Wright writes.....

[t-b-g]

I don't think that the £260 figure would be the cost of parts for a scratchbuilt loco, at least not in 4mm scale.

 

A scratchbuilt loco would represent a considerable saving on that figure, depending on how many components are bought in rather than made.

 

The posting mentioning the cost of the parts to build a loco was slightly open to different interpretations but if you look at the cost of, say, a DJH kit plus the parts needed to complete it, a figure of £260 is a good round figure and I am pretty sure that was what the poster was intending to indicate.

 

The greatest cost in a scratchbuilt loco isn't measured in pounds but in time. It is a very satisfying activity but not as quick as opening a Bachmann box (although the time taken to find a way into some recent packaging has run it close).

 

Tony

Edited August 27, 2014 by t-b-g

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

I believe the reason why this is prevalent on RTR models is probably down to production expediency; foolproofing the assembly process and cost.  To correctly represent the eccentric crank leaning forward on both sides would require left and right hand components.

 

I have successfully corrected it on the Hornby chassis that was used to convert one of David West's A3s into Great Northern.  The crankpin needed to be pushed out of the back of the wheel and have two extra "half flats" filed onto the flange that locates in the wheel hub.  Just replacing it doesn't fully guarantee that it would stay in this position so some Araldite was used to fill the gaps and lock it in place.  It's a small improvement but worth the effort IMHO.

 

P1110007_sm.JPG

P1110034_sm.JPG

 

I haven't had the opportunity to try correcting a Bachmann loco yet.

 

Cheers....Morgan

 

Isn't this loco still in mid-gear though?

 

I'm finding all this whirling twirling iron mongery most perplexing.

[Andrew P]

Precisely and I can't find that total on a quick look, unless you're including a lot of extras that help the scratchbuild along until it's effectively a semi-scratchbuild.

No criticism, just curious.

 

Regards,

Boatman

Would that include a professional paint and lining job?

 

Andy.

[t-b-g]

Isn't this loco still in mid-gear though?

 

I'm finding all this whirling twirling iron mongery most perplexing.

 

The gear position and the return crank are two quite separate matters in valve gear.

 

Unless you make the valve gear fully operational, it will always be wrong in some situations. So most folk go for a mid gear position as it is about the easiest as the radius rod (the horizontal rod from the curved expansion link forward) doesn't need to be able to move about as it does in forward or reverse gear.

 

The rear facing return crank on some RTR locos is wrong all the time and correcting that is worth while as it does look quite wrong.

 

Tony

Edited August 27, 2014 by t-b-g

[Arthur]

Yes it is, another feature of RTR. On a real locomotive the reversing lever raises or lowers the rear end of the radius rod. The radius rod has a trunnion which moves up and down within the slotted link. As the motion from the eccentric crank moves the bottom of the slotted link to and fro, that motion is transferred, via the sliding trunnion, to the radius rod. That, in turn, drives the piston valve spindle to and fro admitting steam to the cylinders. The curve of the slotted link varies the amount of travel of radius rod and, therefore, piston valves varying the volume of steam admitted into the cylinder. By raising or lowering the rear end of the radius rod the driver can vary the 'cut off'.

 

This motion is absent on RTR models though it can, with extra work be built into kits, though unless, moveable you're stuck in forward or reverse gear.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Arthur

[davidw]

I believe the reason why this is prevalent on RTR models is probably down to production expediency; foolproofing the assembly process and cost.  To correctly represent the eccentric crank leaning forward on both sides would require left and right hand components.

 

I have successfully corrected it on the Hornby chassis that was used to convert one of David West's A3s into Great Northern.  The crankpin needed to be pushed out of the back of the wheel and have two extra "half flats" filed onto the flange that locates in the wheel hub.  Just replacing it doesn't fully guarantee that it would stay in this position so some Araldite was used to fill the gaps and lock it in place.  It's a small improvement but worth the effort IMHO.

 

P1110007_sm.JPG

P1110034_sm.JPG

 

I haven't had the opportunity to try correcting a Bachmann loco yet.

