Wright writes.....

[Theakerr]

I sometimes wonder why the hobby is stuck on 12V motors.  As i understand it, the electronics industry uses 5V motors and during web searches I have come across a number of motors using 5V or thereabouts and some of them are coreless.  Some of the specs are pretty impressive, especially the torque.  One even had a shaft diameter that matched that of the motors I was replacing in a friends Beyer Garret.  These motors could be a relatively cheap source of quality motors for our hobby especially as battery powered locos become mainstream or using some sort of dropper resistor.  

[Tony Wright]

Thanks once more to all those who've commented on various motors/gearboxes. 

 

I suppose what it comes down to is what/which suits an individual loco builder. Portescaps were highly desirable (in my experience) because of their ease of installation and great power. The greater price was perceived as being well worth it. However, as mentioned, later ones were so noisy as to be rejected; at least by me. Customers ordering locos off me often stipulated Portescaps, but not after the whining became apparent. 

 

What I seek is quiet, smooth, responsive and powerful drive units. Portescaps now don't qualify for the first of those prerequisites, so, as mentioned, it's Mashimas and DJH, Comet, Markits or High-Level 'boxes. My personal needs are (probably?) different from many in that I run main line, scale-length trains. Many of the (passenger) trains are kit built/modifications in metal and are thus rather heavy. As I've stated before, in the main RTR RA9 motive power is of little use to me because of its lack of adhesion - there seems to be enough power but there's constant slipping; not just at starting (which I quite like) but all the way around, if the locos can actually make it all the way round that is. I stress again, I have nothing against the excellence of modern RTR, especially if the locos have been altered/improved/weathered personally by the owner, particularly if they bring them round for me to photograph. Then have them soundly spanked in terms of races and feats of strength! The only exception to this was Hornby's P2 which beat one of my kit-built A2/2s (just like the real thing!) The said defeated loco now has more weight. 

 

It seems to me that if one only has light trains to haul then, as long as the chosen motor/gearbox is smooth and quiet, then spending twice as much on a motor/gearbox combination, just because it'll haul anything, seems a waste. One of the chapters for my forthcoming Crowood book will deal with the modelling of prototype ECML trains. The shortest of the expresses is only six cars-long, and that's the Master Cutler.

 

 

 

This set is made up of modified/renamed/renumbered third-generation Hornby Pullmans, and I'm not entirely happy with it because the types were mainly on the SR. A few of Hornby's latest cars will soon be in the set. The EE Type 4 is a modified/re-wheeled/repainted/weathered Lima model, produced originally for Gilbert Barnatt by my elder son, Tom. Gilbert returned it because it wouldn't haul much. I investigated and just packed every spare cubic inch inside with lead - a very simple job. It now just fizzes round, and will take more if required. In many ways (in my opinion) I think it captures the look of these grossly overweight (and under-powered) giants better than the much-newer Bachmann one.

 

 

The next lightest train is the Tees-Tyne Pullman; eight cars. This set is anomalous because the Mk. 1 cars weren't introduced until after Little Bytham Station was demolished (I don't propose to destroy it in my 'zeal' for accuracy). However, I claim modeller's licence. The difference in the two firms' rendition of umber and cream is noticeable - the brakes are modified Hornby items and the Mk. 1s modified Bachmann, beautifully-weathered for me by Tim Shackleton. The loco is an ancient, 40-year old Wills A4 underneath which I installed a scratch-built chassis. 20 years into its life, Ian Rathbone repainted it and breathed new life into it. It just toys with eight cars. Its original 'engine' was a MWOO5 and 30:1 gears. It now has a DJH' box and Mashima motor.

 

 

 

NIne Bachmann Mk.1s (correctly) make up the morning Talisman. All the cars have had their roof ribs removed and have been weathered (by son, Tom). Late in the last century the rake featured in an article in BRM. So did the loco, which is a modified Bachmann A4 which Ian Rathbone painted to perfection. It had an original split chassis, which, literally, split! The nasty thing was junked and I made a new chassis using SE Finecast components. These cars are quite light (especially after the needless weights were chucked out) and any RTR Pacific can take these.

