Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

The usual monthly get together to run Little Bytham resulted in just one guest operator today, Geoff West (others had bank holiday commitments).

 

No matter, Geoff and I had a great time running the Bytham sequence. One day, we'll get it dead right, but we weren't far off today. A derailment (a coupling bar too high - immediately fixed) and my forgetting to change a point and that was that. What better way to spend a day?

 

Geoff bought the last of the Peter Lawson 4Fs (the best of the five). 

 

 

 

I set it up for these two pictures, on a typical Notts-Norfolk three-set. What a lovely model.

 

Thanks Geoff for your great company today and thanks to Susan for the excellent cake. 

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

Another loco has come my way to sell on behalf of a good cause; an ABS L1.

 

 

 

 

It's well-built, very naturally-finished and, most-important, it runs well.

 

I'm asking £90.00. Anyone interested, please PM me.

 

 

[geoff west]

Thanks Tony, A most enjoyable day. 
We almost had the perfect running session, one day we’ll crack it. 
Im so pleased with the 4F and the carriages, thank you, they look great in the pictures. 
Thank Mo again for the excellent lunch. 

[Jesse Sim]

12 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

As promised............

 

Tony Geary's B16/1 bogie arrangement. 

 

The chassis is electrically-dead, but still some little nibbles have been needed out of the front inside edges of the cylinders.

 

 

From this angle, those nibbles are hardly visible. 

 

 

Mike Edge's bogie arrangement on the B16/2.

 

Again, the chassis is electrically-dead, and no nibbles have been necessary to the insides of the cylinders. 

 

I had to elongate the slot in the bogie stretcher so that it would negotiate 3' radius curves.

 

 

I think it's a beautifully-made loco; I know Mike did a lot more work on the motion, but it needed my fitting of a DJH motor/gearbox to quieten it down. With the original drive (straight worm/gear), it was deafening. 

 

 

My bogie arrangement on the B16/3.

 

This has a live chassis, so I had to nibble a bit more off the inside of the cylinders, then smeared the inside angle with Araldite.

 

 

The angle is just visible, but only at extremely close quarters.

 

What all the three models above have are 'scale' bogie wheels. So many kit-built ex-NER locos with bogies have 'standard' ten-spoke wheels of too large a diameter. Fitting the correct wheels (Gibson/Markits) immediately helps with clearance issues. 

 

When Jesse Sim was over last year, I gave him a part-completed scratch-built C9.............

 

 

 

He took it to this stage.

 

The bogie wheels are larger than on most ex-NER locos, so some nibbling and Araldite was necessary on this.

 

 

I got this (rather dubious, though 'professionally-built/-painted') DJH C7 to (just) go round curves by substituting the bogie wheels with the correct style/diameter and nibbling away at the inside of the cylinders, later smeared with Araldite. 

 

 

Oddly, by actually restricting bogie sideplay.............

 

 

 

It allows a loco to negotiate tight curves without the risk of fouling.

 

This SEF Schools' chassis is arranged as a 'sort-of flexible' 0-8-0 (a daft explanation, but I hope it makes the point).

 

To have the rear bogie wheels splashers present (essential!) and those front steps (even more essential), it was the only way. 

 

I hope all these help...............

 

Comments/observations, please. 

 

 

 

 

She's still here in the box, I doubt she'll get finished anytime soon. I am having trouble getting her to run, I believe the rear bogie and articulated wheels are the problem, I also made a mess of the front buffers. She's been sidelined pending some more motivation.

[St Enodoc]

11 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

I bought a started K's GWR 28XX with the same problem regarding the strange arrangement of flangeless Romford driving wheels on the inner two axles. Probably a case of someone wanting it to go around tight curves although I don't quite see how it would work properly.

 

Thankfully I only wanted the body and tender which were both untouched and still on the card. It'll eventually get a Comet chassis and the correct type of wheels.

 

Price was a fraction of that O4 though, ISTR about £30. I'll see if I can find it.

 

 

Jason

My 4247, a DJH kit built by the late Graham Bradley in Queensland, has exactly that arrangement. It works very well.

 

[Chuffer Davies]

7 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

My 4247, a DJH kit built by the late Graham Bradley in Queensland, has exactly that arrangement. It works very well.

 

I don’t recall DJH producing a 42xx kit.  It’s more likely a Cotswold’s kit.  
Frank

[St Enodoc]

21 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said:

I don’t recall DJH producing a 42xx kit.  It’s more likely a Cotswold’s kit.  
Frank

It's definitely not a Cotswold - I have one of those too. When I got it, I thought it was Nu-Cast (son of Cotswold?) but I'm sure I saw something on it marked DJH. When I have a chance I'll have another look.

 

In the meantime, a quick search reveals:

 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/364859478867

 

However, that's the only search result for DJH 42xx, so it's possibly described wrongly, although there's definitely a DJH box in one of the photos.