 

Cheers....Morgan

And it'll shift 14 + coach trains 

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Wouldn't it be worth modelling them in forward gear, since I bet most of the time most of our locomotives are working forwards?

 

Surely that makes more sense than in mid-gear, when it can't move at all?  I would have thought this was more noticeable than a small crank position.

 

I'll confess a slight bias - I almost always notice the mid-gear position of the doodah, and I've never noticed the return foley fobwinker until that nice Mr Wright pointed it out.  

 

I've not quiet forgiven him for pointing out the absence of white painted milk churns on loco frontages either, and thus spoiling forever my enjoyment of naked locomotives running unencumbered...

Edited August 27, 2014 by Dr Gerbil-Fritters

[Mallard60022]

Although I am really fussy about some things I can usually only see one side of the loco at a time and so I don't mind too much with the RTR valve gear failings. However, if I do build a kit with 'wallcharts' v.g. I have to get the gear correct or I get really annoyed! Yes, I know, I'm strange...................

P

[Cleefy]

Isn't this loco still in mid-gear though?

 

I'm finding all this whirling twirling iron mongery most perplexing.

 

Same here. Before reading this thread I was getting along just fine not even knowing what a return crank is, let alone at what angle it should lean.

 

Ignorance? Certainly. Blissful? Most definitely!

 

My apologies to Tony and anyone else who might be mortified by my cavalier attitude to Walshe... Wealsche... Waelsha... gubbins ;-)

[Andy Reichert]

I remember being invited onto the footplate of a big green LNER steamer at Kings Cross with a young school friend in the latter half of the 50"s. We were shown all the controls and how they worked explained by a very nice train driver.  I think we were both around 11 or so and on a group trainspotting trip organized by someone's father.. My friend knew a lot of the stuff already, so was thrilled and asked all sorts of welcome intelligent questions. However, I was beginning to get into into learning exciting electrical stuff by then instead and found the spread all over the place complexity of so many differently operated manual controls rather "Victorian" and not very convenient or obvious compared to a "modern", neat, compact, electrical control panel.

 

I think that actually put me off becoming more interested about steam. And of course if such a locomotive propulsion system was designed from scratch for commercial use today, it would almost certainly be "fly by wire" and all the needed internal dynamic adjustments operated by real time local microcomputers and servos.

 

Which I suppose is an excuse for being quite happy to to watch the valve gear eccentric stuff moving on my then 2nd hand old Hornby 2 rail 2-6-4 tank, even if the reversing link was backwards, while being extremely bothered today that my steeple cab PE switchers came fitted with crudely over scale solid fixed trolley pole wheels, when the prototypes had open spoke rolling ones.

 

Andy

Edited August 27, 2014 by Andy Reichert

[Tony Wright]

Many, many thanks for all the recent responses - most enlightening and, in some cases, most amusing.

 

Firstly, the A1/1 conversion. Having seen it in the flesh, I can vouch for its excellence (even if it can haul 14 bogies when 'only' in mid-gear). My only 'critical' comment would be that the cabside numbers are too closely grouped. Were they in one piece?

 

Now to the thorny problem of the 'lean' of the return crank/eccentric crank. 

 

 

Here's a Bachmann A1's nearside motion with the crank clearly leaning the wrong way. Though in static mode it might not be too noticeable but in motion it just looks wrong, with too much movement. See on video how so much different a rebuilt Merchant Navy looks in comparison to an A1 to illustrate what I mean.

 

 

It can be corrected, as seen on a Graeme King A2/A2/3 conversion. The difference in motion is well worth the little effort in getting it right.

 

 

Here's one of my DJH A1s with the crank leaning the right way. Actually, since I don't always bother fitting springs (they can get in the way of pick-ups), this looks a bit 'lightweight' behind the wheels in comparison with the Bachmann loco. However, in my defence, springs are all but invisible from normal viewing distances as a loco passes by, and it's the correct motion in motion of a return crank set the right way which is much more important. As to the merits of the whole motion set on this one compared to the Bachmann example, I'll let the viewers decide. Both have been weathered and the clumsy Bachmann bogie wheels have been replaced.  

 

 

Here's Hornby's wrong-leaning crank on the opposite side. 