 

 

With over 30 kit-built Airfix cement wagons (packed with lead for stability), none of my erstwhile RTR Pacifics could take this block rake. A Crownline A2/3 has no trouble (again, just like the real thing); it's the usual Wright/Rathbone combination. Rob Kinsey built all the wagons and we horse-traded so that they're now my property.  

 

 

Another rake which featured in BRM in the earlier days was my rendition of the Queen Of Scots, all ten cars. I did the Hornby/Comet.Trice modifications and Ian painted the lot, as he did the loco - one of my eight DJH A1s. Though this rake is quite heavy, one of Westerner's modified Hornby Castles (all his own work) took it with relative ease, as did a Western Diesel. However, both were soundly trounced in a subsequent race by one of my kit-built A4s. I'll never grow up! This train (and the corresponding Sunday service to Harrogate) could always be identified by the two cars outside the brakes, which only went as far as Leeds. It was very unusual to see them not next to the loco, whether UP or Down. The introduction of Hornby's latest cars makes the 'making' of a set like this now much easier; but I've had mine for over 20 years. 

 

 

Yet another article from BRM's earlier days featured The Elizabethan, a mix of Bachmann, Southern Pride and Trice bits and pieces. At ten cars-long it's fairly heavy, though a Hornby A4 has taken it (with some slipping). I built/modified/painted all the Thompsons in the set and Dave Lewis made the Aberdeen Mk. 1s from his own kits. 

 

 

Into 11-car rakes now as yet another of my DJH A1s heads the southbound Yorkshire Pullman through Little Bytham. This rake is more mixed, consisting of older Hornby conversions and a couple or so of the latest cars. The older cars ride on cast-metal Trice bogies and the whole ensemble is quite heavy. All have been weathered, and are a bit much for RTR motive power. 

 

 

Another 11-car rake in the shape of The White Rose. This is made up mainly of modified Bachmann Mk. 1s (some of which are turning into bananas!), with the catering Gresley cars being kit-built (Tony Geary and me). My superannuated Kitmaster/Lima-modified DELTIC does the honours. RTR Pacifics can manage this rake, but with some slipping. Has anyone else taken the roof ribs off over 80 Bachmann Mk. 1s?

 

 

With over 45 weighted wagons, RTR motive power used to struggle with this Scotch Goods. The usual SE Finecast/Wright/Rathbone combo has charge. Believe it or not, I've built at least four wagons for this rake. The rest is the work of splendid mates, all superlatively-weathered by Rob Davey.

 

I stress again, it's really a case of horses for courses. Because of my personal 'needs' I find I'm much happier with locos I've built myself. However, as many visitors have shown with what they've brought, some outstanding personal creations can be achieved using RTR as a basis. And, it's important, as always, that they do it themselves.  

Edited September 20, 2016 by Tony Wright

[Focalplane]

What a great set of photos of real prototype trains. But surely, Tony, a Scotch goods can only contain Scotch? Or so my Scottish friends in Aberdeen used to tell me back in the boom days of North Sea oil.

[Blandford1969]

 Not sure if you had seen this which has turned up on Flickr, just after your period; but hopefully interesting

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/sydhank/29283642941/in/dateposted/

[Tony Wright]

What a great set of photos of real prototype trains. But surely, Tony, a Scotch goods can only contain Scotch? Or so my Scottish friends in Aberdeen used to tell me back in the boom days of North Sea oil.

I'm sure you're right Paul. Scotch is the whisky.

 

It's just that the term has appeared in so many publications down the years as a description of this most-famous express freight that it's become acceptable (?)

 

Peter Coster says it should be the 'Scots' Goods, which is better. 

 

I'll use it in future.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[asmay2002]

In the 19th century literature you will see terms like "Scotch express" and even "Flying Scotchman".  Whilst "Scots" is the modern usage that doesn't necessarily make it correct for the terms used on the railway at the time.

[Tony Wright]

 Not sure if you had seen this which has turned up on Flickr, just after your period; but hopefully interesting

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/sydhank/29283642941/in/dateposted/

Many thanks,

 

What a wonderful picture. 

