Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

Speaking of rigid chassis, I now build all my OO sets of frames on the Poppy's Wood Tech jig. 

 

 

Here, it's in use erecting the frames for the P2.

 

 

The result was a powerful and smooth chassis. I used a big Mashima and a Markits gearbox. I like the latter because the motor can be removed from it without taking off the drivers.

 

More in the next post. 

Edited December 18, 2016 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

More examples of recent chassis I've built. 

 

 

This is the basic chassis for a 16XX. The little motor mount is by Comet.

 

 

The chassis for a DJH Austerity. A week ago, this was left unattended (by mistake) trying to haul 45 wagons and, at the same time, push 14 bogies with a Pacific on the front (it had been sent into the wrong road). Needless to say, the motor/gearbox didn't like it, to the extent that it jumped out of gear. Because the bottom fixing screw in the Comet 'box can only be released by taking it all out - dismantling part of the valve gear and taking the wheels out - it was a bit fiddly. After readjustment, it's now fine.

 

 

I built a set of B2 frames (with the help of a friend), building a B17 set at the same time. A DJH 'box and a Comet' box were used respectively, both with Mashima motors. 

 

 

Big Bertha's basic chassis, inverted to show the pick-ups.

 

 

Last year I built a pair of DJH Klondikes, one in OO, the other in EM.

 

 

The Millholme's H16 chassis complete.

 

 

A set of frames for an LRM J6, with the motor under-slung to make it less visible.

 

 

A small DJH 'box was perfect for a DMR K1.

 

 

I fitted a Comet set of frames and a big DJH 'box underneath a Graeme King V2.

 

 

About three years ago, Gilbert Barnatt bought an ex-Tony Geary Pro-Scale V2. Though it ran well, it had an open-framed motor which could not be isolated from the chassis. It was thus unsuitable for DCC. I modified the chassis (solidifying it) and fitted a small DJH 'box (which is more than sufficient, surprisingly). I'm glad I don't have to 'faff' around installing DCC decoders in my own locos. 

 

I illustrate all the above merely as examples of how I go about erecting/making my loco chassis. They are not complicated and certainly not sophisticated. They do, however, all work. 

 

Anyone lacking experience, but with a little determination, could build the simpler ones of these in my opinion.

Edited December 18, 2016 by Tony Wright

[Michael Edge]

Thanks Mike,

 

I'm sure if you built it as prescribed, you'd encounter few problems; even if you did, your great experience would have seen you through. 

 

From memory, the instructions suggest building the cylinders and valve gear and dropping them in place along with the driving wheels - all in one go, sliding the hornblocks into place in the frames. I'm sure this is fine if there is no binding, but what if there is somewhere?

 

Whatever chassis I build, I always make it as 'inside-cylinder' 0-4-0, 0-6-0, 0-8-0 or 0-10-0 first, adding connecting rods, slidebars, crossheads, piston rods, valve gear, etc, later. It was only when I tried to build the LRM K2's frames as an 0-6-0 that I noted the slight discrepancy (not much) in the front sections of the coupling rods. By making new rods, I also made them rigid, with the drive off the centre axle. 

 

K2.jpg

 

I made the new rods out of Code 75 bullhead rail with the original journals snipped off and soldered in place. Ian Rathbone's painting 'makes' this model.

 

The K2s seemed quite 'delicate' locos, compared to the K3s and other big engines. I saw them in the Sheffield area or at Retford or Lincoln. I'm afraid I paid them little heed, especially at Retford. 

It's too long ago to remember much about building these K2s but I don't always take much notice of instructions and I certainly didn't use any hornblocks. Most of my locos have been built rigid as the customers didn't want anything else, most of my own are now compensated. As far as kit design is concerned, all but the earliest of ours are designed to be built rigid or compensated with no fitting or hornblocks required (although many of our frames are marked for them if preferred), everything is based on etched holes. I find kits which are designed solely for compensation or springing very irksome, having to be modified in order to build rigid. I do frequently modify rigid frame kits to be compensated, jig drilling the beams from the frames.

[Focalplane]

I have only built one compensated chassis in 7mm scale, the 14XX by Modern Outline Kits.  This has convinced me that in future I will probably go the extra mile and compensate the drivers of locomotives.  For tenders I like the simpler approach of elongating the centre axle holes such that the centre wheels are free to move up and down between the front and rear axles.  This has worked well on two Fowler tenders (one Connoisseur, one David Andrews).  Right now I am working on a rigid LMS Compound by David Andrews but plan to build a second with hornblocks and "working" inside motion (by Laurie Griffin).  It will be interesting to see how they compare when I complete both hopefully by 2020 (the second Compound is way down the queue).