 

 

Edited May 7 by St Enodoc
More info.

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

It's definitely not a Cotswold - I have one of those too. When I got it, I thought it was Nu-Cast (son of Cotswold?) but I'm sure I saw something on it marked DJH. When I have a chance I'll have another look.

 

In the meantime, a quick search reveals:

 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/364859478867

 

However, that's the only search result for DJH 42xx, so it's possibly described wrongly, although there's definitely a DJH box in one of the photos.

 

 

Good morning John,

 

The model in the photo looks like it was built by DJH in their Banbury days. 

 

The firm offered a kit-building/painting service in those days, using both their own kits and others. The work was usually signed underneath. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning John,

 

The model in the photo looks like it was built by DJH in their Banbury days. 

 

The firm offered a kit-building/painting service in those days, using both their own kits and others. The work was usually signed underneath. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Thanks. That would be a good explanation.

 

I'll compare my two for similarities and differences within the next day or so and report back.

[Dunsignalling]

On 05/05/2024 at 18:06, thegreenhowards said:

I’m going to play devils advocate here.

 

I accept that a well built kit stuffed with lead will massively outhaul a RTR loco with no added weight. But that’s not a fair contest. I add some weight to all my RTR locos and very few have to be limited because of lack of haulage ability. My Bachmann and Hornby LNER Pacifics will mainly haul 14 (admittedly mainly plastic) coaches OK. I say mainly because some of the earlier Bachmann A1s won’t haul so much. And my RTR 9F, O2 and WDs all manage my 46 wagon mineral rake. 
 

I have several kit built locos which won’t pull so much. Probably for one or more of the following reasons:

- they’re made of brass rather than white metal;

- they have an inferior motor/ gearbox combo; or

- they haven’t been built very well (certainly true of one or two of my earlier efforts!).

 

In O gauge a lot of kits are predominantly brass and therefore not so heavy. I find that they often don’t haul too much without a lot of added weight and that RTR is sometimes better. My RTR Ellis Clark Black 5 will pull anything I ask of it - but it does weigh about 3KG and has a top of the range ABC helical gearbox!

 

Having said all this, I do accept that in the extreme situation of Tony’s rakes of 14 metal coaches, something heavier than is possible with a plastic body is probably required.

 

All this is a rather long winded way of my saying, let’s try to be more balanced here. The difference is not between kit and RTR, but based on weight, quality of construction and power of motor. Tony’s Pacifics are built to pull and they do so very well. But a modern RTR pacific suitably weighted would not be that far behind and would be able to cope with 99%+ of model railway tasks that are thrown at it. I, for one, am very grateful that the RTR we have today is far better than it used to be in haulage terms as well as detail.

 

I guess I should say ‘Trigger alert ‘ at this point!

 

Andy

 

 

 

 

 

So long as a r-t-r loco can handle a prototypical load of vehicles from the same maker, I don't consider we should have cause to criticise.

 

Tony builds and modifies locos to do the work on offer.

 

John

 

Edited May 7 by Dunsignalling

[1471SirFrederickBanbury]

19 hours ago, Keith Turbutt said:

John,

 

Have a look at LNER Encyclopedia

"Original Chime Whistle Drawings - The LNER Encyclopedia"

https://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=12988 and

https://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8897

These are quite old discussion threads but someone (Eightpot) on there seems to have access to drawings. It's a long shot but worth a try.

 

I think one of the railway magazines did an article on A4 chime whistles a few years ago but I can't remember which or when.

 

The history is interesting. It seems that these whistles were introduced to Gresley by Capt.Howey who bought 2, one he gave to Gresley and the other for an RHDR loco - currently on Winston Churchill.

Gresley liked it and adopted it for his A4s. I shall always remember the sound of a chime whistle at KingsX just before a train emerged from Gasworks Tunnel giving away the fact that it was a 'Streak' arriving. Some or all of the original US made Crosby whistles were removed during WW2 and new ones made in the UK were fitted as replacements. I believe the Britannias also had chime whistles.

 

Good luck with your search.

 

Keith

 

 

Ah, I knew I was forgetting something.  Really ought to have bookmarked that thread.

[GMKAT7]

Good afternoon folks,

 

Seeing the discussion above about flanged or non-flanged wheels on eight-coupled locos, I have just checked my own eight-coupled locos.

 

All Bachmann, so that may be the reason.

Both the 7F and ROD 30xx 2-8-0s have all drivers as flanged wheelsets, whilst the G2A (Super D) has a flangeless wheelset on the third axle.

 

All are happy to trundle round my R2 test track.

Is it due to Bachmann building in a greater degree of axle sideplay than a kit-built loco would have?

 

Mind you, they all look a bit silly on the R2 radius track 🙄

 

Cheers, Nigel.