 

I would, though, question the date. I have a publication which records the dismantling of the MR bridge (not M&GNR - that began a quarter of a mile to the east) as taking place over a weekend in March 1963, when it was still snowing. Can anyone confirm this, please? 

 

What does please me is how little compression has been necessary to fit the model of Little Bytham into the available space. As I've mentioned, it's just about 15" short of absolute scale (all the omission at the north end beyond the last point). What's also vital for 'believability' (is there such a word?) is that the main line goes offstage on the straight, not around some far-too-tight visual curve.

 

Obviously, the scene today is beyond recognition. I've had a go at modelling the limestone outcrops. They're still there but totally obliterated beneath unrestricted tree/bush growth.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Woodcock29]

Hi Tony

 

Thanks for posting all those wonderful photos of LB and its trains on the previous page.  You're really wetting my appetite for my visit next year! 

 

I also find very interesting the continued ongoing discussions on kit building and motors/gearboxes combinations. I was originally a devotee of the Portesccap RGs staring with my first in a Ks O4 back in about 1982 I think.  It still trundles around my layout competing with the various Bachmann modifications I have (corrected O4/1 plus O4/3 and O4/5).  I still have some relatively old Portescaps to use but of course some later ones as well that will probably whine more - they might not get used. 

 

Andrew Emmett

[Barry O]

I am unsure that the motor whines in the later RG4s. The one I have appears to make the whine from the gears. And at least one person knows how to get rid of the noise.

 

I wonder how many RTR locomotives will be around, in full working order, when they are as old as some of the kit/scratch built locomotives you have Tony? Going on feedback from users on a few exhibition layouts.. Not many.

 

Baz

[Focalplane]

I am unsure that the motor whines in the later RG4s. The one I have appears to make the whine from the gears. And at least one person knows how to get rid of the noise.

 

I wonder how many RTR locomotives will be around, in full working order, when they are as old as some of the kit/scratch built locomotives you have Tony? Going on feedback from users on a few exhibition layouts.. Not many.

 

Baz

 

Your comment rang a distant bell and here is the link - well, how to get to the link.

 

Go to the old Comet website (cometmodels.co.uk).  Click on Downloads.  Fourth down on the list is "Gearbox and Motor Information" - select this.  From the list that then comes up, scroll down to "Quieter Portescap Motors".  Download the short article.  It explains the problem and a solution.

 

Voila!

 

When I came back into modelling and kit building these articles were among the most useful.  Full marks to Andrew for leaving the old site up and running.

[Focalplane]

 

Obviously, the scene today is beyond recognition. I've had a go at modelling the limestone outcrops. They're still there but totally obliterated beneath unrestricted tree/bush growth.

It is just as well that the outcrops have very little vertical relief.  There have been several landslips in recent years further to the southwest, along "strike" geologically.  But they involve deep cuttings, such as the western portal of Mickleton Tunnel on the OW&W Oxford-Worcester main line and the Northern Harbury Cutting on the GWR Banbury-Birmingham main line.  Although the geotechnical experts don't all agree on this there is a consensus that cutting back overgrown mature vegetation has been a significant factor in creating the conditions for landslips.  Past photos at Harbury on Warwickshire Railways site show that the amount of vegetation was controlled to shrubs, etc. with few mature trees.  In recent years there has been a major campaign to cut down trees along railway lines (perhaps to reduce the effects of leaves on the line?)  As can be so often these days, one solution leads to another problem.

[Clive Mortimore]

Thanks once more to all those who've commented on various motors/gearboxes. 

 

Much edited

 

The Master Cutler.jpg

 

This set is made up of modified/renamed/renumbered third-generation Hornby Pullmans, and I'm not entirely happy with it because the types were mainly on the SR. A few of Hornby's latest cars will soon be in the set. The EE Type 4 is a modified/re-wheeled/repainted/weathered Lima model, produced originally for Gilbert Barnatt by my elder son, Tom. Gilbert returned it because it wouldn't haul much. I investigated and just packed every spare cubic inch inside with lead - a very simple job. It now just fizzes round, and will take more if required. In many ways (in my opinion) I think it captures the look of these grossly overweight (and under-powered) giants better than the much-newer Bachmann one.

