Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

I enjoyed the article, Tony - your photos are very impressive. It must be quite something in the flesh, even at this early stage of scenic development.

 

Alastair (Barry Ten)

Alastair,

 

When I say Carlisle is staggering - it really is breathtaking. 

 

I really count myself the most fortunate of individuals. I consider the Dordogne to be one of the most exquisite areas, not just in France, but of anywhere in Europe. David and Grace Johnson are the most wonderful of hosts and it was an immense privilege to spend ten days with them in that beautiful region, taking pictures (not all the time) of one of the greatest model railways ever built (or being built). Taking those pictures proved to be 'interesting'. My normal lighting for taking layout shots was hopelessly inadequate, apart from for close-ups. The room lighting isn't very bright so I couldn't rely on that, so adopted the approach of setting the lens to the smallest aperture (F32) and setting the ISO to the slowest speed, opening the iris and my wife and I walking around with powerful flash guns shooting in every direction for the 25 or so seconds of each exposure. Though we might have walked across the view in the background, we weren't 'captured'. 

 

After the articles are published in the RM, I'll post some pictures not used. We're returning next year for a further progress report. 

[robertcwp]

The East Coast and GN Main Line Carriage Working Notices that we have studied in our research for the Grantham project (and I must record grateful thanks to Robert Carroll for the work done to make these available for such study) reveal just how complex the operational plan was for the services in LNER days - 25 years and a war away from that man with his axe. It seems that nothing was too much trouble to fine tune the formation of each train to match demand (presumably based on recorded traffic levels). The result was that no two trains were alike and many were re-marshalled at the end of the journey to create a different formation for the return run (not to mention the myriad of portions and through coaches that scattered hither and thither). Inevitably, some of these workings ended up with vehicles simply in the 'wrong' place at the end of the day so were returned back to point A on the most convenient service. This was by no means the exclusive reserve of catering vehicles.

 

Good to know the information is being put to use. I would have liked to have spent longer watching Grantham at Warley.

 

My carriage workings collection (now over 1,000 books) has taken years, and huge amounts of money, to build up. The four-figure dent to my bank balance today indicates that I have been successful in another auction so a few more books should be on the way very soon.

 

My main objective is to share the information and make it as freely available as I can, in contrast to some others who are very territorial, seek to suck up information from others but give little back and act as though they are superior beings in possession of knowledge and information they only share to a very limited extent in ways that they believe make themselves appear experts or in some way special. They tend not to interact very well with others though.

[Tony Wright]

Good evening Michael,

 

that is a superb model of a K3. For whatever reason, they seem to be a locomotive that people struggle with in model or kit form. I think I have seen half a dozen that really captures the prototype well, that is certainly one of them. I'm not a fan of the Bachmann model at all, probably worse than their A1.

Good evening Andrew,

 

Though the Bachmann K3 does have 'issues', it's worth persevering with to produce a reasonable layout loco. 

 

 

 

These are two further shots of the one featured recently. My limitations with regard to transfer lining are cruelly-exposed. However, in its layout home it fits in well with the rest of my loco stud. 

 

 

I, too, am not the greatest fan of the Bachmann A1, but, yet again, with a little tinkering, could a reasonable layout loco be the result? This one has had replacement DJH etched-brass deflectors fitted (spare in an A2/2 kit, and I've not got them entirely upright), the rear end lifted up to match the tender, wiggly pipes fitted, and has been renumbered/renamed and weathered. Where it suffers in comparison with the kit-built alternatives is its lack of pulling-power (that's why mine, with the exception of this one, have all been sold-on). However, as a layout loco? 

 

 

It's my opinion that a kit-built A1 will always have the edge. Yes, I should have changed that cast-on dart, but a kit-built A1 (like this DJH example) just looks so much crisper and 'realistic' to me. It helps, of course, if the paintwork is by Ian Rathbone. I also accept that the egalitarianism of the likes of a Bachmann A1 means that anyone can have one if they've got the cash. Not all can build a full-blown Pacific, and an RTR equivalent must have merit to many. Altering an improving one (and/or other RTR types) can provide a great sense of satisfaction - as long as the work is personal. 

[Willie Whizz]

Thanks,

 

I think you're more ironic than I am. 

 

Does the situation of the same person using two (or three?) different 'disguise' names happen very often? If it does, and the perpetrator is rumbled then that individual is liable to be ridiculed. I suppose they'll agree with themselves, or could they disagree to engender sympathy? A very 'tangled web' situation in my opinion. 

 

It's not good, is it ...  

