Wright writes.....

[glo41f]

Ah the joy of making things!  

 

Sometimes it is thinly spread though and the chagrin when it does not work as it should can be deeply upsetting. My failings are in the successful erection and operation of valve gear which can often be a really tricky operation with limited clearances and often accompanied by excessive profanity. I take my figurative hat off to you chaps who do this time after time and in smaller scales too. Perhaps CJF was correct in trying to guide us down the Swindon path to a land where such problems do not exist.. I have to say that when you look at the real locos, the valve gear is quite meaty as it has to absorb a large number of stresses when in operation. Our stamped out components from a sheet of 20 thou. nickel silver do not replicate the weight and mass of the originals. When flying past at a scale 80 then it is rather academic but when the locomotive is stationary it sometimes just screams "model". For what it is worth, I feel the European models are far better in their depiction of valve gears but they tend to use cast or machined components. I find the joy of making sometimes can be a bitter cup to drink from. (As my spouse would say it is probably all my fault!).

 

Martin Long

[Barry Ten]

Speaking of manners and formality, I hope this is of amusement to some; I mentioned that letter in an old issue of Model Railway News complaining about the Grouping, here it is - presuming copyright not to be violated after 90 years? The letter is from the May 1925 issue of MRN.

 

 

Yours faithfully,

 

B Ten

 

Major, Late R.A.

[richard i]

Speaking of manners and formality, I hope this is of amusement to some; I mentioned that letter in an old issue of Model Railway News complaining about the Grouping, here it is - presuming copyright not to be violated after 90 years? The letter is from the May 1925 issue of MRN.

 

grouping.jpg

 

Yours faithfully,

 

B Ten

 

Major, Late R.A.

Oh how history repeats itself.

Thats why we should study it.

[Tony Wright]

Ah the joy of making things!  

 

Sometimes it is thinly spread though and the chagrin when it does not work as it should can be deeply upsetting. My failings are in the successful erection and operation of valve gear which can often be a really tricky operation with limited clearances and often accompanied by excessive profanity. I take my figurative hat off to you chaps who do this time after time and in smaller scales too. Perhaps CJF was correct in trying to guide us down the Swindon path to a land where such problems do not exist.. I have to say that when you look at the real locos, the valve gear is quite meaty as it has to absorb a large number of stresses when in operation. Our stamped out components from a sheet of 20 thou. nickel silver do not replicate the weight and mass of the originals. When flying past at a scale 80 then it is rather academic but when the locomotive is stationary it sometimes just screams "model". For what it is worth, I feel the European models are far better in their depiction of valve gears but they tend to use cast or machined components. I find the joy of making sometimes can be a bitter cup to drink from. (As my spouse would say it is probably all my fault!).

 

Martin Long

Good evening Martin,

 

I've had too many sips from that same cup myself. However, even though it might test bitter at times, when success occurs it's the same as the finest wine. Rare, perhaps, but more palatable because of that exclusivity. 

 

Much more 'tasty' than the contents of the cup provided with just out-of-the-box models, and far more satisfying than the cup commissioned models come with. 

 

My apologies for descending into more metaphors, but yours was rather good. 

 

And, as an aside, for those interested in such irrelevances, it seems that it was no time ago that we'd reached EDWARD THOMPSON's LNER number on this thread. We're now already at A H PEPPERCORN!

[90164]

Oh how history repeats itself.

Thats why we should study it.

If we studied it more closely it would repeat itself less often.

[Tony Wright]

 

More on making things in the form of the SE Finecast A4. 

 

I always thoroughly test locos at this early stage to ensure the basic mechanism runs well. I'm gratified already, because even in this rudimentary condition, SIR NIGEL GRESLEY (for that's what it it'll become) has whisked this 11-car express round with ease - before any ballast has been added (and there's loads of room for that). Apart from the front Bachmann Mk.1s, all the rest of the cars in the train are heavy brass/white metal kits. 

Edited December 2, 2016 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

 

Apologies once again for the computer 'eating' part of the image in my previous post.

 

Here it is (I hope) as it should be. 

[Mallard60022]

That looks really 'spooky' Tony.

If I didn't know differently I would have said those lovely 'Shaky' trees are maturing beautifully.

Phil

[St Enodoc]

It was our pleasure Jesse (please note your name has a capital letter, as it should have). 