[Tony Wright]

24 minutes ago, GMKAT7 said:

Good afternoon folks,

 

Seeing the discussion above about flanged or non-flanged wheels on eight-coupled locos, I have just checked my own eight-coupled locos.

 

All Bachmann, so that may be the reason.

Both the 7F and ROD 30xx 2-8-0s have all drivers as flanged wheelsets, whilst the G2A (Super D) has a flangeless wheelset on the third axle.

 

All are happy to trundle round my R2 test track.

Is it due to Bachmann building in a greater degree of axle sideplay than a kit-built loco would have?

 

Mind you, they all look a bit silly on the R2 radius track 🙄

 

Cheers, Nigel.

Good afternoon Nigel,

 

The Super D should have flangeless wheels on its third axle - just like the prototype. In the same way that a 9F should have no flanges on its middle drivers. 

 

I'm sure there were other prototypical examples of flangeless drivers - the HR Jones Goods?

 

All RTR steam-outline locos I've seen of late have far more sideways play in their wheelsets than kit-built equivalents; in order to be able to negotiate Set-track curves. Kit-builds can have more side-play built in (or built out?), but often it means filing down the outside faces of the bearings. 

 

The downside of having so much 'slop' is the tendency for pick-ups to lose contact on the tyres' rears and a propensity to 'waddle' along the track, especially on straights. There's also the risk of locos with so much slop mangling their valve gear.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Bernard Lamb]

6 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Nigel,

 

The Super D should have flangeless wheels on its third axle - just like the prototype. In the same way that a 9F should have no flanges on its middle drivers. 

 

I'm sure there were other prototypical examples of flangeless drivers - the HR Jones Goods?

 

All RTR steam-outline locos I've seen of late have far more sideways play in their wheelsets than kit-built equivalents; in order to be able to negotiate Set-track curves. Kit-builds can have more side-play built in (or built out?), but often it means filing down the outside faces of the bearings. 

 

The downside of having so much 'slop' is the tendency for pick-ups to lose contact on the tyres' rears and a propensity to 'waddle' along the track, especially on straights. There's also the risk of locos with so much slop mangling their valve gear.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

To follow up on the last point Tony.

Even a smaller RTR locomotive, such as the Oxford Rail J27, will benefit from a couple of pieces of plasticard to take up some of the slop in the chassis and  lessen the movement of the pickup strips. Several people made comments on the relevant RTR thread and various improvements were suggested. They certainly work. 

Bernard

[Willie Whizz]

On 05/05/2024 at 18:06, Willie Whizz said:

I’ve heard this said before - but what I’ve never heard is whether any modeller has actually made a B16 that is capable of coping with those curves without so much compromise as to be unacceptable in realism terms. This is surely the forum that would know!

 

I take it from the lack of response to my post that with all our collective experience no-one on here has  made - or presumably has ever even seen - a model B16 that could get around 'second radius' train set curves and still look tolerably realistic in doing so.

 

On that basis, I suggest that however much many of us might like one, the prospects of seeing a R-T-R model in 00 must be pretty slim ...

[MikeParkin65]

1 hour ago, Willie Whizz said:

 

I take it from the lack of response to my post that with all our collective experience no-one on here has  made - or presumably has ever even seen - a model B16 that could get around 'second radius' train set curves and still look tolerably realistic in doing so.

 

On that basis, I suggest that however much many of us might like one, the prospects of seeing a R-T-R model in 00 must be pretty slim ...

I’ve only got a terraced attic to play in myself but have set myself an absolute minimum of 36 inch curves. Surely if a person is willing to use 2nd radius curves then the definition of ‘tolerably realistic’ is pretty broad? We already have LNER 4-6-4s where the swing of the cab almost puts on a parallel line and the wheels don’t touch the rails in any case!

[stewartingram]

Thank goodness for that! I've just found references to B16s on shed at 31B, and I model East Anglia wjich brings them within reach.

[65179]

38 minutes ago, stewartingram said:

Thank goodness for that! I've just found references to B16s on shed at 31B, and I model East Anglia wjich brings them within reach.

 

York B16s got everywhere.

 

Potentially several on March shed on some Sundays in the mid-1950s by the looks of it:

 

https://shedbashuk.blogspot.com/2015/04/march-1955-1963.html?m=1

 

Simon

[john new]

5 hours ago, Willie Whizz said:

 

I take it from the lack of response to my post that with all our collective experience no-one on here has  made - or presumably has ever even seen - a model B16 that could get around 'second radius' train set curves and still look tolerably realistic in doing so.

 

On that basis, I suggest that however much many of us might like one, the prospects of seeing a R-T-R model in 00 must be pretty slim ...