 

So far as I can tell, the gentleman concerned no longer uses those usernames on here.  I believe he does post on (to reverse their frequent terminology about us here on RMWeb, which I'm very pleased to say I seldom see reciprocated) "another place", from time to time, under the guise of an A1-class named after a former Derby winner.  I still have great respect for his knowledge; just less respect now for his approach to conveying it sometimes - though as I am constantly reminded from other walks of life, there are always two sides to every story.

 

But it's such a pity issues like this sometimes arise from what can only be described as a lack of subtlety and basic politeness in drafting one's posts when differing or disagreeing. It's like making complaints to a shop, a bank, or a Utility provider - complain or disagree by all means, but do it 'nicely' in the first instance ... because that always leaves you the option of 'going nuclear' if the other party's response then really, really, pi$$£s you off ('scuse my French); whereas if you start-off like that, there really is nowhere else to go, so you may end-up looking just as bad or even worse than those you differ with.

[Headstock]

Good evening Andrew,

 

Though the Bachmann K3 does have 'issues', it's worth persevering with to produce a reasonable layout loco. 

 

K3 61812.jpg

 

K3 61812 02.jpg

 

These are two further shots of the one featured recently. My limitations with regard to transfer lining are cruelly-exposed. However, in its layout home it fits in well with the rest of my loco stud. 

 

Bachmann A1 60125.jpg

 

I, too, am not the greatest fan of the Bachmann A1, but, yet again, with a little tinkering, could a reasonable layout loco be the result? This one has had replacement DJH etched-brass deflectors fitted (spare in an A2/2 kit, and I've not got them entirely upright), the rear end lifted up to match the tender, wiggly pipes fitted, and has been renumbered/renamed and weathered. Where it suffers in comparison with the kit-built alternatives is its lack of pulling-power (that's why mine, with the exception of this one, have all been sold-on). However, as a layout loco? 

 

DJH A1 60128.jpg

 

It's my opinion that a kit-built A1 will always have the edge. Yes, I should have changed that cast-on dart, but a kit-built A1 (like this DJH example) just looks so much crisper and 'realistic' to me. It helps, of course, if the paintwork is by Ian Rathbone. I also accept that the egalitarianism of the likes of a Bachmann A1 means that anyone can have one if they've got the cash. Not all can build a full-blown Pacific, and an RTR equivalent must have merit to many. Altering an improving one (and/or other RTR types) can provide a great sense of satisfaction - as long as the work is personal. 

 

Tony,

 

I can't disagree with you, both locomotives can scrub up rather well with a bit of work. Some time ago I super detailed a Bachmann K3 as a quick stop gap measure. As yet it is still to be replaced, I have considered pairing it with the chassis I mentioned up the thread, however, it really deserves the time and effort putting into constructing something more appropriate to the spirit of the original workmanship. One little trick I did find improved the appearance of the Bachmann model was to cut away a fairly large section of running board, a section that Bachmann seems to have invented for no particular reason I could decern. I also removed the molded on sand box fillers behind the smokebox. What a difference this makes to the appearance of the boiler, suddenly it's big and round and curves away from the running board as on the real locomotive.

 

Another little tweak concerned the tender. The sides and bulkheads were cut back as far as the floor of the water space, leaving the dome, water filler and front toolboxes standing proud. The coping plates and front and rear bulkheads were then replaced with spare brass etched ones from the Bradwell LNER group standard tender kit. the rather poor photo below illustrates the finished result. Incidentally, the tender on the V2 standing behind was done in the same fashion though that is of brass construction. By doing it this way I was able to avoid the double thickness effect of soldering the coping plate on to the full height brass sides of the original kits tender design. The original thickness of the K3 tender is visible at the back end as I had run out of rear coping plates, I still think it gives that crispness you mentioned in your post.

 

Edit I think I may have also replaced the handrail Knobs with something that didn't stick out as far.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Headstock

[Dr Al]

This is wonderful work, Alan. 

 

I honestly don't know how you builders in the smaller scales do it. 

 

If I could make just one observation it would be might it be worth representing the motion support brackets between the end of the slidebars and the footplate? They are quite distinctive. 

 

Please, keep on showing us more of work of this quality. 

 

Thank you indeed for your praise, and constructive criticism, Tony. I will have a look at the possible options to add to the models, though clearances for the motion do need to be exaggerated in N to ensure running is robust (I had a bit of trouble with the K3 locking up at first).

 

I offer you another recent (in the last year) construction, this being an RTR conversion, something that is more of a mainstay for N gauge modelling.

 

 

Now one would be forgiven for glancing and assuming this is just a Farish WD (with some gratuitous dust - please forgive that).