 

I realize this may not the best forum to ask this question, but can anyone recommend an etched hornblock arrangement rather than lost wax brass castings?  This would be in 7mm scale.

 

I have made a Comet 4mm scale Royal Scot chassis with sprung hornblocks and it seemed to work well (though the body was never finished so how the extra weight would have been supported by the tiny springs remains unknown).  But Comet's designs always seem to be well thought out.

[dibateg]

Paul - I'm not sure why you would use etched hornblocks - you could try Finney7 or there is a Slaters version - which I didn't find that good. Personally I'd go for the Slaters 7960B hornblocks, they are excellent and I have standardised on those for my loco builds that don't already include a hornblock system.

 

Regards

Tony

[glo41f]

Ah chassis - a very emotive subject and one that continues to inspire great arguments. The late Derryck Featherstone, who was an accomplished scratch builder, hated the word and insisted that we should call them "underframes" as that is what they were. The late Frank Dyer was loud in his condemnation of having compensation and the like as he maintained that, if you made the track correctly, there was no need for any slop produced by wiggly axles. I also thought that Roy Jackson was equally against wobbly underframes and wrote quite a treatise on this very subject in the MRJ. He maintained that to introduce flexibility you introduced unwanted wear into the mechanism and this resulted in eventual bad running. I suppose if you are just running locos up and down a small plank, then the wear element does not apply but when you are running around a large system pulling heavy trains then wear is an issue. I am personally in favour of rigid components mainly for ease of build and of getting the results to run smoothly. However, I have to admit that a sprung loco really looks the part as it goes over points and crossings in the same way as its full size equivalent. You have to be an ace in my book to make it all work though!

 

Martin Long

[rowanj]

Some time ago, Tony had an illustrated article in BRM where he modified a Hornby Railroad Hunt into a Shire. Here is my effort, inspired by the article. Apart from mods to the loco body, the main change is the ex-GC tender. Doubtless to the horror of many readers, I used a GBL top from a D11, not strictly accurate but reasonable enough for my purposes.

 

Am I alone in wishing there was a decent collection of this type of article?. They certainly encourage me to continue having a go at something a bit different .

Edited December 19, 2016 by rowanj

[APOLLO]

Regarding the recent discussions on K2's there is, in January's "Steam Days" magazine an interesting, well illustrated ten page article entitled "Gresley Ragtimers : His first Great Northern 2-6-0's by Bill Aves. Lots of info re workings / allocations.

 

Also stabled alongside Ton's superb bookazine "Deltics - A personal recollection" (which I already have) in WH Smiths was another bookazine entitled "Diesels in the Landscape" by Paul Anderson. A very interesting book, all colour, and mostly in the late 60's / early 70's. DMU's feature quite a lot, and a few subjects have multiple photos. I like the section on the GC line Nottingham Arkwright St to Rugby just before it closed completely. Also several shots of the Sundays only 18.35 loco hauled TPO / passenger mail trail from Workington to Preston - very modellable. Well worth a tenner.

 

Brit15

[Focalplane]

Let me add that compenstion is my preference more for electrical continuity than to conceal poor track laying.

 

Why etched hornblocks?  Well, the Modern Outline Kits 14XX came with etches an I rather liked the way they came together with a lot less fettling.  I will look into Slaters hornblocks at Bristol in a month's time.  Thanks for the tip.

[Tony Wright]

Some time ago, Tony had an illustrated article in BRM where he modified a Hornby Railroad Hunt into a Shire. Here is my effort, inspired by the article. Apart from mods to the loco body, the main change is the ex-GC tender. Doubtless to the horror of many readers, I used a GBL top from a D11, not strictly accurate but reasonable enough for my purposes.

 

Am I alone in wishing there was a decent collection of this type of article?. They certainly encourage me to continue having a go at something a bit different .

Thanks John,

 

I'm glad you found the article of use and I'm really pleased it 'inspired' you to have ago. 

 

I did the conversion two years ago (as a Christmas present for Ben Jones' Dad), showing, I hope, how relatively simple it was to produce such a conversion. 

 

For those who didn't see it, here are a few pictures. 

 

 

I repainted the whole lot (because it was in LNER green to start with), lining it with Model Master's transfers.

