Wright writes.....

[The Stationmaster]

Tony a Bristol Models V2 passed through my hands a few years ago.  It came as part of an auction 'box lot' - i.e it was in a box amongst all sorts of other stuff - and I resold it on RMweb as part of financing the purchase.  

 

Not my scene as a kit but I did have a quick look at it to assess how complete it was and thought some of the castings appeared quite good while various of them were not so impressive; the chassis had already been assembled and I was not at all sure of its origins as like the K's Dean Goods in the same lot (which I kept) the builder had obviously sourced parts from various places to produce what suited him.  Overall I thought the chassis was far more impressive than the body.

 

Anyway the upshot is that someone who was on RMweb at the time had it and they might still be around although I can't recall who it was.

[Tony Wright]

 

There is also the Martin Finney V2.....

Thanks,

             I thought of the Finney V2, and I photographed a couple of examples of his supreme kits a few years ago. But, in my opinion, they are not 'layout locos' for my needs. Any of the 20 or more V2s I've built from whatever source would be eclipsed immediately and (assuming I could build one, which I never have) if one were on LB it would stand out for the wrong reasons. 

 

In the years of my photographing hundreds of layouts (probably over a thousand and more), I never took a picture of a Finney loco on a 4mm layout. It could be that I missed the best layouts, but that is a fact. A couple in 7mm, yes - on Bucks Hill for instance, but not the smaller scale. 

 

My own modelling has always been 'middle of the road', not at the top end, so my omission of the Finney V2 had that parameter in mind. 

 

Interestingly, the Finney V2 via the link you sent appears to have no central cladding band on the firebox. 

Edited June 26, 2014 by Tony Wright

[Horsetan]

...Interestingly, the Finney V2 via the link you sent appears to have no central cladding band on the firebox. 

 

You'll need to ask John Brighton about that one, as I think he built it!

[Black Marlin]

I remember - vividly - when I first started reading model railway magazines. The reason it remains vivid is because the very first magazine I bought featured a review by one Tony Wright.

It was the review of the Pro-Scale V2.

I was enthralled. I wasn't even a teenager at that point (it was the June '95 BRM, if memory serves, which would have made me 11) and I don't think I'd ever read a (please pardon the pun) model piece of criticism before. It didn't simply say that things weren't good enough - it said why they weren't good enough, and what would now need to be done in order to fix them.

 

That review has had a curiously far-reaching effect. I live in Aberdeen, where I work for an e-learning company providing courses to the oil industry. I work in the QC department, and from time to time I have to tell people that what they've provided isn't good enough - but also precisely what needs to be fixed, and how to do it. Guess where I learned the importance of doing that?

 

I know Tony took a fair bit of flak for that review (I also read the letters page in the months after it was published), but I thought he might like to know that his review had one wholly unexpected and positive result even this far down the line - it got me a decent job in an indecent economy.

My thanks, sir.

Gavin

PS - for those wondering about the plural of Wolf of Badenoch: my preferred solution would be to avoid pluralising wolf (because that would suggest that there was more than one namesake of the locomotive) or double inverted commas (those should be reserved for representing direct speech) and include the name of the loco and the pluralising 's' (otherwise the possessive apostrophe becomes problematic) inside single inverted commas, thus "On Little Bytham we had the pleasure of watching a succession of 'Wolf of Badenochs' complete smooth circuits at the head of long trains".

[HerbertHopkins]

 

 

I know Tony took a fair bit of flak for that review (I also read the letters page in the months after it was published),

 

 

I remember this article well, IIRC Tony actually received a solicitors letter from the manufacturer who was obviously outraged by his comments. Like you, I thought Tony's review was fair and objective. Where he had criticisms, and there were several, he took the trouble to explain exactly what the problem was and what he did to overcome it. In the end he produced a pretty good model which shows what can be achieved if you have the skill and patience that Tony has. 