 

However, a wheel count reveals this as  Farish WD+WD = WD, namely two 2-8-0s combined to give a 2-10-0 in some RTR modification madness. At least that's what it felt like when I took the Dremel to the chassis of the first of two £100 models. Using RTR did give some limitations, namely that it's actually a smidgen too long, with the wheelbase of the rear drivers being a little large, but this was enforced by the only logical way I could find of splicing the rear of one chassis onto the front of the other.

 

 

It took a fair bit of deliberation to decide exactly where to cut, with the opposite side cut in a different location, to overlap the sides and add strength. This took a fair amount of filing of the edges of the cuts to get the two chassis down to exactly the right positioning (I cut both slightly large) so it ran smoothly with no tightness with the additional set of wheels - this being a requirement or the whole thing would have been scrapped!

 

The relatively body was simple by comparison, with the prototype's simple austerity nature adding to the ease of grafting two boilers together, as they were both the same diameter at the join point - this being at the second boiler band from the cab. The firebox base had to be created from shaped plasticard and the cabs were also spliced together to give the longer 2-10-0 version.

 

 

This, I think, is the difference between N and other scales - we simply don't have the wheels or chassis kits available to scratch-build in quite the same way as OO or larger - really we are heavily reliant on RTR chassis as a basis, albeit, one can take conversions to pretty far extremes with swapping of components or hacks as this 2-10-0. It's maybe a different set of goalposts therefore, but hopefully still in the "unique, someone built it" range of modelling.

 

Of course there are a few kits in N, and on the WD theme, long before Bachmann supplied the Farish 2-8-0 there was a Foxhunter whitemetal/brass kit, supposedly for a Farish 8F, but someone (not me!) quickly realised that Kato made a much nicer chassis in their Japanese 9600. I did this, and the kit had to be heavily modified, and a scratchbuilt front bogie added:

 

 

That was all solder construction (fiddly), and whilst not quite as good as the Bachmann RTR in many ways, it is still retained in my fleet. I do really like the very fine eccentric rods on the Kato chassis.

 

Oh, and what to do with that spare WD tender from the first conversion? 46236, in 1948 loco-exchanges form soaked it up (part finished lining in this snap):

 

 

Well, I had to do something with it...

 

Best Regards,

Alan

[queensquare]

 

 

This, I think, is the difference between N and other scales - we simply don't have the wheels or chassis kits available to scratch-build in quite the same way as OO or larger - really we are heavily reliant on RTR chassis as a basis, albeit, one can take conversions to pretty far extremes with swapping of components or hacks as this 2-10-0. It's maybe a different set of goalposts therefore, but hopefully still in the "unique, someone built it" range of modelling.

 

 

Best Regards,

Alan

Great to have a bit of 2mm/N on the thread again, they look superb Alan, I particularly like the Duchess. The combination of one of the most beautifully proportioned locos built with that rather, stark, ugly tender works really well.

 

I think the reason there are very few wheels or chassis kits available to N gauge modellers is that you are a rare bird. The vast majority of N gauge enthusiasts are reluctant to make much for themselves and certainly wouldn't   contemplate the major surgery you have carried out on the WD, with excellent results.

 

I'm sure you've been asked before but have you given 2FS a try. I've done some major hacks on N models for customers and, to be honest, find them far more difficult than scratch or kitbuilding in 2FS, mainly because you are forced to work with what you are given by the manufacturer. The wide range of wheels, gears and an increasing number of kits available from the Association means the world is your oyster in terms of what you want to build. 

This is not meant to knock N, far from it - I'm a huge fan of modelling across the 2mm/N family. I offer it simply as a suggestion to someone who obviously enjoys making things.

 

Below is a batch of Q6s I have recently built from the excellent Bob Jones kit, one of which is destined for Bob's Fencehouses layout. They are just in plain black at the moment, boiler bands will be added using decal strip at the final painting stage.

 

 

 

Jerry

[it's-er]

Tony,

 

Some time ago I super detailed a Bachmann K3 ... One little trick I did find improved the appearance of the Bachmann model was to cut away a fairly large section of running board, a section that Bachmann seems to have invented for no particular reason I could decern. I also removed the molded on sand box fillers behind the smokebox. What a difference this makes to the appearance of the boiler, suddenly it's big and round and curves away from the running board as on the real locomotive.

 

 I'm intrigued, Headstock, but I don't follow/understand what you did. Can you give us a photo or two to show the difference between the standard Bachmann K3 and the change you made? I might then understand.

 

As it happens, I've always thought Bachmann's K3 a lovely model, and one that is often overlooked, But I'd be really interested to see the improvement you've done. Many thanks,

 

John Storey

[Accurascale Fran]

 

My main objective is to share the information and make it as freely available as I can, in contrast to some others who are very territorial, seek to suck up information from others but give little back and act as though they are superior beings in possession of knowledge and information they only share to a very limited extent in ways that they believe make themselves appear experts or in some way special. They tend not to interact very well with others though.

