Wright writes.....

[Fat Controller]

They were a Coal Board product of the very late 50s and early 60s to attempt to reduce pollution! Made in Aberdare I believe? I think they were named Dr Bonowski Nuts!

Pulverized low grade coal mixed with an adhesive and 'pressed'. I suspect the railways were offered loads as they were not that successful domestically at the time. 

Possibly not good for loco's as they burned very quickly and very hot indeed so maybe not providing the even spread of fire required in most fireboxes?

Similar products are still available I see on searching the net (sad boy that I am).

A little interesting piece of history here.......http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1959/may/04/fuel-and-power but it does go on........

Phil

They were made by mixing 'duff' (very fine coal dust) with different types of binder, and pressing in a mould. Bitumen was one binder, whilst another was clay. 'Patent Fuel' firms were commonplace at the exporting ports, sourcing a lot of the coal that built up around the hoists and staithes. My grandmother's generation used to make them with the dust from the bottom of the coal-house, bound with clay or horse dung- these used to be called 'pele'. They may have been OK for a domestic grate, but no good for firing locos.

'Briquettes', a larger, oblong, version of the same thing were used a lot on railways in France and Italy. You'd often see them near coaling towers, used to make a wall to contain the reserve coal stacks.

[Headstock]

I'm always a little wary of being called an expert with regard to my building locos. It's been my privilege down the years to photograph the work of the top loco builders in all scales and gauges. My level of expertise doesn't warrant my inclusion among those. 

 

You're quite right about a line (or standard?) being drawn (established?) with regard to each individual based on their skills and aptitude. I suppose it's a testament to the current high standards achieved by the RTR boys that the hobby is now so egalitarian with regard to what one can own.

 

Bachmann A1 apple green 32-560 01.jpg

 

Who would have thought that RTR locos as good as this would have been available to all, just a few years ago? I've just photographed this new Bachmann A1 for BRM, and have been invited to pen a few notes. It's not perfect; the return crank leans the wrong way on this side, the footplate and tender soleplate don't quite line up and the bogie wheels aren't good (though they look better in lined green than in black). It represents the loco as built, with stovepipe chimney, no nameplate and curly '6's (60119 was the only A1 which never got its front numberplate corrected). It's the livery which particularly impresses me. I've seen professionally-painted LNER green locos which don't look as good as this. What does it cost? I don't know, but around £150.00? In the pre-egalitarian days, such an A1, built by an expert from a DJH kit and painted by an expert painter would cost the equivalent of over four figures today.

 

Today, what was once only the realm of the skilled or those with disposable income is now available to the majority. It's how the hobby has moved forward, but it's not for me; not that that really matters in the grand scheme of things.

 

Merl Evans was most responsible for Bachmann locos of this quality. Those who now own them should pay tribute to his memory.  

 

I've never been a great fan of the Bachmann A1, but I've never been able to put my finger on why it just lacks the elegance of the real locomotive. Perhaps it's the rather undernourished sticky out bits such as the superheater covers, axle boxes and the strange rendition of the cover plate on the firebox side. A well-built DJH kit is far superior in my opinion.

[Mallard60022]

A friend and I went into the field at the side of Lees (Oldham) shed around 1954 so see if we could see his fireman uncle. "He'll let us look around", but instead he told us to fukc off. I had just gone 18 when I eventually walked down the line of engines into that shed. If you have steam in the blood, that is when you really know it. I don't think I have ever wanted a job so much, in fact I gave up a regular night job playing in a rock group for it.

So it was you and not Pete Best. 

R.Starr.

[gr.king]

he told us to fu** off.

I wish I'd realised that I've been spelling it wrongly all these years. So that's how to get it past the digital censor. I'm indebted.

Edited August 13, 2016 by gr.king

[Tony Wright]

I've never been a great fan of the Bachmann A1, but I've never been able to put my finger on why it just lacks the elegance of the real locomotive. Perhaps it's the rather undernourished sticky out bits such as the superheater covers, axle boxes and the strange rendition of the cover plate on the firebox side. A well-built DJH kit is far superior in my opinion.

An interesting observation, Andrew. 