 

You taught me a lot as well; things such as how my prejudices with regard to a person's appearance can be very misleading and limiting (though I still think you should have thought twice about having another tattoo). 

 

I'm glad that you made it home all right, and that your new loco made it in one piece (I assume it did).

 

Raven A2.jpg

 

Though it's been seen before, I'm glad it's gone to a young modeller. Despite some concerns that the cylinders appear a bit wide, it had no trouble going past Bytham's platforms or Grantham's. 

 

See you over in Blighty next year? You're most welcome. 

Jesse, you must bring that to a BRMA Sydney area meeting for a show-and-tell!

[manna]

G'day Gents

 

Love all the English language 'stuff' but to me, it's like sign language to a blind man...........

 

Terry, aka manna

[APOLLO]

G'day Gents

 

Love all the English language 'stuff' but to me, it's like sign language to a blind man...........

 

Terry, aka manna

 

G'day, I think this is what there on about mate

 

 

Cheers, Brit15

[jrg1]

SE Finecast A4 03.jpg

 

Apologies once again for the computer 'eating' part of the image in my previous post.

 

Here it is (I hope) as it should be. 

Love the trackwork.

[MarkC]

Speaking of manners and formality, I hope this is of amusement to some; I mentioned that letter in an old issue of Model Railway News complaining about the Grouping, here it is - presuming copyright not to be violated after 90 years? The letter is from the May 1925 issue of MRN.

 

grouping.jpg

 

Yours faithfully,

 

B Ten

 

Major, Late R.A.

One might well have said to the good major, mixing idioms from then and now, when referring to the effective annexing of the Premier Line by The Best Way    - "Bitter much, old chap?"

[Bernard Lamb]

One might well have said to the good major, mixing idioms from then and now, when referring to the effective annexing of the Premier Line by The Best Way    - "Bitter much, old chap?"

It reminds me of the time when a GWR supporter pointed out that the first man to walk on the moon was named Armstrong. The reply from the LNWR people was that they had a moon of their own.

Bernard

[grob1234]

 

 

There are other reasons for making such a locomotive myself, most important being the work that this finished A4 will have to do. That is haul at least a dozen heavy bogies up a stiff (prototypical) gradient. I can't see an RTR A4 doing that. 

 

 

 

Hello Tony,

 

I notice with interest you mention prototypical gradients. Is that A4 (lovely looking by the way, but somehow I feel the W1 is more in proportion, dare I say it?) destined for running on LB? If so what's the gradient? 

 

What are your thoughts on incorporating gradients in model railways? Bawtry has (off the top of my head) got a 1 in 198 gradient. I was intending to represent this accurately, i.e. a 1 cm rise over 198cm. Are gradients something that scale well? Apologies if this has been covered before.

 

Many thanks,

Tom

[Tony Wright]

That looks really 'spooky' Tony.

If I didn't know differently I would have said those lovely 'Shaky' trees are maturing beautifully.

Phil

Aren't they, Phil? 

 

It's a privilege to have some of my late friend's work on LB. Those trees represent 'selective compression' inasmuch as they really should be about 100 scale yards away. They're present behind the signal box in the prototype pictures we used, but there should be a narrow strip between two large fields between the railway and the trees. To put them in the right place would have meant their being outside! 

 

I have to say, I'm happy enough to accept this 'squashing' of distance, because it doesn't look wrong to me. The real trees (or their 'children') are still there, though getting a shot of them from the side of the railway today for comparative purposes is impossible because younger trees have sprouted all over the embankment in the last 40-odd years. In places, the real railway now runs through a 'green corridor'. The width of the model at this point up to where I've 'planted' the trees from the Willoughby Arms is dead right, at near on 5', meaning modelling has to be done from both sides. In the quest to get prototypical length on model railways, the width is sometimes forgotten. Even at a modest location like LB, its width still sprawls. Not to capture this would have meant its not looking right at all, despite those trees being nearer than they should be. 

[Tony Wright]

Hello Tony,

 

I notice with interest you mention prototypical gradients. Is that A4 (lovely looking by the way, but somehow I feel the W1 is more in proportion, dare I say it?) destined for running on LB? If so what's the gradient? 

 

What are your thoughts on incorporating gradients in model railways? Bawtry has (off the top of my head) got a 1 in 198 gradient. I was intending to represent this accurately, i.e. a 1 cm rise over 198cm. Are gradients something that scale well? Apologies if this has been covered before.

