Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

 

Occasionally, friends ask me if I can resurrect an old model, sometimes from the early days of kits.

 

This is just one such example, an ancient and venerable K's J3. Who built it, who knows? It originally had K's wheels (of 6'+ diameter!) and a K's HP2M motor with a sort of soapy gearbox. Needless to say, it didn't work - it just buzzed, twitched and made smoke. The owner, one of my friends, had substituted an Airfix 4F tender drive mechanism, but that had given up eventually. He admits his track isn't brilliant, but could I make it go, please? 

 

So bin-ward bound went most of the K's stuff (it doesn't even make decent scrap), and a quick check on the frames was made to ensure they were square. Because of his 'dodgy' Peco Code 100 track, on with a set of older Romfords, fit a nice little Mashima, London Road Models gear mount and Romford 50:1 gears, make new pick-ups and re-fit the original rods. Next, chuck the K's tender wheels away and substitute ancient (though concentric) Jackson stamped-spoke wheels and make a tender pick-up (dead-frog points - ugh!). Then, onto the track and away she purred - a twitch noisy to begin with (silent in reverse, of course), but quickly settling down to smooth running, hauling 20-odd wagons.

 

Yes, it's a bit 'scabby'. The plastic (yes, plastic!) handrail pillars had started to break away in some places, so I substituted little 'football' pillars in places, in keeping with its age. A bit of patch-painting (trying not to match the original 'tar-brush' too much) and there you are. A happy friend, an old loco working again and some antique materials of mine (not the motor/gearbox) put to good use.  

[gr.king]

There must have been a healthy dose of beginner's luck involved at the time but when one of my earliest loco kit builds was a K's "complete" J3, all parts sealed on cards, including motor, gears, plastic (nylon?) handrail knobs, D-ended axles and wheels with faintly rusty steel treads, I somehow managed to use all of the K's gubbins and make it run properly. I think I had to insert a new metal bearing into the strange fibre/plastic frame at one end of the motor in order to make it quiet and to control the meshing of the gears. I don't think my supplied wheels were anything like 6', I seem to think they were true size. Nice to see another example working anyway. Broad gauge guard irons???

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

... Yes, it's a bit 'scabby'. ..

Poor old clunker, so it should be! Give it the characteristic paint burnt off the smoke box sides and door and chimney; and the resulting major rust patches, and at least one 'giant seagull dropping' from a weeping washout plug. I'll bet good money that if there is a photo of it working in the 1950s some of that will be in evidence, unless it is just ex-works.

[45568]

Who did the rather nice weathering on the cattle wagon? behind the tender?

Cheers,

Peter C.

[Pebbles]

I am slightly confused, and maybe someone can resolve this. I would appear that 64132 was a 315 series engine (built in 1898), and originally had sand boxes on the centre splashers. My question is were these removed at some point?

[t-b-g]

I am slightly confused, and maybe someone can resolve this. I would appear that 64132 was a 315 series engine (built in 1898), and originally had sand boxes on the centre splashers. My question is were these removed at some point?

 

The J3s and J4s were a right proper minefield of rebuilding and detail changes. It is one of those classes where you certainly can't just pick a number and expect a model to be correct.

 

From Tony W's comments, it seems as if the loco may have been already numbered up when it came to him so he may not have gone through all the usual stages of identifying a suitable number for a loco with details that match the kit, or maybe it is correct.

 

It would need a photo of the particular loco at that period to establish such things.

 

The thing that looks odd to me is the size of the driving wheels compared to the splashers. I suspect there is a bit of compromise going on somewhere.

 

It is what it is. An old kit that is now a decent (or having seen Tony's locos run should I say very good!) runner when it wasn't before.

 

Tony 

[Tony Wright]

Who did the rather nice weathering on the cattle wagon? behind the tender?

Cheers,

Peter C.

Sorry, I can't remember, but not me. It might be Rob Davey's work, or one I bought pre-weathered from a show.

[Tony Wright]

The J3s and J4s were a right proper minefield of rebuilding and detail changes. It is one of those classes where you certainly can't just pick a number and expect a model to be correct.

