Wright writes.....

[Barry Ten]

I'm getting near the finishing line with the Gem Cambrian 2-4-0T:

 

 

 

I unsoldered and re-attached the rear steps, which still need re-touching, as does the roof. I've

still to attach the latter, as I want to be able to get inside the cab while I come up with a means of

fixing the body to the chassis.

 

I'm very pleased with the way it's turned out, given the challenging state of the castings. In fact, if 

I found a second kit, with better castings, I'd definitely consider building another, if only to keep

this one company.

 

Alastair (Barry Ten)

 

 

[St Enodoc]

Brilliant,

 

Many thanks, and it was Manchester. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony, if you said that in Salford you'd get lynched.

[Barry O]

The Hornby Rebuilt Scot has a major problem of throwing it's gears. I have to rechassis one of mine if only I could remember where I put the Comet chassis for it!

 

Baz

Edited October 19, 2016 by Barry O

[Headstock]

There is some smashing work being done on Camden bank, lovely locomotives. It has brought back some fond memories of the old Tebay layout, so I did some digging in the old photo archive. 46317 was the last of the parallel boiled Scots.

[92220]

Footbridge 12.jpg

 

Ian Wilson brought the (almost) completed footbridge back today. It really does look good in situ, though it's yet to be fully bedded in.

 

Another Iain also came today, Iain Henderson who's building Camden Bank in OO. He brought some most interesting conversions with him, illustrated below. 

 

Iain Henderson 9F.jpg

 

Iain Henderson Caprotti Black Five.jpg

 

Iain Henderson Caprotti Standard Five.jpg

 

Iain Henderson Scot 46146.jpg

 

Iain Henderson Scot 46170.jpg

 

All ran well, with the exception of BRITISH LEGION, which had done the usual Hornby trick of the gears not meshing properly. A Comet set of frames will replace the Hornby chassis. 

 

All the above are all his own work. If he reads this, I hope he explains how he did the conversions because I (foolishly) took no notes. His approach is far more noble than mine in that he's far more self-reliant. He does everything by himself. What came through the most, was his determination to make/modify things for/by himself. There are still modellers out there!

 

We had great fun running a wide variety of trains, until, catastrophe! A bogie on a Pullman car derailed at some speed! I investigated, and found a coupling causing the derailed car to ride a bit too high, lifting the bogie ever so slightly up. A tweak, and it was fixed and it ran fine. But, oh, the shame. My most sincere apologies, Iain.

 

Hi Tony,

 

What a marvellous day: thank you very much indeed!

 

One thing that struck me over the whole day, and confirmed by the genuine shock at the derailment of that Pullman car, was the exceptional running qualities on Little Bytham. That and British Legion apart, everything ran beautifully at any speed, including my locos, all modified and not yet run in. I even witnessed a first, the sight of you reversing that very long mixed freight across the slips on all four man lines without even a wobble, and the entire train propelled on the buffers. Just because you could! No tension locks in evidence. As you said, if anything ever goes slightly wrong, and something derails, you can immediately discount the track as a cause. Norman's work really is superb, but the way you have planned and constructed the fiddle yard and approaches - which I imagine is just as troublesome if not more so for most layouts - is equally noteworthy. I've never seen any layout as smooth as that: definitely no need to apologise!

 

I have made all of Camden Shed on my own so far, but I have thought for a while that I might need some help with mk2 and some of the more complex trackwork. Yesterday confirned that.

 

Thanks too for your kind words about my modelling efforts. As I wrote on these pages many months ago, I've derived a great deal of inspiration and guidance from your writings and DVDs.

 

The details of the conversions are in the threads in my signature, but especially this one: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/65335-motive-power-for-camden-shed/

 

The layout is here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/52339-camden-shed/?&p=616034&do=findComment&comment=616034

 

 

 

It was encouraging that 44687 handled a lightish 10 car rake without any problem, while 92220 romped away with 15 on, and mainly kitbuilt too.

 

You haven't mentioned, but I will, the help you gave with 3 chassis that I'm in the process of building. Thank you again. It's very reassuring to know that, pickups apart, they are on the right lines and I should proceed. Once completed, I'll post the results on here. The variability of the rtr mechanisms is frustrating, as well as the shortcomings in the way that some of the valve gear works in motion. Some are excellent and some are a disaster, as witnessed yesterday. So hopefully this is the start of producing a few replacement chassis for various locos. As I said yesterday, once I've completed these, I have a DJH Ivatt Duchess to build. This will replace my previous Hornby conversion to 46256, for 2 reasons. One, I want something to pull a decent length rake, and two, when preparing for my trip yesterday, I was removing it from the display cabinet and dropped it. With fairly disastrous results, I'm afraid.