 

 

In comparison with a SE Finecast example. One thing of note is the wrong angle on Hornby's slidebars - pointing upwards towards the rear; daft, in my opinion. Hornby's bogie wheels are worse than Bachmann's, so those have gone. Another difference is how 'thin' the RTR motion looks in comparison to a kit-built one.

 

All the above examples are as near as makes no difference in mid-gear or well 'linked-up', meaning they're 'running under little steam', often at speed (as befits my trainset). 

 

 

Finally, if you want good running on your railway, borrow a 14 year old. This is Adam Wareham today operating LB, with his dad and grandad looking on. In minutes, he'd figured it all out and drove with great responsibility for a couple of hours, often telling me which point or switch I hadn't set correctly. In those two hours, one derailment (a propelled wagon), one train separation (with three link couplings having shunted together too quickly, probably) and one short circuit caused by a cylinder drain cock touching a bogie wheel (the drain cock had been pushed in in handling). Not too bad? Thanks for a good day, gentlemen.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Tony Wright

[lee74clarke]

I believe the reason why this is prevalent on RTR models is probably down to production expediency; foolproofing the assembly process and cost. To correctly represent the eccentric crank leaning forward on both sides would require left and right hand components.

 

I have successfully corrected it on the Hornby chassis that was used to convert one of David West's A3s into Great Northern. The crankpin needed to be pushed out of the back of the wheel and have two extra "half flats" filed onto the flange that locates in the wheel hub. Just replacing it doesn't fully guarantee that it would stay in this position so some Araldite was used to fill the gaps and lock it in place. It's a small improvement but worth the effort IMHO.

 

P1110007_sm.JPG

P1110034_sm.JPG

 

I haven't had the opportunity to try correcting a Bachmann loco yet.

 

Cheers....Morgan

Don't know about leaning backwards or forwards, but that's a cracking looking A1/1. Edited August 28, 2014 by lee74clarke

[davidw]

Don't know about leaning backwards or forwards, but that 'a a cracking looking A1/1.

 

It's a beaut. Though the 14 + coaches I refereed to were comparatively light weight RTR's  My DJH A2 is the winner hands down in those stakes and one of my A1's gets the wooden spoon.

[t-b-g]

Wouldn't it be worth modelling them in forward gear, since I bet most of the time most of our locomotives are working forwards?

 

Surely that makes more sense than in mid-gear, when it can't move at all?  I would have thought this was more noticeable than a small crank position.

 

I'll confess a slight bias - I almost always notice the mid-gear position of the doodah, and I've never noticed the return foley fobwinker until that nice Mr Wright pointed it out.  

 

I've not quiet forgiven him for pointing out the absence of white painted milk churns on loco frontages either, and thus spoiling forever my enjoyment of naked locomotives running unencumbered...

 

I would bet that by far and away the most common state for a model loco is standing still. On a layout like Little Bytham, a tiny percentage of the locos are moving at any one time. The time most people will pay attention to valve gear in the flesh, rather than in a photograph, is when the loco is standing still in front of them.

 

As Tony W points out, the amount of valve movement at higher speeds is tiny so a mid gear position is closer to being correct more of the time than any other position.

 

Still wrong but possibly a best compromise.

 

All good reasons for modelling the GCR, with not a bit of valve gear in sight!

 

Now if you think that the Belgian with the unspellable name made things difficult, have a look at the outside Joy valve gear on some LNWR locos and explain how that moves...........

 

At least Joy is easy to spell!

 

Tony

[micklner]

The photos show the quality of the Hornby A4 mouldings compared to the the Wills version . I think I can forgive the angle of the return crank compared to that quality.

 

 

As to the Bachmann A2 very easy to alter the angle , remove the crank and just cut a new slot in the pin on the either side of the pin, make sure you cut straight otherwise the pin sides could fail with disasterous results. On guess how I know !!.

 

As to GN the poor old maligned old girl looks superb, heres another one on the go at the moment.

 

 

 

This will be 113 in LNER Apple Green in due course.

 

 

[ROY@34F]

Same here. Before reading this thread I was getting along just fine not even knowing what a return crank is, let alone at what angle it should lean.