 

From Tony W's comments, it seems as if the loco may have been already numbered up when it came to him so he may not have gone through all the usual stages of identifying a suitable number for a loco with details that match the kit, or maybe it is correct.

 

It would need a photo of the particular loco at that period to establish such things.

 

The thing that looks odd to me is the size of the driving wheels compared to the splashers. I suspect there is a bit of compromise going on somewhere.

 

It is what it is. An old kit that is now a decent (or having seen Tony's locos run should I say very good!) runner when it wasn't before.

 

Tony 

Thanks Tony,

 

My brief was to make it go; it was already numbered up, so if it's wrong that's not my fault (though such is my ignorance, I wouldn't know anyway).

 

I fitted 20mm Romfords (the prototypes had 5' 2" drivers), so it's the splashers which are too big. 

 

The guard-irons are weird, and would only serve to smite anything adjacent to the tracks, as long it's over three foot tall. 

 

And, I'm delighted to report that its happy owner phoned me this morning expressing his delight that it runs both ways round his loft layout. He has 2' radius curves in places!

[Tony Wright]

 

I've just completed some minor detailing/weathering to three of Bachmann's latest Porthole carriages, a Brake Third, Corridor Third and Composite. Though beautiful models, I thought them to be of little use to me because they'd still be front-line LMR stock in the '50s and, as such, be inappropriate for my smaller trainset, the M&GNR bit at Little Bytham. However, step forward the estimable Mr Barnatt with his two volumes on M&GNR operation and, lo and behold, two Porthole carriages on the M&GNR! One (a Composite, I think) in an East Coast-Leicester train at Bourne (if I recall correctly) and a Brake Third in a King's Lynn-Nottingham train at Sutton Bridge, both in the mid-'50s. 

 

So, an evening's/next morning's work saw my fitting concertina gangways (folded black paper), changing couplings, weathering underframes and roofs and fitting them into appropriate trains. Trains such as this one - a King's Lynn-Nottingham three-set, comprising the Bachmann Porthole Brake Third, Composite and a Hornby Brake Third equivalent. The delightfully shabby 'Flying Pig' is Dave Shakespeare's work on a 'fiddled-with' Bachmann product. The equally shabby V2 rushing southwards is my Graeme King/Comet meld.

 

An article on what I did will appear soon in BRM. I didn't fit destination board brackets; though they should be present, I think only the longer-distance M&GNR services carried boards. Has anyone attempted to fit the brackets? 

 

A piece on the V2 will also appear in BRM.

[t-b-g]

Thanks Tony,

 

My brief was to make it go; it was already numbered up, so if it's wrong that's not my fault (though such is my ignorance, I wouldn't know anyway).

 

I fitted 20mm Romfords (the prototypes had 5' 2" drivers), so it's the splashers which are too big. 

 

The guard-irons are weird, and would only serve to smite anything adjacent to the tracks, as long it's over three foot tall. 

 

And, I'm delighted to report that its happy owner phoned me this morning expressing his delight that it runs both ways round his loft layout. He has 2' radius curves in places!

 

An old kit gets a new lease of life and there is a happy modeller with a loco that he probably thought would always be a dud.

 

I have sometimes dealt with similar tasks and the niceties of whether that loco ran with that tender at that date, or if it has the correct chimney, really don't come into play.

 

Job done!

[LNER4479]

The equally shabby V2 rushing southwards is my Graeme King/Comet meld.

 

A piece on the V2 will also appear in BRM.

Seeing as how the Graeme King V2 is getting a mention, I hope you like these two views taken last night of the 'master's prototype in original guise.

 

At rest, on Grantham shed.

 

In the north end loco change siding, awaiting its train back to York. This is an attempt to replicate a 1937 T G Hepburn/RAS photo of the real No.4772 at this location.

Edited July 27, 2014 by LNER4479

[BMacdermott]

As noted a few days ago, I have been liaising with some coaching stock friends with regard to what Thompson vehicle Tony might propose to Bachmann. Here’s what we think. We have written it in this format in the hope that it ‘rounds out’ all the very interesting discussion.

