Wright writes.....

[cctransuk]

25 minutes ago, Captain Kernow said:

Apologies, I  must be having a pedantic evening!!

 

No  - you are correct with 5/32"; I blame age!

 

CJI.

[robertcwp]

13 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Speaking of the P2s

I recently added this image of 2001 to my collection, having purchased the original large-format negative. I have no idea who the photographer was.

 

2001_nr-PottersBar by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

[RodneyS]

The original Triang axles were 9/64'' in diameter.  I suppose there must have been a reason for such an odd size.  This is why the bushes have such a thin wall.

 

Markits do indeed make an axle this diameter.

Rodney

[ROY@34F]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Captain,

 

I had to fit Romford bushes to a Hornby Jinty chassis (over) 50 years ago to get Romford axles to fit (bushing the gear wheel as well). I then put a BEC J11 cast metal kit body on top of it, instantly becoming a 'scale' modeller. Where that dismal creation is now, I have no idea, though flushed with success...................

 

 

 

A year later, I did the same thing to a Tri-ang Britannia chassis, turning down the Romford wheels so that I could get all-flanged drivers, and made Jamieson valve gear for it. I latterly even fitted brakes!

 

What did it go underneath?

 

 

A modified Wills A2 kit, towing a DJH tender some years later. 

 

A shot taken in Bytham's early days.

 

 

And one from last year.

 

Now in her 51st year (or thereabouts), I still keep her. The old XO4 still goes well, though not with the finesse of much more-modern motors. 

 

If nothing else, with the whole thing being my own work, it shows how much (or how little?) I've progressed with my model-making in the last half century. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

I did exactly the same Tony with my Happy Knight , a Grantham engine in my early railway days . A Triang chassis with bushes ( I thought 9/64' O.D. ) , filed down Romford wheels using a Black and Decker drill clamped in a vice . Then fabricating bits for the multiple valve regulator , painting and lining with HMRS transfers . The valve gear I think was Alan Gibson parts built in forward gear , which I like to do , though I know you think I'm mad Tony  !  ha ha  .  Mine too still runs ok after 40 plus years .

  Regards , Roy .

[Michael Edge]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

No  - you are correct with 5/32"; I blame age!

 

CJI.

Triang axles are 9/64in

[St Enodoc]

8 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

I've just had a closer look at my pannier chassis and there are those bushes, so I must have done it!

 

But I am still confused. Surely 4/32" equates to 1/8", so how can you get 1/8" axles into holes that are smaller (ie. 3/32") than that?

 

Would the old Triang axle holes not have been something like 5/32"?

 

Yes. Tri-ang axles were 5/32" (or possibly 9/64" - see @jimwal's comment below) diameter. You could (can?) get bushes to fit 1/8" axles.

Edited April 21 by St Enodoc

[jimwal]

Yes just to confirm, Triang axles were 9/64" diameter and one bush was needed for the worm wheel as well as six for the chassis.

[Coach bogie]

I do have to defend the 60 year old Triang chassis. I am still using them.

 

Coach building is my thing but I do need locomotives to pull them and rtr, as good as they are, struggle with the heavy coaches I make. I still use the indestructible B12 chassis in Wills/SEF Hall, Saint and Star kits-  they were designed to take them and with the heavy Wills body, will haul 15 kit builds without slipping. My Gem 56XX is still running on a bushed Triang Jinty chassis 55 years after it was converted by my father.

 

I have also used Comet, Proscale and Perseverance chassis  but I can have a Triang chassis running in far less time. of greatest importance - they work, especially if they have new Neodymium magnets and/or received a Scalespeed overhaul. When running I defy anyone to identify which has which chassis (apart from the RG4 whiner). 

 

This one has the special Markits axles to fit without using bearings. Mainly trains connecting rods and brake gear.

 

I still have another Wills Saint to build. I was going to use a Comet Hall chassis but recently picked up a Triang B12 with Green wheels with a very clean X04 for £20. I already have the Triang/Romford axles and Neodymium magnet in stock.

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

[Iain.d]

Last week I showed the early stages of construction of a trio of brass carriage kits, which has moved on a little during the week.

 

One was this Pocket Money Kits S&DJR 6 wheel 4 Compartment Luggage carriage. I soldered up the body and added the sprung buffer housings (MR 13in ones from Wizard Models). I also pressed out the rivet detail on each solebar and folded over the strengthening flange and soldered them to the body along with the stepboard.

 

 

The kit I bought had no running gear so next task was to assemble the Comet Models etched W irons and add three supporting stretchers across the body to fix them to.

 

 

But, when I went to test fit the Comet Models W iron assemblies against the body, they wouldn’t fit between the folded-up flanges of each solebar! It was something I hadn’t even considered. So with a file, I carefully began to file a recess in each solebar flange that would allow the W irons and whitemetal axlebox castings to sit.  After the first one was about half done, I thought it was going to take a month of Sundays and then some, so I unsoldered the solebars, filed out the necessary material and then soldered them back in; much quicker. There’s now just under 1mm free on each side, I think enough room for them to rock and add the axleboxes.  And the right way up, its riding about .5mm too low so I’ll add a bit of packing to the three stretchers I soldered between the sides.