 

 

Close inspection will reveal the 'warts 'n all' status of my finish. The tender came from Bachmann as a spare. 

 

 

In a layout situation (for this is definitely a layout loco), it doesn't look too bad I suppose. 

 

In reality, had it have been for me (I saw members of the class at Doncaster, York and Hull), I would have built a kit.

 

 

 

Like this one, built and painted by PDK, though I doubt if mine would be as good.

 

Down the years I think there have been many articles encouraging folk to have a go for themselves, especially on relatively simple conversions like the Shire. Time was when magazines like the late-lamented Model Railway Constructor used to show you how to improve a new RTR item, often just a month or two after its release. I think the difference now is that the starting points are so good that, in most cases, they don't need much in the way of improvement at source. There is certainly less need now for carving off moulded-on boiler handrails, for instance. 

 

I've written many articles on how to improve RTR locos and stock (I'll see if I can dig a few more out). Though it's not my preferred path with regard to locos, I was asked by editors to write such accounts for the magazines, latterly exclusively for BRM. 

 

Do you think this type of article is in decline? People have said to me at shows that (it's their perception) many of the articles these days show 'very simple' modelling - easy to do and taking little time. That said, there is still some 'tough stuff' written about - long might it continue. Whether there has been a 'simplifying' of articles, I'm not so sure but there could well be a decline in folk making things for themselves. I've mentioned this before, but my personal perception is that there are fewer folk who are really prepared to have a go themselves. It's not universal, of course, and there are some splendid examples of top-class personal modelling still to be seen. However, there does seem (at least to me) a much greater dependence on RTR locos and stock on layouts at exhibitions and in the press, particularly in OO. I've seen some quite breathtaking examples of scenic/architectural modelling recently, yet all the locos and rolling stock are RTR, admittedly altered/improved, but not in all cases. One RTR loco loomed out the front page of a magazine this year and it still had its obese tension-lock coupling at the front!  Have we not moved on from that sort of thing? Perhaps better RTR stuff has given the builders the time to concentrate on the scenic/architectural side of their modelling. Or, they don't feel up to building/modifying kits. Who knows? That's why I've always enjoyed being part of a group where others do the non-loco, non-stock-building, at least architecturally. I think any building I made would be poor in the extreme. 

 

Despite my earlier comments (I'm a hypocrite, of course), it is a recurring pleasure of mine to invite friends who bring along their modified RTR locos to run on LB. All their own work as well. 

 

 

 

 

Westerner (Alan) always brings something of interest.

 

 

As does Geoff West. 

Edited December 19, 2016 by Tony Wright

[Enterprisingwestern]

That last picture reminds me of "tonight Matthew I'm going to be....." !

 

Mike.

[Willie Whizz]

...

 

Perhaps better RTR stuff has given the builders the time to concentrate on the scenic/architectural side of their modelling. 

 

...

 

I think you may have something there, Tony.  With most of us having only a finite amount of time to cover so many bases, is it perhaps no coincidence that the general quality of scenic work as seen in magazines and at exhibitions appears to have increased significantly - at the same time as, in line with your frequent observations, the amount of hands-on locomotive modelling from kits etc. has declined?

[Tony Wright]

Some more RTR conversions/improvements which might be of interest.

 

 

Here's another of Westerner's RTR improvements. It romped away with ten heavy Pullman cars, so no haulage issues there.

 

 

Despite more recent improvements in RTR chassis, my preference is still to make my own - in this case a Comet set of frames underneath a Bachmann B1 body.

 

 

 

When finished, in my opinion, it's more than adequate as a layout loco, especially with every available space packed with lead. 

 

 

One of the great improvers of RTR locos and stock, particularly with regard to weathering is Tom Foster. These are all Hornby items originally.

 

 

 

He and I horse-trade, and he weathered this Hornby A3 for me (the only one I still own). I detailed/improved and renumbered/renamed it and he weathered it beautifully. That's why I still keep it. As a layout loco, will it do?

 

 

If another of your mates is Tim Shackleton, then what better a team to do weathering? I fiddled with this Bachmann 4MT and Tim did the rest. 

 

 

There is no greater modifier of RTR locos than Graeme King. Here's one of his Bachmann A2-into-A2/3 conversions. I have one as well. 

 

 

A few years ago, when Hornby brought out its loco-drive 'Railroad' 9F, I had a go at improving it for the magazine. This is the loco before repainting/weathering. 