 

Ignorance? Certainly. Blissful? Most definitely!

 

My apologies to Tony and anyone else who might be mortified by my cavalier attitude to Walshe... Wealsche... Waelsha... gubbins ;-)

You may be interested in this photo of my B1 with comet valve gear (& chassis) and built in forward gear. I.E. with the radius rod in the lower half of the radius link/expansion link.

It's something I like to do, as the engine is usually going forward, as you say. I have modified my Hornby A3s &A4s. T.W. thinks I'm mad....but he says it nicely !

Re. the return crank/eccentric crank, I always look at it that it FOLLOWS the driving crank (which it is fixed to) by quarter of a turn (well plus a couple or so degrees actually)

when the engine is going forward, whichever side of the engine you are. So as T.W. says, with the driving crank on BDC (bottom dead centre) , the return crank is leaning right looking on the right side of the engine, and leaning left on the left. 

 

Apologies for butting in Tony, but thought I'd add my two penneth.

[Tony Wright]

You may be interested in this photo of my B1 with comet valve gear (& chassis) and built in forward gear. I.E. with the radius rod in the lower half of the radius link/expansion link.

It's something I like to do, as the engine is usually going forward, as you say. I have modified my Hornby A3s &A4s. T.W. thinks I'm mad....but he says it nicely !

Re. the return crank/eccentric crank, I always look at it that it FOLLOWS the driving crank (which it is fixed to) by quarter of a turn (well plus a couple or so degrees actually)

when the engine is going forward, whichever side of the engine you are. So as T.W. says, with the driving crank on BDC (bottom dead centre) , the return crank is leaning right looking on the right side of the engine, and leaning left on the left. 

 

Apologies for butting in Tony, but thought I'd add my two penneth.

Butt in as much as you like, Roy, your comments are always welcome.

 

The B1 looks excellent - but (there's always a but!) I assume it's got an early Comet chassis and valve gear. If so, it's the one designed by the late Steve Woofe who used the Roche drawing as a guide. That being the case, the eccentric rod is too short and the die-block is thus too far back. How to ruin someone's evening! - Three of my B1s have this old chassis, the other four Comet-framed ones have the new one. I'll take some pictures to show the difference.

[45609]

Firstly, the A1/1 conversion. Having seen it in the flesh, I can vouch for its excellence (even if it can haul 14 bogies when 'only' in mid-gear). My only 'critical' comment would be that the cabside numbers are too closely grouped. Were they in one piece?

 

Hello Tony,

 

That's a very fair criticism to make and otherwise thanks for the kind comment.  The number came in a Modelmasters set with nameplates.  As you probably know they come in one piece.  Having looked at a few photos again this evening I'll agree that they're a bit close together especially the spacing between the 6 and 0.  Shame on me or not checking but it does also beg the question on how well the decal makers research such subtleties as the number spacing in specific sets like this.  Here is the best photo of the prototype I could find online (click image to see it larger).

 

Doncaster Works. by cabsaab900, on Flickr

 

Cheers....Morgan

Edited August 28, 2014 by mlgilbert30

[peach james]

Tony,

 

A couple points from the peanut gallery on the other side of Canada.

 

1.  Thank you for trusting a 14 year old with your layout.  They are not all holligans, seeking out the nearest football pitch (or supply of alcohol to drink...). 

2.  Thank you for being honest about how LB has been constructed.  I have seen pocket book modelers who refuse to acknowledge how they got their object/model built.  I'm a pocket book modeler.  I didn't build any of my steam engines.  I bought them.  Same thing goes for the OO scale things- I run RTR with little modification, it isn't what I am greatly interested in, but I have put a lot of work into the signaling system and control system. 

3. Thanks for opening up your house to so many visitors. 

 

I enjoy reading your thread,

 

James

[Tony Wright]

Just a few points..........

 

I'm astonished how much my scribblings generate interest, and thanks once more for all the positive comments.

 

I've been reading back through some of the more recent postings and, if I may, would like to make the following observations.