Hi Tony

 

The present Bachmann Type 4 is pretty good, much better than the Lima model.

 

The Lima model suffers with a too pointy nose, it tappers in too much. The radiused corners are not round enough. The cab windscreen is totally wrong, it is straight. The driver's and secondman's windows should be angled back towards the cab doors. With the windscreen being straight not angled this elongates the cab side windows. In green livery the straight windscreen gives the green-grey join on the cab roof a concave look where with an angled windscreen it is a convex shape, which is correct.

 

One I done many moons ago, the corner post of the windscreen are removed and the roof join filed back at a slight angle. New corner post added and a new windscreen fitted. Before everyone jumps up and down shouting Brian at Shawplan does etches (or the old Craftsman ones), I use an etch as my template when cutting out my plastic ones. With the amount of EE locos I have built or modified I have saved quite a bit using my one etch as a template. The nose corners on this one I might have filled away a wee bit too much but they do need seeing to.

 

 

Another minor thing with D207, it did not get its long handrails on its nose corners until the mid 1960s.

 

A few class 40s, Bachmann (short height, early version), Jouef (un-modified fatty), 2x slim Frenchmen, Tri-ang type 3 made longer, modified Lima, un-modified Lima and scratch built.

Not in the photo are my MTK locos, nice shape poor details, the newer Bachmann loco and the best of the lot a Modern Outline Kits model.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Clive Mortimore

[Tony Wright]

Hi Tony

 

The present Bachmann Type 4 is pretty good, much better than the Lima model.

 

The Lima model suffers with a too pointy nose, it tappers in too much. The radiused corners are not round enough. The cab windscreen is totally wrong, it is straight. The driver's and secondman's windows should be angled back towards the cab doors. With the windscreen being straight not angled this elongates the cab side windows. In green livery the straight windscreen gives the green-grey join on the cab roof a concave look where with an angled windscreen it is a convex shape, which is correct.

 

40_front_02.jpg

One I done many moons ago, the corner post of the windscreen are removed and the roof join filed back at a slight angle. New corner post added and a new windscreen fitted. Before everyone jumps up and down shouting Brian at Shawplan does etches (or the old Craftsman ones), I use an etch as my template when cutting out my plastic ones. With the amount of EE locos I have built or modified I have saved quite a bit using my one etch as a template. The nose corners on this one I might have filled away a wee bit too much but they do need seeing to.

 

40_front_01.jpg

 

Another minor thing with D207, it did not get its long handrails on its nose corners until the mid 1960s.

 

036s.png

A few class 40s, Bachmann (short height, early version), Jouef (un-modified fatty), 2x slim Frenchmen, Tri-ang type 3 made longer, modified Lima, un-modified Lima and scratch built.

Not in the photo are my MTK locos, nice shape poor details, the newer Bachmann loco and the best of the lot a Modern Outline Kits model.

Thanks Clive,

 

Tom put the vertical handrails in ignorance, and It's something we should have done something about. I know he did a fair bit on the noses to alter the taper and installed a new windscreen etch as well. He also fitted new bufferbeams, made and placed those those white pipes above the bogies and lowered the whole body on the frames.

 

 

Tony Geary did a very similar thing with his much-modified Lima EE Type 4 for use on Stoke Summit. I suppose this one shouldn't have vertical nose handrails either. I've used this shot before; not as an illustration of an EE Type 4 but to show how a very sharp 90 degree bend going on/offstage on a main line doesn't 'work', at least photographically in my view. From this angle, all the train should be visible, even at a location like Peterborough, York or Newcastle, and certainly down the line from Stoke Summit. 

 

 

It looks better on the straight. 

 

 

This is another major Lima EE Type 4 modification, this time by Rob Kinsey. Without doubt, the headcode is wrong for this TPO. 

 

Of course, all these modifications pre-date the Bachmann EE Type 4 by many a long year. Is it something to do with a different mentality with regard to producing steam-outline or diesel/electric-outline locomotives? When Stoke was shown in steam-period, virtually nothing RTR was used in terms of motive power - just about every loco was kit or scratch-built. Yet, when it was run in diesel mode, only a couple of locos were built from kits. Is it because diesel-outline RTR was better than steam-outline RTR, at least 20 years ago? 