 

 

The progress on the two LBSC Balloon carriages has also progressed, with the bodies made up and test fitted to their bogies to check clearances. The Driver Third:

 

 

I think its riding a little too high and I need to think about how I correct that, at this stage I might have to file down the bolster casting. And the Composite:

 

 

Next will be their underframes and then fitting the roofs.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

[Compound2632]

22 minutes ago, Iain.d said:

its riding about .5mm too low 

 

I wouldn't worry about that. When these carriages were built in the 1880s, 3' 4" was a common standard for nominal buffer centre height above rail, rather than 3' 5" which was standard by the end of the century. In any case, it's only a nominal dimension, the exact value on any day depending on the state of the springs and the weight of the load. If you're modelling it in its old age it would probably be down on its old springs a bit anyway.

[Tony Wright]

Thanks for all the comments on my 'budget modelling'; the discussions about wheels, bearings and axles have been enlightening. 

 

As far as the Tri-ang Jinty goes, that really is as far as it goes. From an initial cost of four quid, by adding vacuum standpipes, ejector gear, buffers, lamps and a crew, plus the cost of paint and transfers, I've probably taken it over a tenner! And, that's the point in a way. By buying effectively 'duds', spending a little bit of time and resources, then a 'useful' model can be the result; at a very low cost overall. Yes, the Tri-ang wheels are gross, but they'll run on current set-track and Peco Code 100, which many modellers use. 

 

I'm taking it no further; it's satisfied the brief. 

[John Besley]

13 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Captain,

 

I had to fit Romford bushes to a Hornby Jinty chassis (over) 50 years ago to get Romford axles to fit (bushing the gear wheel as well). I then put a BEC J11 cast metal kit body on top of it, instantly becoming a 'scale' modeller. Where that dismal creation is now, I have no idea, though flushed with success...................

 

 

 

A year later, I did the same thing to a Tri-ang Britannia chassis, turning down the Romford wheels so that I could get all-flanged drivers, and made Jamieson valve gear for it. I latterly even fitted brakes!

 

What did it go underneath?

 

 

A modified Wills A2 kit, towing a DJH tender some years later. 

 

A shot taken in Bytham's early days.

 

 

And one from last year.

 

Now in her 51st year (or thereabouts), I still keep her. The old XO4 still goes well, though not with the finesse of much more-modern motors. 

 

If nothing else, with the whole thing being my own work, it shows how much (or how little?) I've progressed with my model-making in the last half century. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Intresting to realise that the model has proberly lived longer than the full-size Blue Peter in active service.... taking into account the years when 60532 was out of traffic... at least yours doesn't seem to have had her valve gear trashed by an over enthusiastic driver resulting in water carry over from what I recollect.

 

On that subject how many model locos are there that have been in regular use longer than their prototypes?

[Tony Wright]

11 hours ago, ROY@34F said:

I did exactly the same Tony with my Happy Knight , a Grantham engine in my early railway days . A Triang chassis with bushes ( I thought 9/64' O.D. ) , filed down Romford wheels using a Black and Decker drill clamped in a vice . Then fabricating bits for the multiple valve regulator , painting and lining with HMRS transfers . The valve gear I think was Alan Gibson parts built in forward gear , which I like to do , though I know you think I'm mad Tony  !  ha ha  .  Mine too still runs ok after 40 plus years .

  Regards , Roy .

Fantastic stuff, Roy..........

 

Thanks for showing us.

 

My BLUE PETER (from much the same source as your HAPPY KNIGHT) still gets used.........

 

 

She has no problem in hauling heavy trains. 

 

Granted, it's not in the same league as Bytham's other Peppercorn A2s; the likes of.............

 

TUDOR MINSTREL (DJH/Wright/Rathbone) on a Donny running-in turn.

 

 

 

OR BRONZINO (DJH/Wright/Rathbone).

 

 

Or SUGAR PALM (DJH/Wright/Haynes). Actually, 60526 isn't on Bytham at the moment; riding on her EM frames, she currently sees service on Retford.

 

 

Or my own HAPPY KNIGHT (Crownline/Kinsey/Wright/Rathbone).

 

 

Or even my detailed/renumbered/renamed Bachmann RTR VELOCITY (weathered by Tom Foster). 

 

However,

 

 

Who knows? She might well be running in another 50 years' time!

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

6 hours ago, Coach bogie said:

I do have to defend the 60 year old Triang chassis. I am still using them.

 

Coach building is my thing but I do need locomotives to pull them and rtr, as good as they are, struggle with the heavy coaches I make. I still use the indestructible B12 chassis in Wills/SEF Hall, Saint and Star kits-  they were designed to take them and with the heavy Wills body, will haul 15 kit builds without slipping. My Gem 56XX is still running on a bushed Triang Jinty chassis 55 years after it was converted by my father.

 

I have also used Comet, Proscale and Perseverance chassis  but I can have a Triang chassis running in far less time. of greatest importance - they work, especially if they have new Neodymium magnets and/or received a Scalespeed overhaul. When running I defy anyone to identify which has which chassis (apart from the RG4 whiner). 