 

Anyway, my most grateful thanks to you and Mo for a wonderful day.

 

Iain

 

Does EM Camden Bank know of this "narrow gauge" challenger?

Yes, Vincent has been very kind and helpful. He has visited Camden Shed a couple of times and I've been fortunate to go and see Camden Bank too. He has helped with photos and information, as well as plenty of encouragement that I'm doing a decent job, which, coming from people like him and Tony, means a great deal.

 

Mine is not really a challenger though. I'm going for a reasonably faithful depiction of the short area between the footbridge to Camden Goods, and the Regents Park Road bridge. Vincent has the whole of Camden Bank from Hampstead Road northwards, which is urban mainline on an absolutely epic scale. He and Mick Moore did try to persuade me to go EM on mk2 when we move house, but I'm not going to.

 

Thanks for the interest.

 

Iain

[CME and Bottlewasher]

Tony, if you said that in Salford you'd get lynched.

I get confused are these places, 'North Cheshire' or Greater Manchester now? - Now where did I put that blaster Bates recording?     Better not let my uncle see this Post, hes a Mancunian!

 

Some marvellous work here from those that 'do', very inspiring.

 

ATVB

 

CME

Edited October 19, 2016 by CME and Bottlewasher

[Focalplane]

I must admit that in 71 years I have never been to Manchester and only know that there is a city called Salford because of the Princess Coronation so named.

[Enterprisingwestern]

I must admit that in 71 years I have never been to Manchester and only know that there is a city called Salford because of the Princess Coronation so named.

 

You haven't missed owt.

 

Mike. A Yorkshireman.

[Tony Wright]

Footbridge looks good Tony. What did the signs above each platform entry read?

 

Regards

Lee

Lee,

 

As far as we can tell, the signs leading off the platforms stated 'Passengers Must Cross The Line By The Footbridge' and leading on to the platforms 'Trains To Peterborough And The South', and 'Grantham And The North' respectively. 

[Tony Wright]

Hi Tony,

 

What a marvellous day: thank you very much indeed!

 

One thing that struck me over the whole day, and confirmed by the genuine shock at the derailment of that Pullman car, was the exceptional running qualities on Little Bytham. That and British Legion apart, everything ran beautifully at any speed, including my locos, all modified and not yet run in. I even witnessed a first, the sight of you reversing that very long mixed freight across the slips on all four man lines without even a wobble, and the entire train propelled on the buffers. Just because you could! No tension locks in evidence. As you said, if anything ever goes slightly wrong, and something derails, you can immediately discount the track as a cause. Norman's work really is superb, but the way you have planned and constructed the fiddle yard and approaches - which I imagine is just as troublesome if not more so for most layouts - is equally noteworthy. I've never seen any layout as smooth as that: definitely no need to apologise!

 

I have made all of Camden Shed on my own so far, but I have thought for a while that I might need some help with mk2 and some of the more complex trackwork. Yesterday confirned that.

 

Thanks too for your kind words about my modelling efforts. As I wrote on these pages many months ago, I've derived a great deal of inspiration and guidance from your writings and DVDs.

 

The details of the conversions are in the threads in my signature, but especially this one: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/65335-motive-power-for-camden-shed/

 

The layout is here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/52339-camden-shed/?&p=616034&do=findComment&comment=616034

 

IMG_0655.JPG

 

IMG_0111.JPG

 

It was encouraging that 44687 handled a lightish 10 car rake without any problem, while 92220 romped away with 15 on, and mainly kitbuilt too.

 

You haven't mentioned, but I will, the help you gave with 3 chassis that I'm in the process of building. Thank you again. It's very reassuring to know that, pickups apart, they are on the right lines and I should proceed. Once completed, I'll post the results on here. The variability of the rtr mechanisms is frustrating, as well as the shortcomings in the way that some of the valve gear works in motion. Some are excellent and some are a disaster, as witnessed yesterday. So hopefully this is the start of producing a few replacement chassis for various locos. As I said yesterday, once I've completed these, I have a DJH Ivatt Duchess to build. This will replace my previous Hornby conversion to 46256, for 2 reasons. One, I want something to pull a decent length rake, and two, when preparing for my trip yesterday, I was removing it from the display cabinet and dropped it. With fairly disastrous results, I'm afraid.

 

Anyway, my most grateful thanks to you and Mo for a wonderful day.