 

What might have been forgotten over the last 19 years (was it really that long ago?) is that, in addition to Tony's review, there was an additional piece by Steve Barnfield who had also built a Pro Scale V2 and who had also encountered many of the same problems. I've always thought that this shorter review was much more scathing than anything Tony wrote. Certainly, had I been the manufacturer, I would have been more upset by Mr Barnfield's comments than by those of Mr Wright!

[LNER4479]

The Jamieson V2 is now all but complete. Many thanks to those correspondents who've commented on it. 

 

When one considers that the base kit for this model is probably getting on for 50 years old, with 'modern' additions it turns out quite well.

 

It's my opinion, then, that this Jamieson old-fashioned example of the 'craft' of loco construction in sheet metal can more than stand its own with the much later alternatives. 

 

Wonderful, wonderful stuff! I know you've made 400+ kits over the years, written about them, produced DVDs etc but I for one shall never tire of seeing you turn out something like this. The fact that it's an old kit and you've gone rummaging around in your spare parts box to find all the various bits n pieces only adds to its charm.

 

I too have a Jamieson V2 in the 'to build' pile. It's hardly priority, especially as the good Mr King's resin prototype is likely to make regular guest appearances on Grantham. But I don't half fancy a crack at it! I'll probably go for the Comet chassis and have it towing an RTR tender.

 

Thanks for sharing the build with us, Tony.

[davidw]

The Jamieson V2 is now all but complete. Many thanks to those correspondents who've commented on it. 

 

DSC_7888.JPG

 

As already mentioned, the Jamieson tender is a bit too basic (though it can be detailed), and I substituted a DMR low-front GS LNER tender. This makes up into an excellent representation of the type. I don't know whether DMR still provide separate tenders, but, if not, the PDK equivalent is just as good.

 

DSC_7894.JPG

 

The complete chassis with valve gear added. The gear is a mixture of Comet, Nu-Cast and Jamieson pieces. Apart from Comet, the other spare frets and castings are no longer available. I just mixed and matched, dipping into my collection of dozens of spare bits and pieces to choose the most suitable items. Many of these were purchased years ago. I suggest when items like those just listed appear for sale, grab them quickly. Complete Jamieson kits themselves as well - they do appear from time to time. 

 

Because I wanted the loco to be in full forward gear, the weigh shaft is set too low. The Nu-Cast radius rod comes in one piece - representing mid-gear. I should have split it both sides and introduced the 'V' angle in the die-block. However, when painted and in service it won't be too noticeable. 

 

Note the section taken out of the rear of the valance (dental burr in mini-drill) to take the motion support bracket. 

 

DSC_7897.JPG

 

DSC_7899.JPG

 

The only job left to do is to make two cladding bands on the firebox; the one adjacent to the cab front and the one in the middle. Other bands don't need fitting - the lining bands will represent these when it's painted. I use self-adhesive insulation tape to make the non-painted bands, cut in strips of the right width. Much better and much easier than soldering shim in my opinion. Several Darlington-shopped V2s had the firebox central band lined in BR green, so, for those, only the band at the cab front needs replicating.

 

The Nu-Cast cylinders have front two-to-one guides suitable only for the first locos built, so I'll probably replace those, but it is only a layout loco after all. It'll become 60820 of New England (late of Top shed), and it's pictured on page 32 of Keith Pirt's first ER and NER colour volume. The low-front tender is apparent and the different style of guides. It's also incredibly filthy, which I'll be completing.

 

When one considers that the base kit for this model is probably getting on for 50 years old, with 'modern' additions it turns out quite well. Yes, an independent smokebox door dart would be nice, but that's a detail. Graeme King is using his considerable ingenuity in producing a resin-bodied V2 of the correct proportions - I've got one to do. The Nu-cast kit was OK (I've built several) but a bit lumpy and the original cast metal chassis was awful. I think there was a Bristol Models V2 - anyone built one? The Pro-Scale V2 is best left to those who really know how to modify a kit, and the Crownline/PDK V2 still has a resin boiler (sorry Graeme, I just don't really like the stuff). Despite now having a decent chassis the Bachmann V2 body is still seriously compromised. Boiler too fat, hopeless dome, no rearwards slope to the top of the firebox, etc. The tender is good, though.

