RMweb Gold kingmender Posted March 3, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 3, 2014 Forgot to mention that the rear pony wheels are about 1mm clear of the track! Investigation required Forgot to mention that the rear pony wheels are about 1mm clear of the track! Investigation required Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 here it is pre-weathering... Duke_of_Gloucester_71000_portrait2_R3191_4a_r1200.jpg So you glued on the four smoke deflector strengthening brackets, made metal front steps with strengthening bracket at the back, fabricated cylinder drain-cocks, removed the Hornby coupling slot from bogie, fitted vacuum and steam pipes, added a connecting bar to the footplate lubricator boxes, thinned down the edges of the bufferbeam and replaced the two small grab handles under the smokebox front with wire ones? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmcg Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Good luck with it,Rob! May the pick ups be with you. Thankyou Ian, I have every confidence in Hornby, just as I wait for a Heljan Garratt! The main range Duke runs fine on my 3' test track, quiet, smooth, and good at low speed straight out of the box. In view of Kingmender's post above I wonder if the theoretical performance of a 3-pole motor with flywheel should be any different from a 5-pole, if specified and built correctly? In theory it should be just about as good. Again with Hornby it appears that quality control in both components and assembly may be less than it once was? And with supplies of new models being so scarce, the prospect of return and replacement and/or refund is not appealing. And I HAD thought of stirring things up and putting my new Duke in the Hornby 'Best Ever' thread, too... value for money and all that, but then I wondered about the value of a quiet life, too... After all, of these models, I have two, my brother has one, they are all fine, but only his gets used on an extensive layout, and then it is on DCC with trains of 6 carriages, type 2/3 curves, and seems excellent and silent-running. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmcg Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 So you glued on the four smoke deflector strengthening brackets, made metal front steps with strengthening bracket at the back, fabricated cylinder drain-cocks, removed the Hornby coupling slot from bogie, fitted vacuum and steam pipes, added a connecting bar to the footplate lubricator boxes, thinned down the edges of the buffer-beam and replaced the two small grab handles under the smokebox front with wire ones? No, I haven't got the dexterity of that, and admire what you are doing with your Duke, I either painted or copy-pasted the various parts you describe, usually a bit of both. The upper picture a couple messages before shows it from the box, relatively unmolested by editing. I also blackened handrails and moved the deflector handrail forward a tad, painted the front hoses and a rough 3-link thing, added a hint of coal, glued a broken front buffer back on straightened the reversing lever, took three photos and blended them, distorted the front one to retain perspective, changed the colours, narrowed some flanges, and generally enjoyed myself. edit; p.s. I should have painted a short lubricator arm, not the long version... also there are no sanders. Yet... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ian Hargrave Posted March 3, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 3, 2014 My duke arrived last week and after chipping at the weekend I ran it on our club layout last night. Runs ok but seems to suffer from a lack of steam! Whilst it was sure footed it lacked go, with 6 Pullmans it slowed markedly on gradients (1:70ish) and whilst i'm not looking for a race track, top speed was low. By comparison a Britannia has a lot more grunt, doesn't slow so much on gradients. I'll run the duke again and load up but I think it will stall long before it will slip. Looks like the new 3 pole motor lacks a lot from the 5. I'm expecting the p2 to be the same (crosti 9f looks like it has same motor block too) so future purchases are doubtful. I've never asked for cheaper and am not afraid of inflation so why are Hornby (and others) convinced cheaper is better? The detail has reduced so not great for the cabinet collector, so to has the performance so not great for those if us who want to run reasonable length trains. Failing to see the benefit and left disappointed, never mind the delays in production. Nice to have an rtr duke but feeling like I need to stop for a blow up before setting off again - thought this was supposed to be preserved and free steaming version! See my post 644 above for a different experience and the possible reasons for poor performance and for solutions for improvement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Sidelines Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Hello I see Ian has been putting you on the right track so to speak. ...... Runs ok but seems to suffer from a lack of steam! .. Even after lots of running there is still a slight whistle from the motor on my DoG. Performance wise it is much slower for a given controller setting (Gaugemaster DS) than the Britannia. However it must be well balanced because I haven't added any lead and it doesn't seem to slip like the Princess Royals and Princess Coronations (without added lead). I guess there must be some benefit in using a five pole motor as described in the instructions with my model! Regards Ray Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold toboldlygo Posted March 3, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 3, 2014 Slightly off topic I know, but what is the part number for the Britannia coupling rods (fluted and/or flat), you guys have been using? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold kingmender Posted March 4, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 4, 2014 See my post 644 above for a different experience and the possible reasons for poor performance and for solutions for improvement. Jthanks will investigate. It ran well, I.e. no stopping but low on power. From reading this thread I had considered adding tender pickups and moving the chip to the tender to add more weight, may try a interim with a Britannia tender to test. I'll let you know results Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ian Hargrave Posted March 4, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 4, 2014 Jthanks will investigate. It ran well, I.e. no stopping but low on power. From reading this thread I had considered adding tender pickups and moving the chip to the tender to add more weight, may try a interim with a Britannia tender to test. I'll let you know results For the "fix" with mine ,go back to page 22,post 539 and follow anything posted by Ray ( Silver Sidelines ). Hope you find it helpful and ultimately successful. Good luck ,Ian. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Sidelines Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Hello TBG Britannia Coupling Rods are X9599 - currently I could only find fluted rods. However as said previously Hornby Clan MacLeod is incorrectly fitted with solid rods so I swapped my new fluted rods for the Clan's solid rods. The finished picture. X9602 is the part number for the Britannia tender chassis with yellow axle boxes and two pin plug (probably as used on Oliver Cromwell. Slightly off topic I know, but what is the part number for the Britannia coupling rods (fluted and/or flat), you guys have been using? