even working as well as another Nu-Cast V2 nearly 40 years her junior. I built/painted 60905, but, though I built 60885, Ian Rathbone painted it.

 

Several of my V2s have been built from Jamieson kits, including............

 

 

60821 from over 40 years ago (all my own work), passing another Nu-Cast V2 I built/painted last year. 

 

Top painting does make a difference after I've built a Jamieson V2.............

 

 

Geoff Haynes work.

 

 

 

And Ian Rathbone's work.

 

I'm sure the price asked for the Finney V2 you mentioned is fair, but last year I bought another Jamieson kit for a V2 (complete, ex-wheels/motor) for a tenth of what's being requested for the high-end Gresley big 2-6-2. 

 

I think my V2 models 'know their place'.

 

Does anyone have photos of completed Finney V2s? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

I managed to get another hour's worth of work done on the new Little Engines J11...........

 

 

Chassis now complete. 

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, bbishop said:

I posted a couple of books on LSWR locomotives to a friend in Italy.  Completing the paperwork and waiting in the Post Office for the clerk to check it took about an hour which, if I were working, I would cost at £20.  The alternative would be to register at a cost of some £20,000pa, which Hatton's did for Ireland.  Either way, a considerable cost which may have eliminated any profit on European sales.  

 

And 13% is a significant amount of a company's outturn.  

I agree it's significant, but it would appear that the 13% accounted for a completely disproportionate amount of their costs.  Which is why it were my business, I would withdraw from that market; there is a saying that your best contract might be the one you turn down.  If you are making 99% of your profit on 87% of your turnover (and there is no dependency of the 87% on the other 13%), then as the Americans say, "Do the Math".

 

However this is all conjecture; it might be that the owners family simply have no-one in the next generation who wants to continue in the business, so rather than selling it as a going concern - involving a lot of time, effort and expense - they can liquidate their stock, pay off the staff and retire.

[lezz01]

You need to sit down and have a rethink Tony!

The fact that you are highly skilled professional model maker seems to have passed you by. Not only that but you are a very skilled problem solver as well. You are also prolific, you can build more models in a month than most people can build in a year.

Regards Lez. 

[Barclay]

19 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

One is my never making New Year resolutions. However, a sort of resolution is to build as many kits as I can from now on. 

 

Which brings me to my second point; over the last few years I've sold scores of un-built kits from the collections of those modellers who have either died or are now too infirm to ever build anything again. In some cases, it might be close to 100 kits (mainly locos) which will never be built by the person who bought them. Is this a kind of 'collecting mentality'? Or a modeller expecting to live forever? I don't know.

 

Wow if you're not already doing that then I can't imagine how many you are going to build this year! I agree with other comments and am quite sure those kits aren't beyond you, but do understand the economics of the matter.

As to the 'stash', or 'cupboard of shame' as I have heard it called, well I am not ashamed of mine - that promise of enjoyment to be had in the future is actually most satisfying, indeed even re-assuring, and an item will regularly be pulled from the drawer and built. The trouble is, of course, in the time it takes to build it I will probably have acquired 2 more!

[dibateg]

Finney V2's - only in 7mm:-

 

I t was an enjoyable kit to build.

 

Kits in the cupboard - 4 loco kits, 8 coach kits and about 20 wagons... No room on the layout for any of them!

 

Regards

Tony

 

 

 

[Andy R]

20 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Now, as Wws ticks off another 100 pages, a couple of things have crossed my mind. 

 

One is my never making New Year resolutions. However, a sort of resolution is to build as many kits as I can from now on. 

 

Which brings me to my second point; over the last few years I've sold scores of un-built kits from the collections of those modellers who have either died or are now too infirm to ever build anything again. In some cases, it might be close to 100 kits (mainly locos) which will never be built by the person who bought them. Is this a kind of 'collecting mentality'? Or a modeller expecting to live forever? I don't know.

 

What I do know is that it's my intention to never get into that situation, if only on my family's account. Prior to Covid, I had about 20 loco kits (not all mine) ready for building. What happened then? With nothing else to do, I built them, and then re-stocked as restrictions were eased; restocking, especially with regard to wheels, motor and gearboxes as well as loco/rolling stock kits. In fairness, much of this kit restocking came from the collections I've just mentioned, and the ones I've built of late were derived from that same source (with one exception, the Pro-Scale B1, bought from a friend). 