 

Obviously, the Bachmann model is better overall but (especially in terms of performance) but, head-on, the nose and bufferbeam just look a little 'wide' to me. Perhaps it's my lack of perception when it comes to diesel-outline locos. That said, had it been available contemporaneously with our building and running of Stoke Summit, it would have been used in preference to the Lima version. 

 

May I ask one question with regard to your models, please? Why, having shown great ingenuity and attention to detail, not to mention a large amount of skill, do you tolerate such adipose couplings on your locos? Whether handrails are fitted or not, or the nose is corrected or not, or the windscreen is altered, all I see is a great black lump on the bufferbeam.   

Edited September 21, 2016 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

It is just as well that the outcrops have very little vertical relief.  There have been several landslips in recent years further to the southwest, along "strike" geologically.  But they involve deep cuttings, such as the western portal of Mickleton Tunnel on the OW&W Oxford-Worcester main line and the Northern Harbury Cutting on the GWR Banbury-Birmingham main line.  Although the geotechnical experts don't all agree on this there is a consensus that cutting back overgrown mature vegetation has been a significant factor in creating the conditions for landslips.  Past photos at Harbury on Warwickshire Railways site show that the amount of vegetation was controlled to shrubs, etc. with few mature trees.  In recent years there has been a major campaign to cut down trees along railway lines (perhaps to reduce the effects of leaves on the line?)  As can be so often these days, one solution leads to another problem.

It's interesting to reflect on how a different regime with regard to infrastructure maintenance (or lack of it) has affected the railway formation. 

 

Modelling Little Bytham to represent the summer of 1958 means no trees (not even shrubs) present on the embankments and the cuttings. The (sadly, now deceased) members of the Bytham track gang told me that part of their duties was either to just pull up any saplings or have regular, controlled-lineside burns. 

 

Certainly, if one looks at where deforestation has taken place in the world, an almost immediate effect is a series of landslides, especially in regions of heavy rain. The trees' roots held everything together. Looking at the embankments/cuttings near to us, they're totally overgrown with mature trees, the last maintenance having been done in the '70s. I say 'last', because compensatory maintenance now has to take place in the form of outside contractors lopping off overhanging branches. This addresses the symptom but is not the cure. Where trees have been allowed to grow adjacent to wing walls and abutments, their swelling roots cause the (engineers') bricks to be pushed out of alignment and cause structural cracks. Some of the surviving MR/M&GNR structures now have to be monitored. Three years ago, plants growing out from the mortar courses were removed. They're now back! 

 

Does the presence of trees mean there's less chance of a landslip? Apart from a train tumbling off the viaduct in LB in the 19th Century (caused by subsidence), nothing has 'moved' on the main line formation since 1852 nor anything on the MR/M&GNR since 1897. Yet, since the trees have been left to grow without attention, they're causing many on-going problems (and probably over the whole network as well). 

[Barry Ten]

Viewers of a nervous disposition, look away now please...

 

Here's the state of progress on my Cambrian 2-4-0, which by universal agreement had the worst castings anyone had seen. Not to be daunted, though, I've set about doing my best to fill in the pitting, restore missing bits and so on, using low-melt solder and filler. 

 

I decided that I needed to blast a quick coat of paint on to get a sense of how things were going, as it's hard to judge these things in the bare metal.

 

 

Obviously there's some way to go, but I'm happy that it's heading in the right direction.

 

I haven't attached the chimney, dome, etc yet as I wanted to be able to neaten up the boiler as far as possible before adding these bits. In this case, since there aren't locating holes, I'll be fixing them on with epoxy to allow fine adjustment during drying. Everything else is soldered so far, though. Incidentally the slight gap between the smokebox saddle and footplate is deliberate, on my part, as I didn't feel that the boiler was sitting level otherwise. It will be filled in due course.

 

Alastair (Barry Ten)

[Tony Wright]

Viewers of a nervous disposition, look away now please...