 

Of course, before the introduction of the Bachmann A1, there were five options for getting a 4mm A1. 1. Build a DJH kit. 2. Build a Pro-Scale kit. 3. Adapt a Wills/SE Finecast A2 kit. 4. Build a Jamieson hand-cut kit. 5. Scratch-build one. Were there any others? I've done the first three. 

 

 

As supplied, the Bachmann A1 has a few issues, especially, as here, when the firm produces a roller-bearing example, yet doesn't omit one lubricator and still leaves square keeps to the Cartazzi and tender axleboxes. The return crank leans the wrong way on this side, the loco footplate and tender soleplate don't line up, the gap between the loco and tender is either too close to go around even scale curves or so wide as to need Bob Beaman as the fireman (an Olympic reference) and the lining is like a backward wasp, especially in BR green. It's also devoid of detail which is clearly visible in prototype pictures. Though later examples run well (after the initial dud motors were replaced), its powers of pulling are limited because of the sprung bogie and not enough weight; limited enough to make them useless on Stoke Summit without modification. 

 

All the above said, in the right hands a very nice layout loco can be made from a Bachmann A1.

 

 

Witness Eric Kidd's rendition of 60159. Eric has done a lot to improve a basic Bachmann A1, and I was very pleased he brought it when he visited some time ago. The most important thing, though, is that he's done all this work himself. Tim Easter has produced similar improvements to Bachmann A1s on commission. 

 

 

At the moment I'm still keeping this modified Bachmann A1. I fitted etched brass deflectors, raised up the rear end of footplate to make it nearer being level with the tender soleplate, close-coupled the loco to tender, changed the horrid bogie wheels, renumbered/renamed it and added lots of wiggly pipes. Ian Rathbone weathered it for me, which toned down the too-bright lining considerably. As a layout loco, what do you think? To make it even half-useful as a hauler I chucked the bogie spring away and ballasted the bogie with lead. I also packed every single nook and cranny in the body with liquid lead.

 

 

 

Despite any improvements to a Bachmann A1, this will always be my preferred method of getting a model one of England's finest 8Ps, by building a DJH kit. I've added extra detail to this, and Ian Rathbone has painted it to perfection. After a comment by Larry Goddard, I've filled the slots in the Romford retaining nuts with filler, though this example (and 60125) should have an AWS battery box on the rear frames this side and the associated conduit along the footplate edge. Graeme King has sent me some of his resin cast ones, but indolence means they're still not used. Anyway, they stick out too far on the Bachmann A1. I really should have fitted a proper smokebox dart as well. 

 

Whichever path is chosen, to me, the most important thing is that one has a go oneself. Though the Bachmann A1 is not cheap, a less-than-pristine one might be picked up second-hand at a lower price - ideal for practising improvements on. 

Edited August 13, 2016 by Tony Wright

[Headstock]

Nice to see the modifications to the Bachmann locomotives, big improvements. How did you raise the running board? I still think that the DJH/Wright has the Gold medal by quite a margin. It just has more finesse even without the detailing that you have added. Interestingly neither Hornby or Bachman seem to be able to get their respective tenders aligned, ughhh.

Edited August 13, 2016 by Headstock

[Tony Wright]

Nice to see the modifications to the Bachmann locomotives, big improvements. How did you raise the running board? I still think that the DJH/Wright has the Gold medal by quite a margin. It just has more finesse even without the detailing that you have added. Interestingly neither Hornby or Bachman seem to be able to get their respective tenders aligned, ughhh.

Andrew,

 

I raised the running board by placing brass washers underneath the cab. It does result in a gap between the frames and the body, but it's not that visible unless one gets really low down. 

 

It's kind of you to comment on my DJH build, though I think it's Ian's painting which makes it 'special'. 

[Headstock]

Yes, it is a superbly subtle paint finish, let's call it team gold.

[Headstock]

Another option for the A1 in 4mm scale was the Crowline kit, although I wouldn't recommend it unless you're a masochist. The kit itself was ok in terms of the fit of the parts but it had a number of inaccuracies that required quite a bit of reworking, as a result, 60135 below is more of a hybrid than a completed kit.

