Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by thegreenhowards

  1. Gilbert, I love seeing the coaches in detail. The Gresley and Thompson stock looks very fine. Presumably the FO next to the RK would be for dining. Wouldn’t it have been lettered up as a Restaurant Car? I know this is hard to tell from the CWN so I’m just guessing! Andy
  2. Tony, I’m glad you’ve relented and are continuing to do a limited number of sales. You proved the doommongers (including me) wrong last time with the prices you achieved and it just shows that TLC from a respected name can achieve a good premium on these kits (compared with eBay or other auctions if not to the original price). I think you could charge a significantly greater premium for your time (for either CRUK or yourself) given the obvious increase in value that you achieve. Concentrating on the best kits in the collection also seems like the best way to maximise value without getting overloaded. I’m resisting this batch so far but if you have the A1/1 lurking then I will be straight in! Regards Andy
  3. Could it be a path available for when the mainline was blocked for engineering?
  4. Looking good Rob, I’m no expert on the prototype but it captures the look. I look forward to seeing it in the flesh. Does this have to wait for your new bigger printer? Andy
  5. Mike, The soldering was my attempt to add metal point rodding to the arms of the crank. Sorry, I didn’t explain very well. I can free the rivet up by applying heat but it seizes solid again as soon as it cools down. Andy
  6. Thanks Tony, I probably didn’t explain myself properly. The crank comes preassembled from DCC concepts. I was soldering on the rodding to the crank ends. I used 145 I think although some were done with electrical solder because I forgot my 145 when I went to the club. By low melt, I assume you mean 70C or similar? Will this destroy the bond on the 145? As for why use working point rodding. I think the movement of the rodding will look good at an exhibition and the tactile feel for operating the points will give the operators another dimension. Or the alternative answer may be similar to the Everest answer - ‘because it’s there’. Andy
  7. Thanks for your suggestions. I can see that the chemical blackening would help before I attempt any soldering. Although I find that if I remember to oil the joint well beforehand this works well as well. The issues I had are mainly when I forgot to oil the joint before soldering. If I understand correctly, the advice is to completely disassemble the joint by applying lots of heat, then chemically blacken the pivot points, then reassemble. However the joint is made with a rivet, so I would need to force that apart and then replace it - perhaps with a brass pin soldered underneath? Andy
  8. I have a soldering problem and where better to ask than on this thread! By way of context, we are trying to construct working point rodding for our club 0 gauge layout using the DCC concepts products. These are designed for 00, but are rather overscale and, to my eyes, look quite good for 0 gauge. The sales pitch suggests using them with a point motor to give an impression of point rodding moving as the point changes but also suggests that it may be possible to actually control the point using the kit and I can’t resist a challenge! So we are using the DCC Concepts cranks with gem levers, 0.7mm wire and home 3D printed stools (by @woko) and it seems to work as we have three points working smoothly so far. My problem is that I’ve managed to solder some of the cranks solid and I’m trying to rescue them. I’ve tried using desoldering braid with plenty of flux but I can’t get them to move. I’ve tried adding oil as I do the braid ‘sucking’ but to no avail. I attach a picture of the crank which is soldered solid on the right hand side with my finger for scale. I would ideally like to get rid of all the solder and get it rotating freely again. If that’s not possible then I may drill it out and use a brass dressmakers pin as a pivot. Any suggestions on how to approach it would be much appreciated.