 

Here's the state of progress on my Cambrian 2-4-0, which by universal agreement had the worst castings anyone had seen. Not to be daunted, though, I've set about doing my best to fill in the pitting, restore missing bits and so on, using low-melt solder and filler. 

 

I decided that I needed to blast a quick coat of paint on to get a sense of how things were going, as it's hard to judge these things in the bare metal.

 

cambrian4.jpg

 

Obviously there's some way to go, but I'm happy that it's heading in the right direction.

 

I haven't attached the chimney, dome, etc yet as I wanted to be able to neaten up the boiler as far as possible before adding these bits. In this case, since there aren't locating holes, I'll be fixing them on with epoxy to allow fine adjustment during drying. Everything else is soldered so far, though. Incidentally the slight gap between the smokebox saddle and footplate is deliberate, on my part, as I didn't feel that the boiler was sitting level otherwise. It will be filled in due course.

 

Alastair (Barry Ten)

Alastair,

 

You've done a splendid job of filling that lunar surface on your model.

 

One thing I tried yesterday for the first time was to apply aerosol filler primer. I used it on the 3D-printed carriage illustrated some little time ago. I have to say it worked quite well, covering up much in the way of surface marks. However, it's very easy to overdo it (at least with regard to my own ineptitude) and apply too much. It's a good job I practised on some scrap material first. 

 

I'll post some pictures tomorrow.

 

Keep up the excellent work. 

[Focalplane]

It's interesting to reflect on how a different regime with regard to infrastructure maintenance (or lack of it) has affected the railway formation. 

 

Modelling Little Bytham to represent the summer of 1958 means no trees (not even shrubs) present on the embankments and the cuttings. The (sadly, now deceased) members of the Bytham track gang told me that part of their duties was either to just pull up any saplings or have regular, controlled-lineside burns. 

 

Certainly, if one looks at where deforestation has taken place in the world, an almost immediate effect is a series of landslides, especially in regions of heavy rain. The trees' roots held everything together. Looking at the embankments/cuttings near to us, they're totally overgrown with mature trees, the last maintenance having been done in the '70s. I say 'last', because compensatory maintenance now has to take place in the form of outside contractors lopping off overhanging branches. This addresses the symptom but is not the cure. Where trees have been allowed to grow adjacent to wing walls and abutments, their swelling roots cause the (engineers') bricks to be pushed out of alignment and cause structural cracks. Some of the surviving MR/M&GNR structures now have to be monitored. Three years ago, plants growing out from the mortar courses were removed. They're now back! 

 

Does the presence of trees mean there's less chance of a landslip? Apart from a train tumbling off the viaduct in LB in the 19th Century (caused by subsidence), nothing has 'moved' on the main line formation since 1852 nor anything on the MR/M&GNR since 1897. Yet, since the trees have been left to grow without attention, they're causing many on-going problems (and probably over the whole network as well). 

 

Tony

 

It's good to know no serious events have happened around LB for a long time.  I am sure the relatively low relief of the terrane has a lot to do with this as it reduces the effects of gravity when it comes to landslips.

 

Embankments have always been a common problem, mainly because of the material used to form them.

 

The most serious landslip areas always involve unstable clay-rich formations, such as the well-exposed examples along the Dorset coast at Lyme Regis and Charmouth.  Such formations are often closely linked to limestones (the Cotswold ridge is a perfect example of this and is the reason for the Mickleton problem in the past few years.

 

Why do tree roots seem to be a problem rather than a solution?  As you have noted, trackside bushes like Buddleia have a terrible effect of brick retainlng walls, weakening the mortar and providing water ingress for further damage to ensue.  Trees cleared from cuttings are done so leaving the base of the trunk and roots in place.  What then happens is that the stump and roots rot, taking away their binding effect and actually allowing water to get into the relatively impervious formation.  It is no coincidence that the Harbury slip occurred where mature trees had previously been cleared.  Much the same occurred at Mickleton (though the trees are reported to have been on the other side of the railway fence and were apparently removed by the landowner - I should stress that this is local hearsay and has not been confirmed).

 

From a modellers perspective it would seem that most period cuttings would have had either some small growth or no growth at all other than grasses, etc.  Enter the modern era and everything changes.