 

Many thanks,

Tom

I don't know if it has been covered before. 

 

The ruling gradient on Stoke Bank is 1 in 200. At Little Bytham it's just about level, so there is no gradient on the model (unless the floor has subsided!). 

 

I think a gradient around 1 in 200 would be difficult to detect on a model, anyway; unless you went immediately from dead level to the gradient. However, in Stoke Bank's case, the transition was gradual and only really discernible over a long distance - over a mile in some cases, much longer than most model railways. Where there is a really steep gradient, such as the start of the Lickey at Bromsgrove, then the change is readily apparent, but that's 1 in 36.

 

Though it will remain my property, the A4 in question is not for LB. It's going to be finished in SIR NIGEL GRESLEY's LNER blue guise, as she was as first preserved in 1967. Though it might have run through LB in that condition, it would have been much after the period.

 

 

It'll be finished like this, as it was in April 1967. Does anyone recognise themselves in this picture taken at Crewe? 

 

 

The autumn before, 60007 was languishing inside Crewe South waiting for restoration. Can you believe I took this picture 50 years ago? I can't, for it seems such a little time ago. 

 

 

On the same day, this EE Type 3 was on what remained of Crewe North. Though including this goes off the topic in question, it's of interest; at least to me. By 1966 Cyril Freezer had coined the phrase 'modern image' with regard to up-to-date (at the time) model railways. This was modern 50 years ago and the same class can still be seen from time to time on today's railway. 

 

However, back to your question. As mentioned, the main reason for building an A4 is because the layout it's being made for will have a gradient - a prototypical one, and quite substantial. The modelling world will learn about it next year.  

[Tony Wright]

G'day, I think this is what there on about mate

 

 

Cheers, Brit15

Thanks for posting the picture. 

 

Though I have no wish to appear overly-critical, a shot such as this highlights why I much prefer to make my own locos. Though it can't be denied that the Hornby A4 has a very fine body, its chassis really lets it down in my view. 

 

The angle of the slidebars is the opposite of what it should be - the rear ends of them should be lower than the front. Not only that, the whole motion is not beefy enough in my view. The poor bogie wheels have been mentioned before and I don't think you should be able to see the top of the front driver underneath the valance. 

 

I'm extremely 'critical' of my own model-making (and I invite others to be critical of it, too) but a close-up shot such as the above does illustrate (at least to me) why RTR is not the answer to my personal modelling 'questions'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Edited December 3, 2016 by Tony Wright

[Headstock]

Ahoy mateys,

 

I'm afraid I lack the requisite skills to be a grumpy old man, I would much rather be a Pirate when I grow up. My own introduction to model railways is not especially interesting if I wasn't modeling trains it would be things that could fly, or sail, or at least crash and sink. My Father, on the other hand, was frightened to death by an LNER tram engine when he was three years old. The wheelless horror sent him scurrying for cover behind his Fathers legs. Perhaps it is not surprising that he spent his modeling career equipping locomotives with visual signs of locomotion. Rather like dealing with the Daleks from Doctor Who, safety was attained by a quick retreat up a convenient flight of steps from where he could observe the strange creature going about its business.

 

On the subjects of gradients I am on much firmer if sloping ground, basically, they are ten times more difficult to engineer and operate than a layout on the flat. In the case of LSGC What goes up or down on the front  must come back down or up in the fiddle yard. The resulting mirrored gradient in the fiddle yard is split between the north and south ends, both are on curves and incorporate a number of point complexes.

 

From an operational point of view, the southbound run is the more demanding, a train has to be accelerated from a standing start up the gradient to reach the scenic brake. At the same time, a finger is depressing the button that prevents the next train in the siding setting off in pursuit. As the first train comes around the curve on the front of the layout the button is released allowing the following train to run up into its stop line. The train on the front of the layout is now gently throttled back as it begins the descent of the bank. The momentum provided by the weight of the train will carry it down the bank but it will run out off puff if power is not applied as it comes on to the flat. Finally, as the train exits the front of the layout it begins the climb back up into the goods yard. Power is gently applied again to prevent the back end of the train going slower and slower as it departs under the midland bridge.