 

With regard to commissioned models, I think it's fair to expect the model-maker to have done some research with regard to detail/livery/condition/etc, when taking on the job to build what you want. That said, I think it's a bit naive to just state a year and expect the builder to get it right without further information. Some builders might just build the loco kit as supplied, not taking into consideration any subtle differences which might not be catered for, especially if he/she has to source extra bits. When I built locos on commission, I 'insisted' the client specify EXACTLY what he/she wanted especially with regard to the time it was to be representative of. Where I built ECML big-stuff, this usually wasn't a problem because I had most of the necessary documentation to cross-reference with the client. However, as in the case where I built two arcane 'Buffalo' 0-6-0Ts, one saddle, one pannier, I had to closely liaise with the customer to make sure I got things right, and he provided me with several books/photographs which were not in my collection. When I recently built that 'nasty' little B&M 0-6-0ST in EM gauge for Rob Kinsey, he provided me with a working 'library' of information. I couldn't have built it otherwise. Just to suppose that a builder has a 'working knowledge' of what he's building and leaving him to it, is foolish if I may be so bold. I know if I'd have got something wrong, my clients would have it speeding back to me (thankfully, that never happened). 

 

Not only is it essential to know exactly the condition in which the loco is to be presented but I always insisted on the customer giving me the most comprehensive brief as to what minimum radii his loco would have to negotiate, what control system he used and what loads it might have to haul. The last point was, to some extent irrelevant, because I made sure all my locos would pull a prototype load. I'm not saying I got it all right all the time; for instance, the front steps had to go on a 'King Arthur' - a pity really, because they're so distinctive. In my opinion, if such 'essential' items have to be removed, then the railway has too-tight curves, resulting in too much compromise. If possible, I delivered the loco personally, so I could see it in operation on its home layout. I insisted on no payment until the customer was entirely happy. On another occasion, with a B17 I built for Gilbert, the Gibson bogie wheels (the only manufacturer at the time who made the correct 12-spoke wheels) were not happy on his track and neither were the extended cylinder drain pipes. Markits bogie wheels were eventually substituted and (I think) the drain cocks had to be cut back. A great pity because it spoilt the look of the loco. Part of the problem was caused by the chassis being live. Were I building it now, I'd have the chassis dead for DCC-operation. 

 

Whatever the 'cosmetic' nature of the model, it must work, and work perfectly. In my previous workshop, I had a length of deliberately-badly-laid track - kinks, wiggles, lumps and so on. Unless a chassis negotiated these, then it was adjusted until it did. As for buying locos from a showcase, I think it's daft not to insist on seeing the loco work first - on a reverse curve, both ways. Almost anyone can get a chassis to work on a dead straight yard of Peco track. As for the oft-heard excuse of 'it'll run-in', who is trying to kid whom?

 

I rarely built passenger rolling stock on commission, but I made damn sure what branding was carried, which windows were white, what type of bogie was appropriate and that it all ran smoothly, and so on and so on. 

 

As for using RTR stuff, that's great and I advocate it, especially if it's been altered/detailed/weathered/renamed/renumbered and the like. However, none of the RTR locos I possess run as well as my kit-built equivalents - they're not as smooth, not as powerful and don't have the same 'presence'. In case folk think that's boasting on my part, might I suggest that they ask some of my visitors of late? 

 

The difference between a Hornby A4's body-moulding and a SE Finecast one? Of course, the injection-moulded plastic product is superb. That said, might I respectfully suggest that one takes a look at the pictures on page 25 and page 32 of Peter Townend's little Ian Allan softback entitled The A4 Pacifics to see what a real A4's boiler cladding can look like?

 

Finally, the B1 valve gear..............

 

 

Here's Tony Geary's original Comet chassis underneath a Replica body. It's been improved by the use of Stelfox components as well, but the too-short eccentric rod and too-near-the-rear die-block are apparent. 

 

 

Here's my revised Comet chassis underneath a Bachmann B1 body. My indolence resulted in no sandpipes but the correct proportions of the gear are evident in comparison.

 

 

Here's a more-recent Bachmann B1 chassis, the one replacing the original poor split-chassis one. This time the return crank leans the correct way, both sides.