 

Iain

 

Yes, Vincent has been very kind and helpful. He has visited Camden Shed a couple of times and I've been fortunate to go and see Camden Bank too. He has helped with photos and information, as well as plenty of encouragement that I'm doing a decent job, which, coming from people like him and Tony, means a great deal.

 

Mine is not really a challenger though. I'm going for a reasonably faithful depiction of the short area between the footbridge to Camden Goods, and the Regents Park Road bridge. Vincent has the whole of Camden Bank from Hampstead Road northwards, which is urban mainline on an absolutely epic scale. He and Mick Moore did try to persuade me to go EM on mk2 when we move house, but I'm not going to.

 

Thanks for the interest.

 

Iain

Thanks again, Iain.

 

As I said to you, the day was spent in the company of a new old friend. 

 

Thanks, too, for your comments about the running on LB. I've said it on many occasions, that unless any of the layouts I've been involved with run 'perfectly' (impossible, I know) then I would derive no pleasure in the company of guests (all of whom are either, or very quickly become, dear friends) or spectators at a show. Imagine if all I'd been doing yesterday was apologising for poor running or, worse still, asking you if you could fix things for me.

 

As you quite rightly say, good running is guaranteed on Norman Solomon's track (if the stock is right). I also insist (as you've alluded to) in 'perfect' running in the fiddle yard because, as I mentioned, every facing point has the greatest possible radius of entry, Up or Down. To do this means slightly sharper curves (just) on the roads off trailing points, Up or Down. Not only that, nothing under 3' radius on the running/through lines in/out of the fiddle yard and an insistence on not trying to cram too much in. Otherwise, the result is compromised running, which I will not accept. 

 

Almost everyone who visits now brings things they've made/modified - themselves. As I say, true modellers.

Edited October 19, 2016 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

I must admit that in 71 years I have never been to Manchester and only know that there is a city called Salford because of the Princess Coronation so named.

Paul,

 

My first knowledge of a city being called Salford was in seeing 46257. 

 

Without offending Salfordians (is that what a native is called, and have we been here before?), it really is in, and surrounded by, Manchester; like Westminster and London? 

 

During my art school days, I frequently visited the Whitworth Gallery which is in Salford (I think, or at least I hope it is, otherwise this note makes nonsense). Down from there was a pub called the Salutation where drinking and singing took place. If both establishments are in Salford, then that's my only knowledge of the place.

 

Without further offending Salfordians, surely the LMS/LMR could have come up with a more famous city to call their final Pacific after. If a condition of the naming was that the LMS/LMR had to run a service to/through a city, what about Bath, York or Aberdeen? Was/is Perth a City? I know Wolverhampton now is.

 

Just some musings............. 

[Tony Wright]

The Hornby Rebuilt Scot has a major problem of throwing it's gears. I have to rechassis one of mine if only I could remember where I put the Comet chassis for it!

 

Baz

Is it just the Royal Scot, Barry? 

 

At the Peterborough Show I had to part-dismantle and then re-adjust the motor/gear on a Hornby A4 because it just made a grinding sort of noise and went nowhere. This is not the first Hornby LNER Pacific I've seen with this problem. 

 

I cannot see many of today's RTR locos lasting a lifetime's course (the way Hornby-Dublo or Tri-ang did, and still do). I'm more and more glad that I've found new homes for anything I might have had RTR. I'm also glad that the new owners are very happy with them; but then, as far as I know, their locos are not being asked to haul 14 kit-built cars. 

[micklner]

Hornby A3 and A4's, on two occasions I have gears out of adjustment. Very simple to fix, both times the screw holding the rear motor retaining casting needed to be loosened,adjust the motor and resting casting  and then retighten, job done in a couple of minutes. Never and a problem again with either Loco. Hornby Gears are cheap to buy and another easy repair if they ever need changing. The chassis is a very simple assembly (designed for mass production) and a is lot quicker to repair than anything similar on any kit built loco I own.

 

As mentioned before most of us don't have Locos pulling 14 coaches and I have never had a Hornby or Bachmann motor fail on any of mine. Strangely, there are certain other makes of r.t.r not in my fleet .

Being realistic how many buyers would expect a r.t.r Loco to pull such loads? I know I wouldn't . I have never seen a loading capacity mentioned on any kind of model packaging. I have only ever seen minimum radius on r.tr. Locos and that has only appeared  in the last few years due tosuperdetail versions now being made and nothing at all on any kit Loco packaging regarding anything other than what the model represents.