 

The northbound run has its own foibles, principally that the operator can't see what he is doing. The best method of operation is to build up the required speed down the gradient before the train enters the scenic section and then just let the train run through keeping your hands clear of the controller. The same run-up system applies to the northbound trains, the button is best released once the train you are driving is well underway on the front. The button can be released earlier but operators invariably start concentrating on the train in the fiddle yard rather than they one they should be driving on the front. Some locomotives such as the ones on slow moving freights will require adjustment on the climb but the main thing to watch for is that trains don't run out of control on the descent back into the fiddle yard. If all is going well a good operator will maintain a fairly consistent speed all the way around.

Edited December 3, 2016 by Headstock

[Mallard60022]

has a very fine body, its chassis really lets it down ......................................

 

 

I suffer from that as you all know..........................

Duck.

[Focalplane]

The 1:36 at Lickey is very obvious at both the bottom and the top, but also when driving on the dual carriageway A448 between Bromsgrove and Redditch where the railway spans the road.  The incline is there to see.

 

The French LGV system allows for gradients of up to 3%, which I guess is 1:33?  In places, and with the use of a telephoto lens this can be quite spectacular, particularly with trains running at 300kph (186mph).

 

 

(Taken west of Avignon)

 

One long gradient can be found where the Lyon-Paris LGV climbs out of the Saone valley.  Northbound trains don't seem to struggle, but southbound trains seem to run just that little bit faster which is of no surprise.

 

One one journey I pulled off the autoroute and followed the line up the incline on a main road (N79) that paralleled the track.  At the top of the incline was a rest stop which had a good view of the incline with a Duplex crossing a viaduct:

 

 

(The escarpment hills are at that angle, one of them is La Roche de Solutré in Pouilly Fuissé wine country)

Edited December 3, 2016 by Focalplane

[Headstock]

I don't know if it has been covered before. 

 

The ruling gradient on Stoke Bank is 1 in 200. At Little Bytham it's just about level, so there is no gradient on the model (unless the floor has subsided!). 

 

I think a gradient around 1 in 200 would be difficult to detect on a model, anyway; unless you went immediately from dead level to the gradient. However, in Stoke Bank's case, the transition was gradual and only really discernible over a long distance - over a mile in some cases, much longer than most model railways. Where there is a really steep gradient, such as the start of the Lickey at Bromsgrove, then the change is readily apparent, but that's 1 in 36.

 

Though it will remain my property, the A4 in question is not for LB. It's going to be finished in SIR NIGEL GRESLEY's LNER blue guise, as she was as first preserved in 1967. Though it might have run through LB in that condition, it would have been much after the period.

 

4498 at Crewe small.jpg

 

It'll be finished like this, as it was in April 1967. Does anyone recognise themselves in this picture taken at Crewe? 

 

60007 small.jpg

 

The autumn before, 60007 was languishing inside Crewe South waiting for restoration. Can you believe I took this picture 50 years ago? I can't, for it seems such a little time ago. 

 

D6949 small.jpg

 

On the same day, this EE Type 3 was on what remained of Crewe North. Though including this goes off the topic in question, it's of interest; at least to me. By 1966 Cyril Freezer had coined the phrase 'modern image' with regard to up-to-date (at the time) model railways. This was modern 50 years ago and the same class can still be seen from time to time on today's railway. 

 

However, back to your question. As mentioned, the main reason for building an A4 is because the layout it's being made for will have a gradient - a prototypical one, and quite substantial. The modelling world will learn about it next year.  

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

4498's remarkable climb over Grayrigg and Shap springs to mind.

[grob1234]

Tony, Paul, Andrew,

 

Thank you very much for your responses regarding gradients. 

 

Tony, I think your reasons for building the A4 chassis and body as a kit as oppose to the Hornby equivalent are very similar to my reasons for choosing to build the chassis for my W1. I went down this route as I hoped I could get better running, use nicer wheels, and have a superior motor and gearbox. As luck would have it, it all seems to have gone together very well (down to the kit, not my building) and I know it will have great hauling power. I shall be intrigued to see Sir Nigel Gresley on his home layout in the future. The greater accuracy of a kit chassis is also a draw, I'm using the very nicely etched SE Finecast version. 