[5050]

Viewers of a nervous disposition, look away now please...

 

Here's the state of progress on my Cambrian 2-4-0, which by universal agreement had the worst castings anyone had seen. Not to be daunted, though, I've set about doing my best to fill in the pitting, restore missing bits and so on, using low-melt solder and filler.

I reckon my Kingdom Kits Barclay industrial comes a close second - or possibly even first place!

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/106477-another-one-started-kingdom-kits-barclay-16/

[Clive Mortimore]

Thanks Clive,

 

Tom put the vertical handrails in ignorance, and It's something we should have done something about. I know he did a fair bit on the noses to alter the taper and installed a new windscreen etch as well. He also fitted new bufferbeams, made and placed those those white pipes above the bogies and lowered the whole body on the frames.

 

D201 on Down Master Cutler.jpg

 

Tony Geary did a very similar thing with his much-modified Lima EE Type 4 for use on Stoke Summit. I suppose this one shouldn't have vertical nose handrails either. I've used this shot before; not as an illustration of an EE Type 4 but to show how a very sharp 90 degree bend going on/offstage on a main line doesn't 'work', at least photographically in my view. From this angle, all the train should be visible, even at a location like Peterborough, York or Newcastle, and certainly down the line from Stoke Summit. 

 

D201 0n QoS.jpg

 

It looks better on the straight. 

 

EE Type 4 on TPO.jpg

 

This is another major Lima EE Type 4 modification, this time by Rob Kinsey. Without doubt, the headcode is wrong for this TPO. 

 

Of course, all these modifications pre-date the Bachmann EE Type 4 by many a long year. Is it something to do with a different mentality with regard to producing steam-outline or diesel/electric-outline locomotives? When Stoke was shown in steam-period, virtually nothing RTR was used in terms of motive power - just about every loco was kit or scratch-built. Yet, when it was run in diesel mode, only a couple of locos were built from kits. Is it because diesel-outline RTR was better than steam-outline RTR, at least 20 years ago? 

 

Obviously, the Bachmann model is better overall but (especially in terms of performance) but, head-on, the nose and bufferbeam just look a little 'wide' to me. Perhaps it's my lack of perception when it comes to diesel-outline locos. That said, had it been available contemporaneously with our building and running of Stoke Summit, it would have been used in preference to the Lima version. 

 

May I ask one question with regard to your models, please? Why, having shown great ingenuity and attention to detail, not to mention a large amount of skill, do you tolerate such adipose couplings on your locos? Whether handrails are fitted or not, or the nose is corrected or not, or the windscreen is altered, all I see is a great black lump on the bufferbeam.   

Hi Tony

 

Simple, they work. I find when operating a layout with scale 3 link couplings after a day I no longer work, my eyes ache, and my right hand shakes. As for being able to think and communicate after all that concentration.

[Tony Wright]

Hi Tony

 

Simple, they work. I find when operating a layout with scale 3 link couplings after a day I no longer work, my eyes ache, and my right hand shakes. As for being able to think and communicate after all that concentration.

I understand your reasoning, Clive, but why not a simple wire loop on the loco if you want to retain tension-locks? By all means keep the hook on wagons, but those obese Lima-style couplings really are awful (at least in my opinion). 

 

To illustrate what I mean, I've included the following pictures.........

 

Though they're steam-outline, the principle is exactly the same; the bar(s) are certainly not obtrusive (they're made from .45mm brass or nickel silver wire) and a proper shackle can also be incorporated. When coupled to a 'standard' tension-lock arrangement on stock, they couple-up perfectly and can be propelled with ease. Though I hate tension-locks, at the moment I use them for shunting the pick-ups. Why? Because they work.  

 

 

This DJH Austerity I built has the coupling bar attached to its front pony, set at tension-lock height. 

 

 

A modified Hornby B1 (weathered by Tom Foster) is used for pick-up duties, requiring bar couplings at both ends.

 

 

 

Two of the four J6s on LB also have a bar at both ends. 

 

 

Even front-on it's not too obtrusive.