 

This one has the special Markits axles to fit without using bearings. Mainly trains connecting rods and brake gear.

 

I still have another Wills Saint to build. I was going to use a Comet Hall chassis but recently picked up a Triang B12 with Green wheels with a very clean X04 for £20. I already have the Triang/Romford axles and Neodymium magnet in stock.

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

Good morning Mike,

 

What isn't widely known is the fact that the Tri-ang B12/Hall chassis was the same block as used underneath Tri-ang's A3, but turned round and with larger drivers.

 

 

It's the one in the foreground, with block for the glowing firebox at the rear and extension for the cylinders at the front. 

 

 

 

From the same 'duds' drawer, I bought enough parts to 'make' a Tri-ang/Hornby A3.

 

 

The bogie and the later valve gear needed modifying to suit this earlier (1960s) FLYING SCOTSMAN. 

 

Someone had gone to great lengths to remove the moulded-on handrails, presumably intending to replace them with wire ones. I certainly won't, but will hand it over to an 'inexperienced' modeller (I have a 15 year-old in mind) to practise on. 

 

Total cost? Little more than a fiver.

 

 

With still some bits left over! Including that other chassis/motion seen in the earlier shot.

 

Is that 'scale' seagull faecal matter? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[gr.king]

I'd noticed that the A3 and B12 shared the same basic block, the first time I had the opportunity to see examples of both. How many years ago, I couldn't now say.

[cctransuk]

11 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

Triang axles are 9/64in

 

Thanks Mike - I knew it was a fraction of an inch; just couldn't be sure which one! 🤔

 

John Isherwood.

[Atso]

13 hours ago, robertcwp said:

I recently added this image of 2001 to my collection, having purchased the original large-format negative. I have no idea who the photographer was.

 

2001_nr-PottersBar by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

What a great find Robert! Any idea what the working is?

[polybear]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I wouldn't worry about that. When these carriages were built in the 1880s, 3' 4" was a common standard for nominal buffer centre height above rail, rather than 3' 5" which was standard by the end of the century. In any case, it's only a nominal dimension, the exact value on any day depending on the state of the springs and the weight of the load. If you're modelling it in its old age it would probably be down on its old springs a bit anyway.

 

Also the height would reduce during service due to the wheels being reprofiled due to wear and overhaul.

 

 

[richard i]

2 hours ago, John Besley said:

On that subject how many model locos are there that have been in regular use longer than their prototypes?

Should be easy enough for a 9f, less easy for a J10 or such like. Princess Anne would be the easiest of all if anyone has had a go at building one. 
I have a GT3 which appeared in BRM ages ago which has easily smashed the time the real one ran for.

I also have never built, but proposed locos like the crosti standard 5 and standard 2-8-2. Does that mean the model instantly was winning the moment it turned a wheel?

richard 

[robertcwp]

1 hour ago, Atso said:

 

What a great find Robert! Any idea what the working is?

No idea as no information came with the negative.

[Harry Lund]

Tony.   Quick diversion.   I'm putting together my 'Elizabethan'.   The CWG which you kindly lent me lists BG, FK, RF, SO, etc.   Can you shed light on the Diagram no of the RF?  As ever, Giles    

[t-b-g]

3 hours ago, John Besley said:

 

Intresting to realise that the model has proberly lived longer than the full-size Blue Peter in active service.... taking into account the years when 60532 was out of traffic... at least yours doesn't seem to have had her valve gear trashed by an over enthusiastic driver resulting in water carry over from what I recollect.

 

On that subject how many model locos are there that have been in regular use longer than their prototypes?

 

Without checking dates I can't be 100% certain but the locos on Buckingham have been in regular use for up to 77 years and I think they have probably all been in service longer than the real life ones. Even the ones with long lives on the GCR, like the N5s and J11s, lasted around 65 years maximum.

[Tony Wright]

34 minutes ago, Harry Lund said:

Tony.   Quick diversion.   I'm putting together my 'Elizabethan'.   The CWG which you kindly lent me lists BG, FK, RF, SO, etc.   Can you shed light on the Diagram no of the RF?  As ever, Giles    

Good afternoon Giles,

 

Probably Dia. 354 (page 103 in LNER Carriages by Michael Harris, T&L 1994), built originally for service in the post-War 'Flying Scotsman'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[sandra]

I visited the Model Railway Club at Kings Cross today and saw this.It’s the new Accrascale J67/69. This an early pre-production sample which is unpowered, it’s also sitting rather uncomfortably on incorrect gauge track. 
 

However on the basis of this example it’s  going to be a beautiful model. In 1957 Retford had four of them but there’s only one on the layout. All I have to do now is to work out how to convert it to EM gauge.

[Jol Wilkinson]

5 minutes ago, sandra said:

I visited the Model Railway Club at Kings Cross today and saw this.It’s the new Accrascale J67/69. This an early pre-production sample which is unpowered, it’s also sitting rather uncomfortably on incorrect gauge track. 
 

However on the basis of this example it’s  going to be a beautiful model. In 1957 Retford had four of them but there’s only one on the layout. All I have to do now is to work out how to convert it to EM gauge.

Which is incorrect, the loco or the track?