 

Hopefully most will survive if treated with respect, they certainly look a lot better and normally run a lot better than the old versions !!!

Edited October 19, 2016 by micklner

[Barry O]

The problem in the Scot seems to be mazak cancer as some of the screws holding the gear tower in place fail.

 

I do wonder how long some of the other RTR locos will last. Early Bachmann A1s used to fry motors and I have noticed that running some RTR locos with longer rakes of stock does lead to potential failures. Exgibition layouts are where RTR lcos will be tested most as 12 coach trains can be a norm. We found out that a Bachmann WD overheated pulling 25 16T minerals around Chapel en le Frith - result - it has been sold and now replaced with a DJH one.

 

I have recently changed a front bogie on a Bachmann Std 4MT tank as it had given up the ghost. It hadn't been used much and has been in store for a while - the plastic had become brittle and snapped. It is now metal and should last a while.

Baz

[Woodcock29]

I purchased a 'broken' Hornby Royal Scot for $A20 (about 8.50GBP)a few weeks ago. It had the 'mazac cancer' as the top of the gear housing had shattered. I have two options seek replacement from Hornby or keep motor as a spare for a Hornby LNER pacific as its the same motor! I'm taking the latter course as I might well use the cylinders with some modification and the slidebars/crossheads on a model of C1 3279 in due course, alternatively they might end up on a Gresley O1. All in all a worthwhile purchase.

 

Andrew Emmett

[Barry O]

And you could buy some Comet frames and Gibson wheels andturn it back into a running Royal Scot.

[Barry O]

And you could buy some Comet frames and Gibson wheels andturn it back into a running Royal Scot.

[Tony Wright]

Hornby A3 and A4's, on two occasions I have gears out of adjustment. Very simple to fix, both times the screw holding the rear motor retaining casting needed to be loosened,adjust the motor and resting casting  and then retighten, job done in a couple of minutes. Never and a problem again with either Loco. Hornby Gears are cheap to buy and another easy repair if they ever need changing. The chassis is a very simple assembly (designed for mass production) and a is lot quicker to repair than anything similar on any kit built loco I own.

 

As mentioned before most of us don't have Locos pulling 14 coaches and I have never had a Hornby or Bachmann motor fail on any of mine. Strangely, there are certain other makes of r.t.r not in my fleet .

Being realistic how many buyers would expect a r.t.r Loco to pull such loads? I know I wouldn't . I have never seen a loading capacity mentioned on any kind of model packaging. I have only ever seen minimum radius on r.tr. Locos and that has only appeared  in the last few years due tosuperdetail versions now being made and nothing at all on any kit Loco packaging regarding anything other than what the model represents.

 

Hopefully most will survive if treated with respect, they certainly look a lot better and normally run a lot better than the old versions !!!

Thanks Mick,

 

Though it might be simple for you to fix a non-meshing Hornby A3 or A4, I wish I could fix one in two minutes, especially the A4. Do you know of a dafter mechanical arrangement than attaching the lubricator drive to both the chassis and the body? Though none of my kit-built A4s had the device supplied (Wills, SE Finecast, Pro-Scale), I made my own and attached both ends to the chassis. What one gets on the Hornby model is the crank attached to the offside rear crankpin by an hexagonal-headed screw and the top end of the linkage fixed to a bearing on the body. Guess what? On undoing the screw to release the crank and so be able to remove the body, the top end linkage dropped out of the bearing. Two minutes? How do you get the lubricator drive back together, with ease? Perhaps it's my clumsiness. 

 

It was certainly not simple to the guy who'd brought the A4 for me to look at at Peterborough. I agree, the cure to the non-meshing problem is quite simple; I just loosened the bracket holding the rear-end of the motor (having fought through the ridiculous mass of wires stuck to it with tape) and inserted a couple of washers. Then, getting the bl**dy thing back together took more like 20 minutes, not two. The up-side? £10.00 donated to cancer research. 

 

You say you've had two Hornby LNER Pacifics with this problem. I've now had five. Not good? And, please don't mention those Hornby locos with a speedo attached!

 

You're absolutely dead right by suggesting that most RTR loco purchasers won't need their express locomotive purchases to pull, say, 14-coach loads. However, I've just looked at a shot of MALLARD taking the 14-car 'Northumbrian' up Gamston Bank. Yes, the Mk.1s could be represented by Bachmann (as, too, could the Thompsons in the near future), but not the heavy catering triplet. I've made that from a brass kit. So (and please don't think I'm boasting), my kit-built MALLARD will just walk away with such a load. Any Hornby A4 I had would just say 'no thank you'.