[Tony Wright]

Another option for the A1 in 4mm scale was the Crowline kit, although I wouldn't recommend it unless you're a masochist. The kit itself was ok in terms of the fit of the parts but it had a number of inaccuracies that required quite a bit of reworking, as a result, 60135 below is more of a hybrid than a completed kit.

Thanks Andrew,

 

I'd forgotten about the Crownline kit for an A1 (now PDK?). I never built one from this source, but I built an A2. I hated the resin boiler, so substituted a DJH one (DJH will not normally supply spare parts - however, I have a very privileged position with the firm). It was started by a mate, and I completed it; I think it turned out reasonably well, but, as with the other LNER Pacifics in the range, the cab proportions aren't right. Yours looks fine, however. Did you alter it? 

Edited August 13, 2016 by Tony Wright

[Headstock]

Thanks Andrew,

 

I'd forgotten about the Crownline kit for an A1 (now PDK?). I never built one from this source, but I built an A2. I hated the resin boiler, so substituted a DJH one (DJH will not normally supply spare parts - however, I have a very privileged position with the firm). It was started by a mate, and I completed it; I think it turned out reasonably well, but, as with the other LNER Pacifics in the range, the cab proportions aren't right. Yours looks fine, however. Did you alter it? 

 

Hi Tony,

 

Yes, the cab was altered, a pig of a job, looking back at the time it seemed like proper modeling. Today If I wanted a top of the range A1 with my own personalizations I would go for the DJH kit every time. In fact, I acquired one as a retirement project  just in case they became unavailable in the future. The milky bar boiler was always a bit controversial but looking back I think imposing your will on a problematic, but basically sound kit was always part of the challenge of making things for yourself. There was also many good points, the tender was excellent and I think that even the DJH kit would have benefited from the etched running board. I seem to recall, that as excellent as the DJH kit is it still requires a little modification to the cab, am I correct? I would have thought that the DJH A2/3 would be of similar quality as the A1. I really must get hold of one of these before they become extinct, purely as a piece of pure modelling indulgence.

 

Given my predilection towards the GC you would have thought that my interest in Thompson / Peppercorn Pacifics would be somewhat redundant beyond the East Coast Mainline. It may be of interest to people that the Starlight specials that operated out of Marylebone from 1953 onwards would often  see eight trains depart from the terminus per night. Neasden would often borrow locomotives from what was on Top Shed at the time. As a result, A1's and even the odd A4 would be sent as far North as  Sheffield in the early hours. In the opposite direction, the Thompson A2's would also be rostered to the fitted freights working from York to Woodford. These were usually the providence  of York  B16's but spotters logs that I have  been given access to also recorded all of Yorks A2/3's  as well as A2/2's  Cock 'o' the North and Lord President on these workings.

[richard i]

Hi Tony,

 

Yes, the cab was altered, a pig of a job, looking back at the time it seemed like proper modeling. Today If I wanted a top of the range A1 with my own personalizations I would go for the DJH kit every time. In fact, I acquired one as a retirement project  just in case they became unavailable in the future. The milky bar boiler was always a bit controversial but looking back I think imposing your will on a problematic, but basically sound kit was always part of the challenge of making things for yourself. There was also many good points, the tender was excellent and I think that even the DJH kit would have benefited from the etched running board. I seem to recall, that as excellent as the DJH kit is it still requires a little modification to the cab, am I correct? I would have thought that the DJH A2/3 would be of similar quality as the A1. I really must get hold of one of these before they become extinct, purely as a piece of pure modelling indulgence.

 

Given my predilection towards the GC you would have thought that my interest in Thompson / Peppercorn Pacifics would be somewhat redundant beyond the East Coast Mainline. It may be of interest to people that the Starlight specials that operated out of Marylebone from 1953 onwards would often  see eight trains depart from the terminus per night. Neasden would often borrow locomotives from what was on Top Shed at the time. As a result, A1's and even the odd A4 would be sent as far North as  Sheffield in the early hours. In the opposite direction, the Thompson A2's would also be rostered to the fitted freights working from York to Woodford. These were usually the providence  of York  B16's but spotters logs that I have  been given access to also recorded all of Yorks A2/3's  as well as A2/2's  Cock 'o' the North and Lord President on these workings.