 

 

In a layout situation, at some little distance, can you tell it has no brakes? Just, perhaps. 

 

My apologies if some of these have already appeared, but they show what I mean about improving RTR locos, or, at least, I hope so. The thing is, most, if not all of these, are way within reach of any modeller, providing he/she is prepared to have a go. Those who can't (or believe they can't) or won't (more common?) are missing out on so much personal modelling, especially with such excellent starting points. 

 

I seem to be 'highjacking' this thread of late. My posting of pictures and comments is in response to questions/queries and I hope they're of some help or are thought-provoking. However, there is a risk of the thread becoming boring if I post too much stuff. Anyway, I have a book to write and too many models to finish. 

[westerner]

Thank you Tony for showing those photos. At the moment I am back dating a couple of Warships a D600 and a D800. For more info look at my Kingsbridge thread.

[Mike 84C]

I also thank you Tony for showing those photos. The Western 38 took me back to my teenage years as a fireman on BR. On one night shift we were rattling towards Oxford I was on the seat looking out for the up distant for Fritwell. My driver "Aye Aye" Bill Wrackley took it into his head to walk around the footplating to my side of the cab and stick his face in front of mine! That was close to a brown trouser moment! but he told lots of people what he had done so I got a huge amount of leg pulling. But what a capable engine a 38 was, like most things GWR.

The 9f on the embankment with the natural light and blue sky is classic, a model but, a fantastic photograph.

[Tony Wright]

I also thank you Tony for showing those photos. The Western 38 took me back to my teenage years as a fireman on BR. On one night shift we were rattling towards Oxford I was on the seat looking out for the up distant for Fritwell. My driver "Aye Aye" Bill Wrackley took it into his head to walk around the footplating to my side of the cab and stick his face in front of mine! That was close to a brown trouser moment! but he told lots of people what he had done so I got a huge amount of leg pulling. But what a capable engine a 38 was, like most things GWR.

The 9f on the embankment with the natural light and blue sky is classic, a model but, a fantastic photograph.

Thanks Mike,

 

The sky is actually a real Little Bytham sky. I just walked along Station Road one summer's afternoon, looked outwards and upwards and there it was. I just took a picture and that was that. 

 

It's in that kind of environment that the layout loco really comes into its own in my view. It's taken me hours and hours in the past to build a DJH 9F (several), but, from that sort of distance is it worth it? The Hornby 9F alterations took me a couple of evenings; giving me time to devote to the scenery? 

[Tony Wright]

Ah chassis - a very emotive subject and one that continues to inspire great arguments. The late Derryck Featherstone, who was an accomplished scratch builder, hated the word and insisted that we should call them "underframes" as that is what they were. The late Frank Dyer was loud in his condemnation of having compensation and the like as he maintained that, if you made the track correctly, there was no need for any slop produced by wiggly axles. I also thought that Roy Jackson was equally against wobbly underframes and wrote quite a treatise on this very subject in the MRJ. He maintained that to introduce flexibility you introduced unwanted wear into the mechanism and this resulted in eventual bad running. I suppose if you are just running locos up and down a small plank, then the wear element does not apply but when you are running around a large system pulling heavy trains then wear is an issue. I am personally in favour of rigid components mainly for ease of build and of getting the results to run smoothly. However, I have to admit that a sprung loco really looks the part as it goes over points and crossings in the same way as its full size equivalent. You have to be an ace in my book to make it all work though!

 

Martin Long

Martin,

 

I think the term 'chassis' for a loco model is generally accepted as the term for what moves it. However, few, if any railwaymen I know use that term. The body sits on its frames according to them. Now, we use the term 'frames' to describe the two principal pieces of metal which carry all the wheels and motion. We erect the 'frames' as part of making the chassis, or that's how I describe it; but I'm not a railwayman. 

 

As for personal preference with regard to rigid or not, that's what it is - personal preference. You've seen how the rigid locos perform on LB. Actually, two are compensated (not built by me) and, although they run well, they offer no improvement on their rigid equivalents, in terms of road-holding, electrical pick-up and pulling power. Though I admit to being prejudiced, they don't run as smoothly as the rigid ones, at least visually - they wobble from side to side. Too much compensation, I wonder? 

[Focalplane]

Tony

 

I would guess that the need for compensation increases the larger the scale.  The amount of movement on a compensated Comet chassis/frames is really very small.  In 7mm scale it becomes more pertinent, at least that is what I think after test running the 14XX without a hesitation at all on only two pickups.