With regard to realism and sharp curves there is a big difference between what is on stage and what is hidden. I am sure there are plenty of modellers, mid-range and below  who will happily restrict "open scenes" to 2ft (A PECO standard for example) or 3ft min radius out front but due to space constraints need tighter curves off-stage in the wings. A 3ft radius roundy layout needs getting on for 7ft square plus the extra length for any straighter bits - so a full room, garage or converted attic. The only place I have available for a 3ft roundy would be the garage which isn't ideal for roughly half the year. I am also lucky enough to have a garage available, not everyone has that luxury.

Edited May 7 by john new

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, Willie Whizz said:

 

I take it from the lack of response to my post that with all our collective experience no-one on here has  made - or presumably has ever even seen - a model B16 that could get around 'second radius' train set curves and still look tolerably realistic in doing so.

 

On that basis, I suggest that however much many of us might like one, the prospects of seeing a R-T-R model in 00 must be pretty slim ...

Good evening Willie,

 

I don't know anyone who'd want to build a B16 to go round 2nd radius curves. So much would need removing from the insides of the cylinders, or the bogie wheels made to too small a diameter that it would look rather 'unrealistic'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Michael Edge]

5 hours ago, Willie Whizz said:

 

I take it from the lack of response to my post that with all our collective experience no-one on here has  made - or presumably has ever even seen - a model B16 that could get around 'second radius' train set curves and still look tolerably realistic in doing so.

 

On that basis, I suggest that however much many of us might like one, the prospects of seeing a R-T-R model in 00 must be pretty slim ...

I have no idea what “second radius” means in reality but my own B16 (NuCast) and the one of mine that Tony has now will go round my 28” radius test track. My NuCast one has the kit’s swinging arm “bogie” but the PDK one has a proper bogie with a central pivot.

[Willie Whizz]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Willie,

 

I don't know anyone who'd want to build a B16 to go round 2nd radius curves. So much would need removing from the insides of the cylinders, or the bogie wheels made to too small a diameter that it would look rather 'unrealistic'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Thank you Tony - your point is entirely taken; the issue arose, though, from earlier comments regarding B16s featuring on “wish lists” for future R-T-R production, given that the “usual expectation” for a R-T-R locomotive is that it should be able to get around Second Radius track curves (even if looking ungainly in the process). The B16  seems to be regarded as particularly challenging in that respect and I was trying to establish whether such a thing had ever been attempted - or even just seen - by readers of WW. If nobody on here (given the experience and expertise available) has ever tried it, or even seen it done, then I’m pretty convinced now that however much people would like a R-T-R B16 to happen, it won’t. 
 

Mind you, I do recall similar things being said about Thompson Pacific’s due

to their unusual wheelbase and cylinder arrangements, and yet R-T-R versions have recently appeared, so never say never!

[Willie Whizz]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Willie,

 

I don't know anyone who'd want to build a B16 to go round 2nd radius curves. So much would need removing from the insides of the cylinders, or the bogie wheels made to too small a diameter that it would look rather 'unrealistic'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Thank you Tony - your point is entirely taken; the issue arose, though, from earlier comments regarding B16s featuring on “wish lists” for future R-T-R production, given that the “usual expectation” for a R-T-R locomotive is that it should be able to get around Second Radius track curves (even if looking ungainly in the process). The B16  seems to be regarded as particularly challenging in that respect and I was trying to establish whether such a thing had ever been attempted - or even just seen - by readers of WW. If nobody on here (given the experience and expertise available) has ever tried it, or even seen it done, then I’m pretty convinced now that however much people would like a R-T-R B16 to happen, it won’t. 
 

Mind you, I do recall similar things being said about Thompson Pacific’s due

to their unusual wheelbase and cylinder arrangements, and yet R-T-R versions have recently appeared, so never say never!

[john new]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Willie,

 

I don't know anyone who'd want to build a B16 to go round 2nd radius curves. So much would need removing from the insides of the cylinders, or the bogie wheels made to too small a diameter that it would look rather 'unrealistic'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I have just looked up the kit instructions for the DJH B16 I have on the go. Note 4 states that for curves of less than 20” radius you would need to move the cylinders outwards. 20” is a smidgeon over the 19.8” of 3rd radius r-t-r trackwork. 

[thegreenhowards]

On 06/05/2024 at 12:58, thegreenhowards said:

This kind of arrangement is common in O gauge. As I understand it, this is more like the bogie does on the prototype as it actually helps steer the loco round a curve. I’m away at the moment, but I’ll post some pictures later.

 

Andy

As promised here are a couple of photos of a front bogie which is typical in higher quality O gauge kits. This Schools is a recent purchase (thanks @Tony Teague). It’s built from a David Andrew’s kit - I’m not sure of the builder but probably a professional.

 

The front bogie is pivoted at its centre point with a slot to enable side the side movement and some springing to ‘encourage’ the front of the loco to steer round any curve.

 

 

It runs exceptionally well, but I don’t know how tight it will go as I only have 6ft plus curves.

 

Andy