  9. Thanks Tony, I regard my K3 as a just about acceptable layout loco which would make yours more than acceptable. Mine’s clearly deficient in the cab department and being all white metal lacks some crispness. The chassis also suffers from the Bachmann small wheels. But it runs nicely and will outhaul any of my other K3s (two Bachmann and two SE Finecast). It’s the only K3 which will haul my 50 wagon loaded coal train as shown in this short video and so that’s what it gets used for and I’m very happy with it. Andy
  10. With regard to white metal loco bodies on RTR chassis, I’ve done lots. I still find creating a smooth running chassis the most difficult part of a kit build and although I’ve had some success recently, for years I relied on RTR chassis to get my kits to run. I think things have moved on from the days when provided it had the same wheel arrangement, it was fine. There’s such a wide range of RTR out there that a suitable chassis is normally available. I generally have no major problems. The key things are that you will probably have to remove some metal on the body or chassis to get them to fit and you need to insulate the inside of the body. Here are some examples. Wills A3 on Hornby chassis. The body is no improvement on the Hornby one but the extra weight is useful. While a weighted Hornby one will pull nearly all my trains (up to 14 bogies with a smattering of metal coaches), this will pull more and I use it on a heavy/ stiff sleeper. N8 built in my teenage years on a Triang 0-6-0 chassis but later upgraded to a Bachmann E4. It needs a dust! Wills A4 on Hornby chassis. Again haulage is the main benefit. KX J50 on Bachmann pannier chassis. The weight of the body allowed space for a good DCC sound fitment. Done before Hornby one was available. Wills K3 body bought from ‘sir’ for a pittance and put on a Bachmann K3 chassis which had been dropped and the body smashed. Ks J3 on a Bachmann pannier chassis. Cotswold F1 upgraded with SE Finecast parts and converted to F2 running on Bachmann LYR 2-4-2 chassis. Any questions, please ask. Andy
  11. Brian/ Gilbert, my votes are as follows: 11. A1/1. This is now a huge missing link for an GNML 1950s layout and is probably my no1 vote of any of your polls (although some pre grouping coaches would have been higher if allowed!). 7. B2. I have one kit built version but would like Royal Sovereign as that was a regular on the beer trains. 5. I would struggle to justify a K2 but they’re rather nice and I think they must have worked through to KX in the early ‘59s on occasion so I’d probably justify one. 3. D3. I could justify no.2000 on its directors saloon duties in the early fifties, so I’d go for that. None of the other D2 or D3s would be suitable for my layout. 4. I think a decorative valence D16/3 would have worked on the Cambridge beer trains in the early fifties so I’d go for one of them - they’re rather attractive after all. 13. 60503/60504. These had different boilers/cabs to the Hornby A2/2s and would not be an easy conversion. Therefore almost as big a missing link as the A1/1. I wouldn’t vote for the others because either I’m perfectly happy with the RTR versions I have (K3, A1) or they have no credible link to the south end of the GNML in the ‘50s (P2, D2). I know the K3 has wheels which are too small but I’d never have noticed if someone hadn’t pointed it out. The bigger gap for me is the lack of front footsteps and I’ve scratch built some for mine. Anyway I have 5 (2 Bachmann, 3 SE Finecast/ Wills) and that’s probably 4 too many! I can’t see any obvious weakness in the Bachmann A1. Andy
  12. The way to get all that detail to stay on is to solder it. But that might get a bit messy with the plastic parts!
  13. Brian, I realise that. I was just trying to rule out the quints. They were called quads because four coaches were articulated together in the same way as twin arts were two coaches coupled together. The twins rarely ran on their own but nobody says that’s confusing. Admittedly the GN quads were a little different as they always ran in trains of eight coaches (sometimes plus a strengthener). It does frustrate me how often one sees a single four car quad running on exhibition layouts. It’s not as if a full 8 car set is very long - similar to five mark 1s and with a good deal more character! Andy
  14. The GN quad arts had set numbers between 48 and 94 and the quints were higher numbers. So this was neither of these unless it could have been 12x in which case it was a quint art (I think). Hope that’s helpful. Andy
  15. Thanks Chris, You and I know that but try persuading my wife! I intend to get something up and running and later try to incorporate some if it permanently into the garden. The boards will all be covered with roofing felt soon as a precaution towards being left out. Regards Andy