 

My Hornby B1 is being weathered by Tom Foster at the moment.

[Tony Wright]

Once more, my ineptitude in computer jiggery-pokery has resulted in one image being posted twice in the missive above, and the last one being added as a thumbnail, but they're all there.

 

My apologies.

[Andrew P]

I have to agree about the word presence, a RTR Loco looks superb, but put that against a Brass or GOOD whitemetal one that's painted to a high standard and you can see the difference through the paint.

 

Probably unbeknown to you Tony I was studying some of your Locos at fairly close quarters, not just the two Brass ones that were exquisite, but also the painted ones, and you can quite easily see the difference in a well built Kit from a RTR at about 3ft.

 

RTR is a lot better than it was, but it will NEVER match a well built Kit Loco.

 

Just going back to my point a couple of days ago about Passenger Coach wheels, why is it that almost all the RTR Locos people bring to run on LB run really quite well with very little jumping over points, but the same Manufacturer cant make coach wheels to run as good on the same track?

 

Andy.

[Arthur]

Re. the professional builder building a kit to match a particular locomotive at a particular time, that should surely be a discussion which takes place when the commission and costs are agreed. Be that paying the builder for research time and costs or the customer agreeing to furnish the required information and specifications. It shouldn't just be expected as part of the basic kit build costs. As ever, good communications are the key.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

I agree that well built kits have a presence to them, but what they also have in certain areas is 'thinness'.  For example, the slew of pre-grouping engines from rtr companies lately are exquisite.  Until you look at the edge of the cab walls.  Nearly a scale 6-8 inches thick i shouldn't wonder!  Exposed frames on the front is another are where a decent thin edge helps 'sell' the model's believability. 

 

Brass especially lends itself to thin cab side sheets, thin smoke deflectors and so on.  These are characteristic to the look of the locomotives, and well worth getting right.

 

I suspect that the current price point debate will prevent manufacturers exploring 'mixed media' models, using sheet metal for cabs and deflectors, castings for boilers and so on and continuing to use detailed plastic mouldings for other parts where appropriate.

 

ps, I'm hoping a nice Mod will pop along in a moment and sort out Tony's images for him.  I got quite excited by the new Bachmann B1 chassis until I finally twigged I was looking at the new Comet one

Edited August 28, 2014 by Dr Gerbil-Fritters

[Michael Edge]

In reply to Tony above, it's very nice when the customer knows all about the loco he wants and can supply all relevant material but I've been doing this for a living for nearly 38 years now and I can tell you it doesn't happen very often. Over that time I've had to build a lot of models of subjects I was familiar with but an awful lot more that I knew nothing about, I've never tried to specialise in any way, just take on anything that comes my way, the more variety the better. I've had to do a lot of research along the way but even models of contemporary equipment can be difficult, a couple of examples of this come to mind. Working on a model for Hunslet, a 150hp mines rack loco, they hadn't even built the full size one, I was getting drawings direct from the chief draughtsman and occasionally taking them back to him to tell him that something didn't fit. A series of model 325 sets for Royal Mail - ABB (now Bombardier) said  "there are no GA drawings, we don't do it like that now". A look round their drawing office revealed all the draughtsmen working on their own computers, drawing individual parts and assemblies but no drawing linking them all together. The best they could do for me was a painting diagram.

With regard to operation it's often very difficult to know what is required, much of my work has probably never been run by the original owners, I often see them back when they are acquired by someone else. I do always ask about minimum radius - and then knock about 6" off whatever figure I'm given. Haulage power is even more difficult, I can only test properly if they are 00 or EM and I normally send out locos unweighted. The massive EM Carlisle layout has shown this up very well, I started by building locos for the layout's owner without any knowledge of what they were intended for, the layout hadn't been started then, and I'm now working on making these powerful enough to do the job they were intended to do. This is also a good example of the minimum radius curve question, I was told 48" minimum but when I eventually saw the track plan it was clearly 42". Since at this point I finished up doing most of the tracklaying I can test them at 42" minimum radius. A bigger problem has turned out to be gradients which are much steeper than intended and some of the trains are very heavy.