 

It's my opinion, then, that this Jamieson old-fashioned example of the 'craft' of loco construction in sheet metal can more than stand its own with the much later alternatives. 

 

Finally, by using a camera which 'takes no prisoners', all my constructional scuff marks, blobby soldering and scruffy finishing are cruelly highlighted. Who was it who said 'a coat of paint hides a multitude of tins'? Most appropriate here!

 

A brief article on its building might appear in BRM.  

Looks brilliant - bet like your other kits it's shift whatever you hang on the back of it.

[Tony Wright]

I remember - vividly - when I first started reading model railway magazines. The reason it remains vivid is because the very first magazine I bought featured a review by one Tony Wright.

 

It was the review of the Pro-Scale V2.

 

I was enthralled. I wasn't even a teenager at that point (it was the June '95 BRM, if memory serves, which would have made me 11) and I don't think I'd ever read a (please pardon the pun) model piece of criticism before. It didn't simply say that things weren't good enough - it said why they weren't good enough, and what would now need to be done in order to fix them.

 

That review has had a curiously far-reaching effect. I live in Aberdeen, where I work for an e-learning company providing courses to the oil industry. I work in the QC department, and from time to time I have to tell people that what they've provided isn't good enough - but also precisely what needs to be fixed, and how to do it. Guess where I learned the importance of doing that?

 

I know Tony took a fair bit of flak for that review (I also read the letters page in the months after it was published), but I thought he might like to know that his review had one wholly unexpected and positive result even this far down the line - it got me a decent job in an indecent economy.

 

My thanks, sir.

Gavin

 

PS - for those wondering about the plural of Wolf of Badenoch: my preferred solution would be to avoid pluralising wolf (because that would suggest that there was more than one namesake of the locomotive) or double inverted commas (those should be reserved for representing direct speech) and include the name of the loco and the pluralising 's' (otherwise the possessive apostrophe becomes problematic) inside single inverted commas, thus "On Little Bytham we had the pleasure of watching a succession of 'Wolf of Badenochs' complete smooth circuits at the head of long trains".

My thanks to you too, sir.

 

Little did I know what influence I might have for the future careers of readers. 

 

There is a little-known side story to the Pro-Scale V2 saga, Firstly, it was not a 'review' in the strictest sense (that is where a manufacturer provides a new kit and invites a commentator to build it, photograph the stages of that build and then write a critique). I'd actually bought the kit because a customer wanted a V2 and I asked the then Editor of BRM, David brown, if he'd like a story on how I got on with it. Coincidentally, I was building a Nu-Cast V2 for another customer, so would he like a dual piece? Since it was the relatively early days of the magazine, and David was keen to have substantial constructional articles, he said an emphatic 'yes'. Little did I know what ramifications there would be. 

 

Usually in my reviewing of a kit, the manufacturer would be given the courtesy of seeing that review before it was published. This would give him/her a right to reply. Not a right to have things changed (though things might be subsequently changed if I were ignorant of some detail or had got things wrong) but to put his/her point of view in response. Since I'd shelled out the full price for this kit (and I found out as I went along that it was pretty awful), I thought (not in a crusading fashion, I hope) that the truth should be told. What any manufacturer (or editor) doesn't want is a 'review' of the builder's skill. By that I mean, to give a kit (particularly a loco which MUST work) the fullest assessment for a magazine it should be built to a professional standard, the stages photographed to a professional standard and the write-up be such that the editor need only alter it to suit a page layout (small amounts deleted or re-arranged - not having to re-write it). As an aside, all of you out there who might consider providing stuff for a magazine, please bear those imperatives in mind. 