Which A1s and A4s do you know of?

[Tony Wright]

Hi Tony,

 

Yes, the cab was altered, a pig of a job, looking back at the time it seemed like proper modeling. Today If I wanted a top of the range A1 with my own personalizations I would go for the DJH kit every time. In fact, I acquired one as a retirement project  just in case they became unavailable in the future. The milky bar boiler was always a bit controversial but looking back I think imposing your will on a problematic, but basically sound kit was always part of the challenge of making things for yourself. There was also many good points, the tender was excellent and I think that even the DJH kit would have benefited from the etched running board. I seem to recall, that as excellent as the DJH kit is it still requires a little modification to the cab, am I correct? I would have thought that the DJH A2/3 would be of similar quality as the A1. I really must get hold of one of these before they become extinct, purely as a piece of pure modelling indulgence.

 

Given my predilection towards the GC you would have thought that my interest in Thompson / Peppercorn Pacifics would be somewhat redundant beyond the East Coast Mainline. It may be of interest to people that the Starlight specials that operated out of Marylebone from 1953 onwards would often  see eight trains depart from the terminus per night. Neasden would often borrow locomotives from what was on Top Shed at the time. As a result, A1's and even the odd A4 would be sent as far North as  Sheffield in the early hours. In the opposite direction, the Thompson A2's would also be rostered to the fitted freights working from York to Woodford. These were usually the providence  of York  B16's but spotters logs that I have  been given access to also recorded all of Yorks A2/3's  as well as A2/2's  Cock 'o' the North and Lord President on these workings.

The DJH A1/A2 cab needs altering at source to give the rake-in just below the windows (putting a piercing saw down a seam) and the cab roof needs narrowing as well. 

 

With regard to Thompson/Peppercorn Pacifics running down the GC, when Wolverhampton MRC exhibited Charwelton we ran 60501, 60114 and 60125, because we had pictures of them on the London extension. 

 

Speaking of Peppercorn Pacifics, my good friend Tom Foster visited today, bringing with him locos he's weathered for me (I'll be painting backscenes and building coaches for him among other things in return). 

 

 

First out of the box was this Bachmann A2 60539 VELOCITY (why didn't I alter the shedplate?). I think this was originally HAPPY KNIGHT, so I renumbered/renamed it, detailed it, changed the bogie wheels and did the usual refinements of leveling up the footplate/soleplate, close-coupling the loco to tender, putting real coal in the tender, adding a crew and fitting lamps. Tom has weathered it to perfection. Having just sold-on several RTR ER Pacifics, I'll certainly be keeping this one.

 

 

Some little time ago I reported on my (in part) finding new homes for some of the late Geoff Brewin's locos. One of them was a Pro-Scale A1 which he'd built. I got it going, finished off the painting, lined/lettered it and added the plates. I asked Tom to weather it as a loco in service but one which had seen cleaners at some point. What another splendid job he's done. Casting a critical eye over this unique model, being dispassionate, it isn't quite as true and straight as the RTR A2. However, so what? I bought it off Geoff's estate, so now I have a loco built by a late friend with a lot of Geoff in it, a bit of me in it and an input from another friend. How much more personal is this than a modified RTR loco? Much, much more in my view. It has a far more interesting story to tell (which I can narrate, at least in part), it certainly goes better than the RTR example (especially in the haulage stakes) and it's definitely a one-off. It is a Doncaster-built one, by the way. The rivet heads are there but not prominent enough. 

 

 

I think this picture sums up my thoughts on LB's locos as well as any. Yes, close inspection will reveal that not all is straight and parallel on KITTIWAKE but here is the epitome (at least to me) of a layout loco, hauling a layout train (my coach construction isn't straight and parallel, either) on a layout. This loco is much more than just my property, and I'm very pleased to have it. I like to think that Geoff would be pleased with how it's turned out.

 

 

How about this for weathering? A Foster masterclass in my view. These aren't my wagons, they're Tom's for his current ex-GWR branch line. Some are modified from RTR, some he's built from kits. With younger modellers showing this kind of talent, there is a future for our hobby. Most importantly, it's all his own work. 