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Corbs Posted March 4, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 4, 2014 The thing is, I've read about all the inaccuracies, problems, things that need fixing, and various other issues..... I still want one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold toboldlygo Posted March 4, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 4, 2014 Hello TBG Britannia Coupling Rods are X9599 - currently I could only find fluted rods. However as said previously Hornby Clan MacLeod is incorrectly fitted with solid rods so I swapped my new fluted rods for the Clan's solid rods. The finished picture. X9602 is the part number for the Britannia tender chassis with yellow axle boxes and two pin plug (probably as used on Oliver Cromwell. Thanks Ray, I managed to find the fluted ones late last night on eBay - I need them for a Brit that I'm Renaming as the donor (Apollo) comes with solid ones!! I'm waiting for the 60's version of DoG to be released. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Sidelines Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Good ...I'm waiting for the 60's version of DoG to be released. This will be the swinging about version? Regards Ray Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold toboldlygo Posted March 4, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 4, 2014 Good This will be the swinging about version? Regards Ray Hopefully not made of Hemp or assembled by weed smoking Hippies.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 ....I'm waiting for the 60's version of DoG to be released. So that will be with cylinders and motion removed, and a great number of other parts missing, plus a rusty appearance, then Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmcg Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Here, also rather mischievously added to the 'best ever' thread, is my pic of the main range Duke. Added details as of the kind in the pack, also deflector stays added, bosses removed, handrail and smokebox handle re-painted, many small adjustments, tender rear modified, and quite a bit of 'messing around' with colours and contrast, but to my eye the model still has the look.' I wonder if, as shown here, the lower firebox side will have less plumbing on the 1960s version. I stole the look from a Britannia, and made it a little more like the 60s Duke. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 .... or we will all be building kits . Some of us prefer this anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmcg Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 A 'Railroad' Duke after a spot of non-virtual modelling.........(Photoshopped sky).... Brilliant stuff Coach, lovely photo, superb work, do I see lifting brackets on frame at front too? <g> This is how Hornby might have done it, and for whatever reason, didn't, and it's a lovely example of modelling. Truly a master craftsman's work, in my view. I just resized it a tad, will remove if you wish... I am being very disciplined and NOT adding carriages and steam effects! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmcg Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Nobody else has commented, the reversing rod need to be tucked up under the running plate in line with its housing from the cab, as per an edit I have done here, or maybe you could do it right... Reminds me how when you look at a model or a photo some things are obvious but don't get seen, sometimes even weeks later a pic looks so different... Superb picture, John Wayne might have even slightly twisted his mouth with a near-smile... edit; actually Coach this is the model that Hornby should have done but chose to do more with an accountant's eye, I suppose, thankyou for demonstrating how it can look. Can I mention the pipework on the firebox is different in BR-era pics, not sure if it's easy to change. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 2750 Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 No offence Rob, but did you really need to take Coachman's photos and repost directly under the original? I realise you have made a small edit to one, but the top has only been resized. It's a stunning model and top marks to Larry, but using his photos seems a bit much in my opinion especially when you could have just quoted Larry's post and suggested the alteration. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold MikeParkin65 Posted March 7, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 7, 2014 When real photoshopping weathering and detailing is regarded as equal to real modelling, what it the bloody point? I greatly enjoy seeing everyones work on here including yours and Robs. A strange question to pose though - 'what is the point?'. Its a hobby, there isn't a point. We are playing with model trains for personel satisfaction and the added bonus of being able to share with others who have a similar interest. Agree with you that there was no need to repost your image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigherb Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Rob never tells or shows how it is done. He has done in the past. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Brilliant stuff Coach, lovely photo, superb work, do I see lifting brackets on frame at front too? This is how Hornby might have done it, and for whatever reason, didn't, and it's a lovely example of modelling. Truly a master craftsman's work, in my view. I just resized it a tad, will remove if you wish... I am being very disciplined and NOT adding carriages and steam effects! duke_Larry_Goddard_1a_r1200.jpg Hi Rob, Can you please ask for the consent of the image originator before reproduction/amendment? Thanks, Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmcg Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Andy and all, I would not normally do any alteration to someone else's picture, but Larry altered one of my own pics some time ago (in fun), and I judged he wouldn't be too offended. I resized his preceding colour version of the Duke too, and Larry didn't appear to be offended. I wouldn't do it as a matter of course with anybody else's pics, and will remove it if Larry asks (which is what he offered when he modified my pic of an A3). Rob (I DO understand that nobody should modify others' pictures unless asked, so to Larry, sorry if it offended, will remove it if you wish) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmcg Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 No offence Rob, but did you really need to take Coachman's photos and repost directly under the original? I realise you have made a small edit to one, but the top has only been resized. It's a stunning model and top marks to Larry, but using his photos seems a bit much in my opinion especially when you could have just quoted Larry's post and suggested the alteration. I didn't need to re-post the edited pic under the original but it was so easy to fix the reversing rod. Poor form on my part to not ask first. I also sharpened the front and rear of the pic. Actually I was surprised nobody had mentioned the reversing rod. Also surprised that Larry apparently hadn't noticed. For what it's worth I am filled with admiration for Larry's work and in no way intended to do anything other than tidy the photo and show the rod's likely position. I use Paintshop Pro 6 editing and used a brush tool to hide the end of the rod and a 'select area' freehand tool to bend the front part 3 degrees up so it looked about 'right'. My apologies to all, I have always messed around with focus, sharpness, contrast, brightness and so on, and went over the mark in actually painting-over and bending a part of what was not my image. Rob typo edit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.