 

So, off I went in gay abandon building the Pro-Scale V2. If my memory serves (and it serves less well as the years progress, and I don't now have a relevant copy of the mag'), the correct-sized driving wheels didn't fit because the sinuous (and typically-LNER) footplate section over them was too short. The bearing holes in the motion/valve gear fret were enormous and the chassis construction had compensation built in at source (my criticism of the last point is subjective, I admit). The firebox was not symmetrical in plan view - it should have been a 'butterfly' - and when the 'V' cab was put in place, its 'arrow' front was pointing to one side. The boiler/smokebox was too long and it overhung the front footplate section far too much. Unless one were very careful, the footplate sections could end up not parallel to the track or the boiler lean backwards or forwards, or a combination of both. Look at one of the pair Gilbert Barnatt has on Peterborough North. The half-etched sections were too thin, though the full depth boiler bands were too wide, and so on, and so on. In short, as supplied, described and prescribed, it was impossible to build into a visually accurate, working model. That it could be built there is no doubt, but only if major modifications were carried out.

 

Coincidentally, Steve Barnfield was building one and he just happened to be in Wolverhampton at the time, so brought it along to be photographed. He'd completely scratch-built a replacement smokebox, boiler and firebox and altered the footplate (even though his had P4 flanges). His language was 'interesting' when I enquired how he'd got on with it! Despite 'conspiracy theories' at the time, our building of the kits was, as I say, entirely coincidental.

 

Anyway, to get to the point (apologies for the extended post), during one of my then regular visits to Bourne I was asked by the late Michael Warner if what I'd written in criticism of the Pro-Scale V2 were true, as he'd said to David publish it in total. Apparently, you cannot be seen seen as committing libel if what you publish is true. I assured him it was and the rest is history. I did not actually subsequently receive a solicitor's letter, though I was threatened (not by the manufacturer, by the way) that I would.

 

As it was, the whole range was taken off the market, though it was subsequently taken on by someone else (Wessex Pro-Scale? - if that's wrong, I apologise). At the time the new proprietor asked me about the V2 and what was needed to put it right. He didn't bother, though it might now have been revised.

 

Finally, I still stick with my plurals being correct. There is only one Rothesay (though there have been dozens of Dukes, since it's one of the titles of the only/elder/eldest son of the Monarch) and only one district of Badenoch. Just in the same way that there is only one Montrose, yet hundreds (thousands?) of Duchesses of Montrose were made by Hornby-Dublo in the '50s.  Duchess of Montroses just sounds daft! I rest my case................

[Tony Wright]

Looks brilliant - bet like your other kits it's shift whatever you hang on the back of it.

David,

           It took 14 bogies with ease yesterday...

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Here's what's described as a ProScale V2....

 

 

sold at auction for £40.  Given the likely struggle the builder had with it, and the cost of buying the darn thing in the first place, ouch.

 

[Horsetan]

Here's what's described as a ProScale V2....

 

3166_l.jpg

 

sold at auction for £40.  Given the likely struggle the builder had with it, and the cost of buying the darn thing in the first place, ouch.

 

....and the firebox is still wrong, anyway!

[Pebbles]

I believe the first time the problem of the Proscale V2 firebox was raised was in Ron Goult's article in the October 1984 issue of the long gone "Practical Model Railways".  This predated other reviews, or however they may be described, by over ten years. 

[micklner]

This is either a Bristol Models or Jamieson build that I did at least 25+ years ago.

 

At a guess its a Bristol version and Jamieson Valve Gear.  Originally it had a Anchoridge D13 motor which has been replaced with a Mashima and a High Level box. The chassis shows its age and lack of detail. I wonder if a Comet or Branchline version would fit without wrecking the body  ?

 

 

 

 

[Guest 2750]

Are you feeling alright Mick? I mean, it's apple green....and it's WEATHERED!!