 

 

This Craftstman C12 I built for Ian Wilson has bars at Sprat & Winkle height, but the principle is exactly the same.

 

I, too, don't have the time too couple/uncouple scale couplings, whether they be screw or three-link. However, I try to make the bar couplings as discreet as possible, as I hope the pictures have shown.  

[Clive Mortimore]

I understand your reasoning, Clive, but why not a simple wire loop on the loco if you want to retain tension-locks? By all means keep the hook on wagons, but those obese Lima-style couplings really are awful (at least in my opinion). 

 

To illustrate what I mean, I've included the following pictures.........

 

Though they're steam-outline, the principle is exactly the same; the bar(s) are certainly not obtrusive (they're made from .45mm brass or nickel silver wire) and a proper shackle can also be incorporated. When coupled to a 'standard' tension-lock arrangement on stock, they couple-up perfectly and can be propelled with ease. Though I hate tension-locks, at the moment I use them for shunting the pick-ups. Why? Because they work.  

 

Austerity 15 painted.jpg

 

This DJH Austerity I built has the coupling bar attached to its front pony, set at tension-lock height. 

 

B1 61175 02.jpg

 

A modified Hornby B1 (weathered by Tom Foster) is used for pick-up duties, requiring bar couplings at both ends.

 

J6 16 on layout.jpg

 

Two of the four J6s on LB also have a bar at both ends. 

 

MRJ 36 J6 shunting.jpg

 

Even front-on it's not too obtrusive.

 

Craftsman C12.jpg

 

This Craftstman C12 I built for Ian Wilson has bars at Sprat & Winkle height, but the principle is exactly the same.

 

I, too, don't have the time too couple/uncouple scale couplings, whether they be screw or three-link. However, I try to make the bar couplings as discreet as possible, as I hope the pictures have shown.  

Hi Tony

 

I am in full agreement about their looks and have considered a wire loop replacement many times. I will get round to it one day.

[Brian Kirby]

I know Tony and many of us on this thread are GC fans, this month is the 50th anniversary of the closure of the GC London Extension, as a through route. To mark the occasion, last Saturday I made a pilgrimage to Nottingham, and visited the site of Victoria station. The surviving clock tower has been frequently photographed before, but just look at those hideous 1960s/1970s concrete buildings that surround it now. If you instructed an architect to design the ugliest buildings possible for this site, could you beat this?

 

 

As many will know, the heart of the station is now occupied by the Victoria Centre, a huge and extremely busy shopping mall, sadly far busier than the station ever was.

The station hotel also survives, to the south of the clock tower, it's now part of the Hilton chain. The grey apartment block to it's left, is roughly where the southern end of the platforms were, this was a huge station, with very long platforms, it could have handled a full length Eurostar from Paris or Brussels, at each of it's four through platforms, which of course was the original plan, in some shape or form.

 

 

To the north of the clock tower, House Of Fraser have tried to blend in, with matching bricks and copper cupolas, but it's a rather weak effort, although I suppose the design has good intentions? That boozer looks original?

                                                                     Cheers, Brian.

 

 

 

[great central]

Brian, did you walk to the top end of the car park and look down on the blocked up tunnel mouth as well?

[Brian Kirby]

Hi GC,

   Yes, I went all the way around, and through the shopping mall twice! I've got a few more pics, of here, Bulwell Common and Weekday Cross, if Tony approves? So much more has disappeared, the remains of Weekday Cross have finally been flattened.    BK

Edited September 21, 2016 by Brian Kirby

[jrg1]

Thanks for posting the Nottingham photographs.  As far as I am concerned, the wrong station was closed.  Not only that, but the Victoria Centre could have been built over the station-surely a win for everyone?  So, a segregated high speed line with a station facing the right way-North-South is obliterated in favour of an inconvenient East-West Midland layout with crossings and trains having to reverse going north.  I regard chopping down the GC viaduct over Midland and then realising a bridge was needed for the trams as the icing on the cake.  Plus they demolished the Gay Dog-one of my favourite pubs when obliterating Victoria station.  The centre of Nottingham generally has suffered badly at the hands of developers, and lost it's individual character years ago-even if the Trip to Jerusalem is still there.