Edited August 14, 2016 by Tony Wright

[LNER4479]

 

A1 02 Bachmann 60157.jpg

 

 ... the gap between the loco and tender is either too close to go around even scale curves or so wide as to need Bob Beaman as the fireman (an out of date Olympic reference)

 

A contemporary GB reference would be Greg Rutherford

 

What do you mean you're not staying up till all hours to watch the all the excitement in Rio?

[Mallard60022]

Contemporary References again. Building a Pro Scale Kit is almost as relaxing as watching a certain Mr Murray.................however, building most DJH kits is akin to seeing Mr J Rose navigating the Fairways of RDJ. Parkside wagon kits take as long to complete as an England opening batsman's innings and resistance to many new coach products from the Red Box Co is as futile as me trying to get weathering on wagons to look like T Fosters.

Tony, Geoff would be (will be) very happy with that result on Kittiwake; how he detested that kit.

Phil

[St Enodoc]

Contemporary References again. Building a Pro Scale Kit is almost as relaxing as watching a certain Mr Murray.................however, building most DJH kits is akin to seeing Mr J Rose navigating the Fairways of RDJ. Parkside wagon kits take as long to complete as an England opening batsman's innings and resistance to many new coach products from the Red Box Co is as futile as me trying to get weathering on wagons to look like T Fosters.

Tony, Geoff would be (will be) very happy with that result on Kittiwake; how he detested that kit.

Phil

Legend has it that an England batsman not noted for high scores was on the phone when a wicket fell and he had to go to the crease. He told the caller to hold on and he'd be back in a minute...

[The Stationmaster]

Legend has it that an England batsman not noted for high scores was on the phone when a wicket fell and he had to go to the crease. He told the caller to hold on and he'd be back in a minute...

 

That sounds like a 'joke' from one of those morning tv 'news & nonsense' programmes that one comes across in the Sydney area.

[St Enodoc]

That sounds like a 'joke' from one of those morning tv 'news & nonsense' programmes that one comes across in the Sydney area.

Could be Mike, although I only watch the evening TV news and nonsense so I don't really know.

 

I heard it long before I came South, the player concerned being G****e H**k.

[LNER4479]

.... almost as relaxing as watching a certain a certain Mr Murray ......

Phil

At least I have an excuse for the tiles being wonky on the old shed building at Grantham. Multitasking at 1am whilst watching said match was probably not one of my better ideas...

 

Sorry Tony - terribly off topic!

[Tony Wright]

The parallel thread on the hobby being at a crossroads continues to be very interesting. It's ironic, that much of what has been mulled over has been postulated here in the past, particularly the future development and impact of RTR. 

 

Speaking of RTR, a friend brought round a very expensive RTR set of carriages today; seven of them, six articulated. When I say expensive, each car was over £300.00 each. We tried to run it, but only a Bachmann Deltic would manage it (it's fitted with traction tyres). One of the same firm's A4s just merrily whirled its wheels round but essentially stood still. I oiled the rake, which improved matters, but then cars started to fall off the track. In case it's not known, I use the industry-standard track in the fiddle yard and the work of the best track-maker in the realm on the scenic side. Some wheelsets were out of gauge and one wouldn't sit properly in its bearing. After much (under breath) mutterings, I eventually got the whole rake to run, in the right order, by using small washers to take out axle-slack and slackening off the springs on the bogies. My friend was happy, though a bit concerned. Though he's building his own layout, he doesn't really build locos and stock; his response to seeing my building of a B17 was 'Hornby do one of those'. No RTR Pacific would look at the expensive rake, though, after oiling the set, the A4 and one of my DJH A1s had no trouble. 

 

My point is, shouldn't a brand new high-quality product be lubricated at source? And, will any of my tinkerings invalidate a guarantee? Further points relate to whether models costing this much are really destined for the glass case rather than use on a layout and if they're really aimed at the collector, not the layout runner. Visually, they are stunning (though HD bogies in part and footboards on them would make an improvement) and I've made nothing which comes near to how good they look. A different market, I suppose. 