[Michael Delamar]

Id stick to Murphy's second law of engineering

Edited June 27, 2014 by Michael Delamar

[micklner]

Are you feeling alright Mick? I mean, it's apple green....and it's WEATHERED!!

Yes and its a very old build guess what covers the blemishes !!

[Etched Pixels]

Bernard,

              Many years ago Colin Allbright of Bachmann acquired a fair bit of stuff from Peter Chatham when the latter sold up and retired. It included the lithograph printing equipment for producing the sides (Colin was producing his Ultima coach kits at the time), but whether the vacuum-forming tools were in the deal I don't know. I don't think any more PC Gresleys (or any others) were subsequently produced. A pity really, because the teak finish was especially effective at a few feet away, but in BR carmine/cream the effect was less so because of the lack of surface relief. I gave a rake of five PC teaks to Graham Nicholas for operation on Grantham and they fit in very well. The roofs look right, too. 

 

Colin AFAIK only acquired 2mm/N related parts including the masks for the 2mm sides, which I then inherited when I took over Ultima. It would also be difficult to replicate the sides exactly as you'd need to change both inks and carrier clear material because the inks and process used no longer meets health & safety regs, and the modern inks mostly will not print to acetate. It's really really easy now to get similar sides digitally printed, it's nigh on impossible to replicate the subtle depth differences used to make the doors look right on the non panelled coach kits. Fortunately a lot of the sides were printed at the time so except for GWR there is probably a lifetime of 2mm stock.

 

The 2mm Gresley sides were originally "Cav'n'dish" as I understand their history.

 

Other than a brief indirect check on the rights for some 2mm shrinks of Midland PC models etches that Colin had done I've had no dealings with Peter so I've no idea whether Peter kept the 4mm stuff or it went somewhere else.

 

Alan

(moving house so replies may be very slow)

[S.A.C Martin]

That's a rather nice V2 M

That's a rather nice V2 Mick.

[S.A.C Martin]

Sorry for the above post. Posting on an iPhone and hit send too quickly.

 

That's a nice V2 Mick. Convincing boiler shape. Does beg the question why Bachmann (or was it Mainline) managed to make theirs so flat.

[Tony Wright]

This is either a Bristol Models or Jamieson build that I did at least 25+ years ago.

 

At a guess its a Bristol version and Jamieson Valve Gear.  Originally it had a Anchoridge D13 motor which has been replaced with a Mashima and a High Level box. The chassis shows its age and lack of detail. I wonder if a Comet or Branchline version would fit without wrecking the body  ?

 

10.jpg

 

11.jpg

 

12.jpg

 

14.jpg

Mick,

          The footplate and front steps are definitely Jamieson, though I don't know about the rest. The tender is the low-front 4200 GS type which Jamieson used to provide (even in their B1 kit - they never produced the high-front sort), but I don't know what was provided by Bristol Models. It looks to have a Jamieson chimney, which is too tall and not wide enough.

 

Pro-Scale's V2 only had the low-front tender and Nu-Cast's only the high-front.

 

 

 

 

My apologies if these two images have appeared before but new commentators seem to appear from time to time. They show the Jamieson V2 I built in 1979 (35 years ago!). It was my second attempt at one - the original being built in 1976. The first one appeared in the mags but I was never really happy with it, and gave it away to a friend. I was happier with this one and I think it's stood the test of time, at least as a layout loco. It has a Nu-Cast flared tender (in a swop with a Nu-Cast O2/3) and a Nu-cast V2 chimney. My latest-build Jamieson V2 has a turned brass V2 chimney from I know not where, since I can't remember, but the Jamieson one isn't right. 

 

 

 

 

And yet another V2, this one from Graeme King, Comet and Markits. It'll have a spare Bachmann tender.

 

I'll be writing it up for BRM, and I'll try and overcome my antipathy to resin and be objective. 

[Graham_Muz]

Dear each

 

I little while back in this interesting thread I had the audacity to mention and post an image or two of a Southern locomotive, but I think I got away with it...