 

Thus, I've now got around a further score of loco kits (and some carriage kits) to build. So, this morning, I blew the dust off yet another box, emptied the contents and fired-up the iron.................

 

 

I mentioned restocking drive components, and this is an example. 

 

Various drives were mentioned some time ago on here, and here's a brilliant combination - a Canon motor and appropriate Comet gearbox. Though not being capable of putting the lot together in ten minutes, no more than an hour was spent erecting this combo; and it was dead-right first time (the old Romford wheel/axle combination is just for test purposes). 

 

 

About twice as much time was spent erecting the etched frames, installing the drive, pick-ups and rods and checking clearances in the footplate.

 

What will it be? A Little Engines J11/1. Some of the Class were on the M&GNR both pre- and post-War, so it might well end up running on the top bit of LB. I saw quite a few examples of this highly-regarded 0-6-0, both in my native Cheshire and, particularly, at Retford.

 

Progress will be slightly stalled because it's the turn of the DJH S15 mentioned a little while ago to have one side of its valve gear put together; my acting as tutor and my friend (to whom it belongs) as pupil. Watch this space............. 

New year’s greetings to you and Mo from down-under. Touching on the first points made, the real challenge for most of us entering our ‘ageing’ period is how the family deals with our layouts and the associated stock etc after we leave the station!

And on that happy note I’ll head back to my Sun lounger by my pool….

regards, Andy 

[Tony Wright]

45 minutes ago, dibateg said:

Finney V2's - only in 7mm:-

 

I t was an enjoyable kit to build.

 

Kits in the cupboard - 4 loco kits, 8 coach kits and about 20 wagons... No room on the layout for any of them!

 

Regards

Tony

 

 

 

Brilliant work, Tony!

 

However (assuming you didn't paint it?), the whole cab roof should be black. Painting the bits below the rainstrips body-colour was confined to LNER green days.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

11 hours ago, lezz01 said:

You need to sit down and have a rethink Tony!

The fact that you are highly skilled professional model maker seems to have passed you by. Not only that but you are a very skilled problem solver as well. You are also prolific, you can build more models in a month than most people can build in a year.

Regards Lez. 

Good morning Lez,

 

Thank you for your kind comments, but I see no need to rethink anything. 

 

I'm a fan of Clint Eastwood movies - no need to worry about the plot, who's the baddy or the goody (though, in some there are no goodies), easy to understand and lots of action. In Magnum Force, Harry explains to Inspector Briggs that 'a good man always knows his limitations'. Now, though I've never considered myself to be particularly 'good', I know I know my limitations - and complex (highly-complex) locomotive kits are probably beyond my limitations. 

 

Take this one, for instance...........

 

 

It's a Brassmasters Beames 0-8-4T, built by me in EM for Rob Kinsey's Merthyr Riverside. Geoff Haynes painted it.

 

It was designed by an eminent modeller (one who inhabits the rarer atmospheres of the more-accurate gauges) and it was a 'nightmare' to build. For those who can erect fully sprung/compensated mechanisms it would be no more than a 'sweet dream', but I couldn't get it run properly at any price; until I soldered all the bearings/hornblocks and hornguides up solid! Yes, it was problem solving, but, as designed mechanically, for this loco I knew my limitations. Very well!

 

As for problem solving, then yes. Many of the loco kits I build do have problems to be solved because the parts are not as accurate, both in terms of fit and fidelity to prototype, compared with the higher end ones, but they're still quicker to build. Which leads me on to my next point.

 

Prolific? Perhaps, but only because I by-pass complexity, seeking a 'sketch-book' approach to most of my modelling. I like simplicity, and the likes of Brassmasters/Finney kits are not that. I've photographed those built by those with the time and great ability, and the results are superb, but they're not for me. 

 

It's been my privilege down the years to photograph some of the finest examples of railway modelling ever witnessed. So much so that I think I 'know my place' (and this is not false modesty). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.