 

He left happy and I felt happy as he left. Not happy with his leaving I mean, but happy in the knowledge that I can from now on haul up the drawbridge if I wish, because it's a really good feeling (I can assure you) to know that I don't give a fig what the RTR boys do, either at the top end (in the case of the seven-car rake) or the most basic 'Railroad' model. As long as component parts are there (I'm not so happy for the long-term future availability of everything I need), modellers like me can keep on making what we want. Not long ago, Jol Wilkinson was berated for suggesting that those who bewail the fact that this or that is not available RTR should build a kit. Why berate a man who offers sound advice? Haven't they heard of learning how to? Or at least trying to? 

Edited August 15, 2016 by Tony Wright

[coachmann]

 Not long ago, Jol Wilkinson was berated for suggesting that those who bewail the fact that this or that is not available RTR should build a kit. Why berate a man who offers sound advice? Haven't they heard of learning how to? Or at least trying to? 

 

It's tha'd 'ol wide church maaan.........Feeling properly peeved is a fact of life on forums. If someone is told to build a kit or not model in '00' if he calls himself a scale modeller, it's like saying Goering had some good points. 

Edited August 15, 2016 by coachmann

[Tony Wright]

It's tha'd 'ol wide church maaan.........Feeling properly peeved is a fact of life on forums. If someone is told to build a kit or not model in '00' if he calls himself a scale modeller, it's like saying Goering had some good points. 

Spot on Larry!

 

You raise a most-interesting point. How can anyone who models in OO Gauge call themselves a 'scale modeller'? They (I) model in 4mm Scale, but use a too-narrow narrow gauge.

 

As an aside, why do we now speak of O Scale, OO Scale and N Scale? It really has got me peeved - almost as much as the use of 'train station'!

Edited August 15, 2016 by Tony Wright

[micklner]

Spot on Larry!

 

You raise a most-interesting point. How can anyone who models in OO Gauge call themselves a 'scale modeller'? They (I) model in 4mm Scale, but use a too-narrow narrow gauge.

 

As an aside, why do we now speak of O Scale, OO Scale and N Scale? It really has got me peeved - almost as much as the use of 'train station'!

 

Smacks of elitism perhaps ?

 

Far to much fuss made in some circles about scales, gauges etc etc. If you enjoy what you are doing why should anyone else criticise them? if that person enjoys doing so?

 

Personally I have no problem with current r.t.r enjoying the quality and is most cases the value for money it represents. Ebay is a boon for battered examples to repair and to convert into other Locos types etc. I also build kits as well, I see no reason why there should be any need for any divide between the two parts of the hobby. Enjoy both (if you wish) life is too short !!

 

I have said before I don't have the luxury of a large layout where haulage powers is ever or will ever be a problem. I expect I am in the majority of modellers who don't worry too much about how much a  r.t.r Loco can actually pul either ? .

 

As to r.t.r, Tony I remember when the current Hornby A3 and A4 arrived you wrote in a review ,"there is no need for anyone to build a kit of them anymore". Surely a reason for celebration, as a result far more people hopefully were attracted to our hobby as a result of the increase in quality and at the time prices. Lets not kid ourselves there are kits out there which in there time, were simply diabolical without naming names. Sadly there is a downturn in modelling as a hobby in general nowadays and not just Trains. Quality r.t.r may encourage them to start/stay in modelling. Most people who have looked a kit will scratch their head and walk away. Being realistic kits are far from cheap, not only do you buy the kit , then a motor, wheels etc etc before you even start. You then as a newcomer  have to buy the tools, drills, paints etc etc as well . Very far from a cheap hobby for many nowadays or in the past.

 

Todays current r.t.r hopefully will continue in its quality high detail form in the future , the same hopefully for quality kits as well. IMHO.

Edited August 15, 2016 by micklner

[New Haven Neil]

It's an Americanism I believe, Tony.  I'm guilty of using it, but I do model US prototype!  It spills over into my UK interests accidentally.

[glo41f]

Tony

 

To my way of thinking, any supplier should provide models that actually run so the chap who purchased the bespoke carriage set should have taken them straight back. Good for you though for effecting an improvement and rectification. I must admit to smiling at the mention of the 00 scale modeller!  I think only the S4 types can legitimately claim that!  

 

Martin Long