 

Buffet Lounge Car (Diag.352)

• Built with fairing over solebars and used in the Flying Scotsman.
• Teak, then Red & Cream livery.
• Taken off Scotsman 1953 and moved to The Elizabethan until 1957 (still in Red & Cream or already Maroon?).
• Rebuilt 1958/9, maroon livery. The corridor side remained unaltered apart from the solebar fairing being removed. The pantry side was altered considerably and the original 8-seat lounge area was subsumed into a 24-seat saloon.
• Used in general ECML service; the Cambridge Buffet Express trains; Manchester-Harwich Boat Train (according to one author and one eye witness of our acquaintance, but we have no photographic evidence); and finally in Scotland.
• Re-painted in Blue/Grey livery (date?). E1705E renumbered as Sc1705E between 1.1.76 and 31.12.77.
• Withdrawn in 1979.
• Became a Departmental vehicle and appeared in Olive Green livery.

 

E1706E had a similar history to E1705E, being withdrawn in c.1978 as Sc1706E. It has been preserved at Llangollen; they have restored it to original condition, reinstating the solebar fairing and painting it Red & Cream. The interior has been returned to the original including the 8-seat lounge.

 

The difficulties with this one are:

• Most modellers don’t have room for a prototypical Flying Scotsman or Elizabethan.
• Many of the other required vehicles are not available RTR (and may well never be).
• The rebuild might add too much expense to any maker’s costs – given that ‘catering’ won’t sell as many as ‘ordinary’ stock.

 

The benefits are:

• Gives a Blue/Grey vehicle and Departmental possibility (although we aren’t sure if it was physically altered in the latter service).
• 1705/6 have ‘celebrity status’ – they were the last pre-Nationalisation passenger-carrying vehicles in (public) service.

 

Restaurant First (Diag.354) (later downgraded to RU)

• Built 1948/9
• Simulated Teak, Red & Cream and Maroon liveries.
• Withdrawn mid-1960s.

 

The difficulties are:

• The simulated Teak might be difficult due to the ‘grain’ running in different directions on the upper and lower panels.
• Restricted geographical use (but, surely, much more route mileage than Bachmann Birdcage stock?).
• Hasn’t had much support in the annual Wishlist Poll (but maybe modellers don’t know what they’re missing!? Perhaps Tony might write an article?).

 

The benefits are:

• From the modeller’s perspective, could be used in the 9-coach Fair Maid with Bachmann Mk1 stock:

BSK + SK + SK + SK + RU + RFO + CK + FK + BSK.

This could be compressed to:

BSK + SK + RU + CK and/or FK + BSK (i.e. five or six coaches).

• As noted by Coachman, the vehicle was a ‘good seller’ in times gone by.
• The Thompson style and the white windows ‘stand out’ nicely in an otherwise Mk1 train.
• Lighting would enhance the effect.
• Enables the modeller to run ‘an important train’.
• Would provide a good balance against Hornby’s Gresley Buffet Car.
• Another shortish train is the Norseman (see below).

 

Notes to above:

Link to Norseman: https://flic.kr/p/9tNATs

Link to Talisman: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/32711444/Articles/Talisman_Notes_17-7-13.pdf

 

 

Brian (with thanks to Chris Knowles-Thomas, Robert Carroll and Ian Taylor)

[gr.king]

I wonder if any other juicy prototypes have recently visited Little Bytham under a veil of secrecy imposed by a manufacturer seeking to hold information back for a moment of artificial drama, rather than allowing observant modellers to make intelligent contributions to development as Heljan have done?

 

Providing that we talk in code, so as not to utter the name of that item that still cannot be mentioned (on pain of death, despite the identity being widely distributed in the public domain thanks to clumsily arranged advertising in Model Rail), and providing we don't actually expect to see any pictures yet, can we now speculate even more strongly that the unspecified item has already glided over the metals of Little Bytham?

[Allegheny1600]

I'm sure that it would suit LB in an earlier setting if your hint of "half a Blue Peter" is interpreted accurately!!!

If it is such a beast, many dreams will have come true indeed, some of mine included.