 

Some lovely 4mm locos in recent posts.  I spent this morning introducing my 9 year old grand daughter to an Airfix starter kit (Cutty Sark) and I think she is hooked.  We then had a few moments at my work bench (current project a David Andrews Compound) where I explained that brass=plastic and solder=glue.  She then pointed to a sheet of emery paper and asked why I had sandpaper.  Turns out she has D&T* classes at school and sandpaper is one of the "design" tools used.  There is hope for the species!

 

*  D&T = Design and Technology

 

I really feel the day was very worthwhile.

 

Paul

[pete55]

Martin,

 

I think the term 'chassis' for a loco model is generally accepted as the term for what moves it. However, few, if any railwaymen I know use that term. The body sits on its frames according to them. Now, we use the term 'frames' to describe the two principal pieces of metal which carry all the wheels and motion. We erect the 'frames' as part of making the chassis, or that's how I describe it; but I'm not a railwayman. 

 

As for personal preference with regard to rigid or not, that's what it is - personal preference. You've seen how the rigid locos perform on LB. Actually, two are compensated (not built by me) and, although they run well, they offer no improvement on their rigid equivalents, in terms of road-holding, electrical pick-up and pulling power. Though I admit to being prejudiced, they don't run as smoothly as the rigid ones, at least visually - they wobble from side to side. Too much compensation, I wonder? 

 

Hello Tony,

when I used the term "chassis" within Malcolm Crawley's hearing once, he gently said to me,

"Peter, only cars, televisions and ladies have chassis....locomotives have frames"!

 

As only Malcom could....

Edited December 19, 2016 by pete55

[Clearwater]

She then pointed to a sheet of emery paper and asked why I had sandpaper. Turns out she has D&T* classes at school and sandpaper is one of the "design" tools used. There is hope for the species!

 

* D&T = Design and Technology

 

I really feel the day was very worthwhile.

 

Paul

At bedtime tonight, my nearly five year old asked, unprompted, "how old do I have to be before I can try soldering engines with you?" His mum gave me what I believe is known as an "old fashioned look". I've told him we can watch Tony when we're next at a show... junior Clearwater is not yet allowed in the room when the iron is on so is quite curious.

 

David

[96701]

At bedtime tonight, my nearly five year old asked, unprompted, "how old do I have to be before I can try soldering engines with you?" His mum gave me what I believe is known as an "old fashioned look". I've told him we can watch Tony when we're next at a show... junior Clearwater is not yet allowed in the room when the iron is on so is quite curious.

 

David

I had Tim under the layout soldering wiring at the age of eleven. Despite warning him about gravity and liquids, he still managed to drop some rather warm solder on his leg. Lesson learned for both of us. His mother was particularly unimpressed with me, but he has always been able to solder properly. He hasn't yet got onto whitemetal, and my knowledge is limited to soldering one Comet Mark 1 coach.

[coachmann]

Are magazine articles still written by railway modellers?  I know they were when I used to buy the monthlies. From what I have seen, 'Hornby Magazine' style production is now the standard template. So if all the rail model magazines are aimed at big spending box opener with large images of ready-to-run, ready-to-lay and ready-to-plonk, how many people who build things buy them these days.  Someone bought me Hornby Mag when I was in hospital a few years ago. It merely added to the misery! 

[richard i]

At bedtime tonight, my nearly five year old asked, unprompted, "how old do I have to be before I can try soldering engines with you?" His mum gave me what I believe is known as an "old fashioned look". I've told him we can watch Tony when we're next at a show... junior Clearwater is not yet allowed in the room when the iron is on so is quite curious.

David

One of my sons soldered up his first kit, (a scale link car) aged six. I held the pieces, he introduced the iron, and did some cleaning up, I finished cleaning up the joins. He picked the colour which is a bit loud but might be real, and now it runs as a load on my layout. Now he and his brothers want to build their own locos and carriages.

I blame visiting little Bytham

Richard

[coachmann]

"Dad, how old do I have to be before I start swearing?"

 

"That's a strange one... Why do you ask son?"

 

"Cos I am dying to learn to solder...."

 

[Clive Mortimore]

Hello Tony,

when I used the term "chassis" within Malcolm Crawley's hearing once, he gently said to me,

"Peter, only cars, televisions and ladies have chassis....locomotives have frames"!

 

As only Malcom could....

Hi Pete

 

I use the term chassis for all my scratchbuilt locos, even when a few might have frames, but then I am a diesel modeller.