 

So I thought I would try again but this time with something also somewhat more on topic.

 

Let me take you back to June 1948 and the subject of the Locomotive Exchange trials taking place on the Waterloo to Exeter line, this first image is of 60033 "Seagull" on a driver familiarisation working (noted by the absence of the ex NER Dynamometer car) passing a down freight headed by an S15.

'Seagull' is from a Bachmann A4,(as it was the only garter blue version minus valances at the time) fitted with a white metal double chimney and the tender modified to represent the cut version at the rear (to allow the water cranes at Euston to be used on other trials). I am sure there a number of faults that could be improved upon with this model and I welcome comments / advice.

 

Her she is again this time on an actual trial run as she is coupled to the ex NER dynamometer car

 

I will also be modelling E22 'Mallard' from a Hornby valanced version but removing them with the aid of Simon Martin's etch tool for that purpose. I already have a number of the other trial locomotives that worked on the Southern such as 'City of Bradford' and rebuilt Scot 'Hussar' complete with WD style tenders and the goods locomotives such as the 28XX, O1, 2-8-0 and 2-10-0 WDs   

Edited June 30, 2014 by Graham_Muz

[jwealleans]

The Dynamometer Car is ex-NER. Comments on the accuracy of the A4 I leave to those infinitely more knowledgeable.

[Graham_Muz]

Doh! of course it was Jonathan I have duly corrected my post. Thanks for spotting that.

[micklner]

Quote re V2

 

The footplate and front steps are definitely Jamieson, though I don't know about the rest. The tender is the low-front 4200 GS type which Jamieson used to provide (even in their B1 kit - they never produced the high-front sort), but I don't know what was provided by Bristol Models. It looks to have a Jamieson chimney, which is too tall and not wide enough.

 

 

I think mine is a mongrel !!. The Boiler and cab and footplate are whitemetal. I have vague memory the Tender is mainly Nickel Silver . Good point re chimney will try and find a spare A3 version.

Edited June 30, 2014 by micklner

[Tony Wright]

The Dynamometer Car is ex-NER. Comments on the accuracy of the A4 I leave to those infinitely more knowledgeable.

 

I don't know who amongst us has infinite knowledge of A4s but SEAGULL won't be getting very far whatever the origin of the Dynamometer Car. Not only has the lubricator linkage disappeared, but also the return crank which drives it and is (or should be) attached to the offside rear crank-pin. One wonders what will occur first - either the motion will seize up or the rear offside rod will come off!

 

I know to the delight of many, the A4s were the least reliable of all the 8P engines exchanged (though they were by some margin the most economical, and did they really fail more than the Bulleid Pacifics?), but I don't think MALLARD, SEAGULL or LORD FARINGDON 'failed' because their lubricator drives fell off.

 

Apologies Graham, of course, for my attempt at humour, but considering the recent Gresley/Thompson debate elsewhere, isn't it significant that the ER operating authorities in 1948 chose A4s to represent the ex-LNER rather than the most modern of their big locos? The WR had nothing newer than a loco built in 1927/'28 to represent them in the 8P category (supporters might say it was modern enough even 20 years later but I think they know they'd been overtaken), the LMR had a loco less than ten years old and the SR had locos of the same vintage, or newer.The three A4s were ten years old but why weren't the newer, 'improved', Thompson Pacifics sent as representatives? Four classes were the equivalent of what became 8P and although three of them 'only' had 6' 2" drivers, so did the 'MNs'. If HERRINGBONE had been chosen, it would only have been just over a year old - the newest of the participants. None in authority would have possibly considered the A1/1, even though it was only three years old. In a way, it's a pity that the Peppercorn A1s weren't there to represent the ER (not quite finished, but there would have been no reliability issues) or the Ivatt 'Duchesses'. 6256 was in existence and, I think, 46257 was still under construction.