  16. The Portescaps I have from my teenage years would have been bought late ‘70s/ early ‘80s. They are both quiet.
  17. Long time no post! It’s amazing how progress has slowed down now that the layout has been transferred to our club rooms. We only have Monday night to work on it, but at least we have a team of 3 or 4 regulars who are doing something every week. Latest addition has been some loverly 3D printed retaining walls from club member Rob ( @woko) as shown in the picture below. Our intention is to vary them along the layout to provide variety. The other main project has been installing working point rodding using the DCC concepts 00 gauge system. This is significantly over sale for 00 gauge but seems to work well for 0 gauge. Should have photos of this soon. Andy
  18. A bit of progress over the last few days. I have created some curves by making trapeziums out of the planks of 8” spruce like this. They are then glued together into a curved section. …and braced underneath. The angle at each end is 5.625 degrees meaning the joints are twice that (11.25) such that four make 45 degrees. The two I have done so far are joined in fives making a curve of just over 100 degrees, so I now have two sides of the garden covered (not quite a right angle corner). The radius depends on the length of the trapezium boards. These are 38cm on the longer side meaning a radius of c.6 ft. The other curves will be gentler. I have done some at 48 cm which will work out at 8 ft radius. I borrowed a chop saw from a friend to do the cutting. They are amazing bits of kit and make this job so much easier! I have loosely pinned down some track and run a test train as shown in this video.
  19. Just one vote for me - the N5. An updated N2 is overdue but I already have five (four Hornby and one scratch built bought second hand). I’ve weathered and detailed all these so would not want to throw them away and they’re good enough for me. Five is enough! An N1 would be a good bet with its wide use in the west riding as well as out of KX, but I have one - 3D printed on a N2 chassis - and they were being phased out down south by the early ‘50s. The C12 is also an elegant design and I love them but I have built a kit and one is enough given their limited workings down south. An A5 is a tempting prospect. I do want but I’m half way through building a kit which has got put in the too difficult box at present. If that fails I‘d take an A5 too but I feel I have to try to complete the kit first. Again there were only penny numbers in the KX area post war, so one is enough. I agree with the comment on updated Mk1 shorties especially if the GN specific CL and SLO could be included. Andy
  20. I meant to reply earlier to this but I forgot in the swarm of coupling posts! I agree that Kadees are great although even they don’t always want to couple on a curve. What put me off them was a combination of the price and the difficulty of fitting them to stock without NEM pockets and particularly to the Bachmann mark 1s with pockets in the wrong place. Last time I looked they were about £5 a pair compared to £1 for the magnets. I have about 200 coaches, so that amounts to a significant difference in price. Perhaps it was a false economy, but I do find the magnets very good 99% of the time. Andy
  21. Tony, I think the word ‘folly’ is a bit strong. I really enjoy the research for and putting together of each individual train and when I’m running them at home with time to fettle each rake it all works fine ( maybe on the second or third circuit) as I think the videos on my Gresley Jn thread show. When I’m running Gresley Jn for guests I just use the trains already set up in the fiddle yard. And I generally give them all a practice run first. This generally works very well, although I do admit to having an occasional derailment. Not many, but more than one sees on LB. What clearly is folly is trying to put them together in an ‘away’ layout and expecting them to work first time. Or trying to buy and store enough stock to run the whole lot without re-using any coaches. I think that, given my interest in recreating each train, using my Mark 1s multiple times is only sensible. After all one Mark 1 SK is much like another! Andy
  22. I also fancy a D2. I’m sure we will be debating that soon on one of Brian’s polls!
  23. I also like the Hornby / Roco couplings in fixed sets of stock with NEM pockets - both coaches and fitted goods vans like my blue spot fish.
  24. That’s a really good idea. Shame I’ve already glued all mine on!
  25. Thanks. The black tac is an idea worth trying. I think my main problem with the magnets is when I turn a coach round and have two corridor connectors together. This can push the magnets apart on a curve. But I’ve got to do some more testing after yesterday’s problems. At home they’re strong enough for my HOM rake which is 14 coaches including two with brass sides or, for instance, my 1735 KX-NCL/ Saltburn which load to 12 coaches including a metal triplet. Andy
  • Create New...