 

I suppose the reasons for my stating the above is (in a way) a reason to continue kit-building against an inexorable rise of RTR. Yes, my 'needs' are not those of the majority, and I 'satisfy' them by building my own locos. That said, what about the guy/girl who cannot (for whatever reasons) build their own locos? Yet, they still would like their locos to pull prototype-length trains? Minutes ago, I just flicked through a few pictorial books and found these examples; 15 cars behind a Duchess, 13 (at least) cars behind a King, 13 Pullman cars behind an MN and 15 cars behind an A1. Are these typical? Probably.

 

Your conversions are outstanding and inspirational. However, the real things would pull very heavy loads.

 

What's the answer? RTR manufacturers putting on the packaging 'Though this is a visually-outstanding locomotive and probably looks superior to any kit-built equivalent, don't expect it to pull the heaviest prototype-equivalent loads'? 

 

Having reached my Biblical life-span, I think I'm entitled to be grumpy!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Headstock]

The BG is now finished, it will be running alongside the GN milk brake at the Newcastle exhibition in just over two weeks time. The train is made up of sixteen vehicles, somewhat beyond the capabilities of a single RTR locomotive. LSGC has seen a steady influx of RTR locomotives although they still remain in the minority. A situation that reflects the decline in people able to produce effective kit built locomotives for the project, and also the numbers of locomotives required to operate the layout. Some of them are quite good, We have a Bachmann Jubilee that will take a train of eleven brass sided and one kit built carriage up the one in seventy-five gradient, but mostly they are on less demanding duties. At the other extream, we have Hornby Royal Scott that has in the past displayed all the symptoms described above, and a pair of Hymeks that all is required of them is that they run around in tandem. This has yet to be achieved for one reason or another. All in all a very mixed bag.

[Headstock]

It's sobering to think that when Tebay was out on the exhibition circuit  around one hundred locomotives were available for operation. None of them being RTR.

[micklner]

Ah the dreaded Lubricator drive . Poor design agreed ,not helped by using a plastic connector some with only a hook and others with a hole which being plastic prone to splitting and is then useless. The connector should have been made from metal. The most important thing is to remember to remove it at the Axle end before any work.

 

I am not surprised you have seen more A4's with gear problems as you other  a repair service for others !. 

 

Wires surrounding motors,  the joys of DCC not my cup of tea, as is the god awful Tender semi permanent connector Hornby now use.

 

As to haulage everyone to their own . I still doubt very much that many people would expect to run than more than 6 or 7 behind most model Locos r.t.r or kit build.

 

 

cheers

[pete55]

Does EM Camden Bank know of this "narrow gauge" challenger?

 

Believe so, yes!

 

Sorry, posted this before I saw the above reply!

Edited October 20, 2016 by pete55

[Focalplane]

My research on the Midlander 2 hour expresses from London to Birmingham v.v. shows that the Friday night departure from Euston, the first of a slew of late afternoon departures and therefore a critical train to get and keep moving up the line, often had fourteen on.  The Jubilees might then be assisted with either a Compound or, later, a Mickey as pilot.

 

My own plan for my Midlander rake (in Gauge O) is for a minimum of 6 rising to perhaps 8.  It will therefore be a representation of the real thing, governed by funds and nowhere to actually run the train when completed!  But I don't see why the Jubilee shouldn't actually be able to pull a regular 11 or 12 coach train on its own.  It weighs enough for the traction.  If it needed a pilot for 14, then that would be prototypical.

 

Lee Marsh has a nice video of two Jubilees double heading here, starting at 3:13 after a Patriot pulls 10 coaches with ease at Over Peover.

[46256]

It's sobering to think that when Tebay was out on the exhibition circuit  around one hundred locomotives were available for operation. None of them being RTR.

Tebay, not surprisingly given my obvious allegiance one of my all time favourite exhibition layouts...before becoming too partisan...chipping Norton...Copenhagen fields gresley beat....all on equal footing....

[D.Platt]

Just to add to the Hornby Royal Scot , After renumbering and weathering mine it lasted only a few runs before I encountered the gears coming out of mesh, at first I through it was the housing holding the motor onto the gear this had fractured I managed to replace that but had same problem , I noticed then the chassis block actually was bending , stripping it down and taking the wheels and gear out there's an airline fracture in the block in the gear housing , the chassis being wafer thin at this point no joy off Hornby as it's not in production!! Regret selling my Comet kit thinking I was saving time because now I have the job of building the chassis kit without the fun of building the body