 

1 in 200 over an 8m scenic section would see a rise of about 4cm, which is not insignificant. However as Andrew alludes, the operational and engineering problems need careful consideration. Would it be annoying to have a goods yard, as Bawtry does, where rolling stock does just that, instead of just staying put? Would it be a bit of a hassle trying to make a steady 1 in 200 incline over 8m of scenic section? Or perhaps better to cut my losses and just make it on the flat, and use the surrounding terrain to mask the lack of gradient? In some respects the thought of actually driving the trains over terrain does sound interesting, however, I wonder if the novelty would wear off? The main aim of any layout I build is, essentially, playability, and ease of use, so sometimes simple is good. 

 

I agree that when the slope is very significant, then it is definitely worth modelling, but I am in two minds about smaller, slight gradients. Perhaps I shall mock up a few gradients to see how stock behaves, and see how it looks in the flesh.

 

Thank you gentlemen. 

[glo41f]

The French railway picture is amazing. In days of yore a viaduct or embankment would have been constructed to make the route as level as possible. It just goes to show that when a locomotive unit can draw on pretty well unlimited power, you can get them up steep hills with ease. The techniques of driving on LSGC are most interesting too. Presumably the demands stop the drivers from boredom and complacency. I was watching film of the recent bash at Warley and it was clear that smooth operation was not a priority for some layouts there. Trains were far too fast and jerky. I do not know why but layout operation in a way that is realistic to watch seems to be very rare these days. I wonder why this is.

 

Martin Long

[Headstock]

The French railway picture is amazing. In days of yore a viaduct or embankment would have been constructed to make the route as level as possible. It just goes to show that when a locomotive unit can draw on pretty well unlimited power, you can get them up steep hills with ease. The techniques of driving on LSGC are most interesting too. Presumably the demands stop the drivers from boredom and complacency. I was watching film of the recent bash at Warley and it was clear that smooth operation was not a priority for some layouts there. Trains were far too fast and jerky. I do not know why but layout operation in a way that is realistic to watch seems to be very rare these days. I wonder why this is.

 

Martin Long

 

Leicester South is a fairly demanding layout to operate, the trains on the mainline can't be driven on autopilot. The shed, yard, and fiddle yard positions almost operate as an end to end layout with trains, light engines and stock moving back and forth to their own 'sequence'. If you get bored with that you can always try balancing a powered van on a working turntable, a sedate occupation but it requires a good deal of accuracy.

 

I would agree with you as regards the Youtube video's, all operators can be guilty of poor control. Generally, people underestimate the speed at which they are driving and are too concerned with what they are trying to achieve rather than what it looks like to the observer.

 

Tony, Paul, Andrew,

 

Thank you very much for your responses regarding gradients. 

 

Tony, I think your reasons for building the A4 chassis and body as a kit as oppose to the Hornby equivalent are very similar to my reasons for choosing to build the chassis for my W1. I went down this route as I hoped I could get better running, use nicer wheels, and have a superior motor and gearbox. As luck would have it, it all seems to have gone together very well (down to the kit, not my building) and I know it will have great hauling power. I shall be intrigued to see Sir Nigel Gresley on his home layout in the future. The greater accuracy of a kit chassis is also a draw, I'm using the very nicely etched SE Finecast version. 

 

1 in 200 over an 8m scenic section would see a rise of about 4cm, which is not insignificant. However as Andrew alludes, the operational and engineering problems need careful consideration. Would it be annoying to have a goods yard, as Bawtry does, where rolling stock does just that, instead of just staying put? Would it be a bit of a hassle trying to make a steady 1 in 200 incline over 8m of scenic section? Or perhaps better to cut my losses and just make it on the flat, and use the surrounding terrain to mask the lack of gradient? In some respects the thought of actually driving the trains over terrain does sound interesting, however, I wonder if the novelty would wear off? The main aim of any layout I build is, essentially, playability, and ease of use, so sometimes simple is good. 

 

I agree that when the slope is very significant, then it is definitely worth modelling, but I am in two minds about smaller, slight gradients. Perhaps I shall mock up a few gradients to see how stock behaves, and see how it looks in the flesh.

 

Thank you gentlemen. 

 

I wouldn't want to put you of representing a gradient, Tebay was built to represent banking over Shap. People thought that the trains were going up a hill but it was actually an optical illusion created by clever scenics and baseboard design. Gradients generally require operators to operate rather than sit back and watch the trains go by. If that is what you want to achieve then go for it. I've done quite a bit of work myself on a feasibility study into what would be the ultimate British gradient based layout, West Silkstone junction at the top of the Worsbrough incline.

Edited December 3, 2016 by Headstock