Cheers,

John E.

[BrushVeteran]

Well I am a bit biased, as I took a photo of E1706E (see post #1843) and I was about to purchase a pair of Southern Pride sides to convert a Bachmann Thompson.

 

I'm sure Bachmann will make a much better job of it than I ever can, so yes please, a dia.352 for me.

[davidw]

An RF/RU would be my choice - more useful than a buffet.... 

[mark54]

There is a problem for the diag. 352 rebuild. The kitchen windows were different. That in 1705 extended right up to the gutter and consequently cut through the lining in maroon livery and the red stripe in blue/grey. That in 1706 did not and was shallower in depth. Therefore if a manufacturer went for this option they could only properly represent one or the other.

 

As far as I know they were never regulars in the Cambridge Buffet Express, only stand-ins. However they were regulars in The Highwayman which ran in 1970 and 1971, one in each set.

 

Mark

Edited July 28, 2014 by mark54

[HerbertHopkins]

Sorry, I can't remember, but not me. It might be Rob Davey's work, or one I bought pre-weathered from a show.

 

Hi Tony,

 

I'm pretty certain that this is one 'straight out of the box'. I don't remember weathering it.

 

Rob

[Tony Wright]

Hi Tony,

 

I'm pretty certain that this is one 'straight out of the box'. I don't remember weathering it.

 

Rob

Thanks Rob,

 

Somebody must have done it because I don't think Bachmann did a weathered version at source. My memory isn't what it was!

[Tony Wright]

Providing that we talk in code, so as not to utter the name of that item that still cannot be mentioned (on pain of death, despite the identity being widely distributed in the public domain thanks to clumsily arranged advertising in Model Rail), and providing we don't actually expect to see any pictures yet, can we now speculate even more strongly that the unspecified item has already glided over the metals of Little Bytham?

Talk in code, heh?

 

The unspecified item, whose prototype would certainly have fizzed through Little Bytham in my Grandad's day, has not, unfortunately, glided over LB's metals, at least not yet. It couldn't because the 'test' model I saw (a long time ago, now) had no motor and was no more than a 'mock-up'. I did see the CAD work and, at the risk of appearing a complete smart a***e, some of the details are 'not wrong' because of my observations. Indeed, so much was 'right' because of the diligence of others that I have no doubt this will be an outstanding model. 

 

It was, and is, a privilege to act in a tiny way as a 'consultant' to Bachmann with this project. Scrutinising drawings, photographs and documents within yards of where the prototypes flew by, no doubt oscillating wildly but never steam-shy (have I let the cat out of the bag?), was very gratifying. Spending time with the design/development guys at Barwell was equally so. 

 

And tomorrow, the rest of the world will know what it is, but don't they already?

[New Haven Neil]

The clues are there for the asking...I suppose it would have been 'peppering away', as I understand Mr Nock described them as doing......

[Bob Reid]

.......

 

The benefits are:

• Gives a Blue/Grey vehicle and Departmental possibility (although we aren’t sure if it was physically altered in the latter service).
• 1705/6 have ‘celebrity status’ – they were the last pre-Nationalisation passenger-carrying vehicles in (public) service.

 

 

Brian, the honour of the last pre-Nationalisation passenger-carrying vehicle in (public) service, lies with SC1999 (the ex-diag 334 First 1531) which was to outlast the two buffets by a further seven years revenue earning service (albeit by then as an observation saloon on the West Highland) before passing into preservation in 1984. 

[coachmann]

Talk in code, heh?

And tomorrow, the rest of the world will know what it is, but don't they already?

This is what surprises me. I for one have been looking on with incredulity.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...And tomorrow, the rest of the world will know what it is, but don't they already?

Long term confidence in the NRM/Bachmann 'giving it large'.

[Horsetan]

....As to the 1F, well, what can you say at first glance, except no wonder there are queries over the continued level of kit building. I say this as one who built the Craftsman kit to P4 in about 1980, a nice basic kit (I made an enclosed cab version) that went together well but, you know, still had to be built.

 

Izzy

 

Well, Craftsman Models are still in business, and still producing the kit.....