 

Fair play to your Robert, it's fantastic that there are highly knowledgeable people such as yourself in the hobby who freely assist others with correct information and are not information hoarders. Sadly they're all too many in the hobby which can make research that bit more complex. Thankfully for every information hoarder, there is an information sharer which makes researching projects (like the ones I work on) so much easier and accurate for the end user. 

[Richard E]

Somehow I have missed this thread in the past, now playing catch up and reached page 112. Some awesome stuff here which I now know I have been passing within yards of twice a day for a number of years as I commute past Little Bytham daily. Amazing what you miss if you don't know about it.

 

I don't get to pop into the Willoughby Arms as much as I used to (it's a great pub if anyone is in the area, used to be the home of Newby Wyke brewery, it had a spell of lesser fortune after the brewery moved but is on the up and up now it seems). I also made one visit to the Mallard (now a private house). Since the Mallard closed in 2002 it means I've been visiting pubs in the village for at least 14 or 15 years now!

 

I've seen Tony at the Peterborough show a couple of times now and I have to say what a gent, able to educate and amuse and yet, somehow, remain so natural in his delivery that it all seems very casual yet totally entrancing. So, Tony, please continue you are appreciated by far more folk than many realise. And as for that photography, a very skilful eye there.

[CME and Bottlewasher]

Good evening Andrew,

 

Though the Bachmann K3 does have 'issues', it's worth persevering with to produce a reasonable layout loco. 

 

K3 61812.jpg

 

K3 61812 02.jpg

 

These are two further shots of the one featured recently. My limitations with regard to transfer lining are cruelly-exposed. However, in its layout home it fits in well with the rest of my loco stud. 

 

Bachmann A1 60125.jpg

 

I, too, am not the greatest fan of the Bachmann A1, but, yet again, with a little tinkering, could a reasonable layout loco be the result? This one has had replacement DJH etched-brass deflectors fitted (spare in an A2/2 kit, and I've not got them entirely upright), the rear end lifted up to match the tender, wiggly pipes fitted, and has been renumbered/renamed and weathered. Where it suffers in comparison with the kit-built alternatives is its lack of pulling-power (that's why mine, with the exception of this one, have all been sold-on). However, as a layout loco? 

 

DJH A1 60128.jpg

 

It's my opinion that a kit-built A1 will always have the edge. Yes, I should have changed that cast-on dart, but a kit-built A1 (like this DJH example) just looks so much crisper and 'realistic' to me. It helps, of course, if the paintwork is by Ian Rathbone. I also accept that the egalitarianism of the likes of a Bachmann A1 means that anyone can have one if they've got the cash. Not all can build a full-blown Pacific, and an RTR equivalent must have merit to many. Altering an improving one (and/or other RTR types) can provide a great sense of satisfaction - as long as the work is personal. 

Hi Tony,

 

As always, great work and sage advice.

 

The crispness that you speak of is often something that one is not conscious of yet it greatly adds to a model (adds to a model by subtracting - if you see what I mean Ha Ha!) - of course such is easier to achieve with etched brass whereas manufacturing considerations dictate that RTR injection moulded plastic (IMP) is thicker and/or shaped for release from the mould etc. One dodge I do, with plastic models, depending on whether one can do so without ruining a paint-job (or if part of more major works/building from scratch such things may not be a consideration), is to thin/par-down visible edges. The roofs for my MK1's are vac-formed styrene sheet, but at the roof ends - which have to be shaped anyway - I par the edge back so as to get the razor like effect of the prototype without loosing the structural integrity. Some of these tricks, including hiding some things with the absence of colour (ie painting such matt black - perhaps recesses and/or pre-shading) are akin to stage-craft or trompe l'oeil but are often quite effective on layout models and more often than not, in close-up too. The knack is to do enough to fool the onlooker and tackling the most obvious aspects of a model without a complete rebuild/reinventing the wheel....loco, carriage, wagon etc....

 

Kindest regards with seasonal greetings,

 

M.

[Dr Al]

Great to have a bit of 2mm/N on the thread again, they look superb Alan, I particularly like the Duchess. The combination of one of the most beautifully proportioned locos built with that rather, stark, ugly tender works really well.

 

I think the reason there are very few wheels or chassis kits available to N gauge modellers is that you are a rare bird. The vast majority of N gauge enthusiasts are reluctant to make much for themselves and certainly wouldn't   contemplate the major surgery you have carried out on the WD, with excellent results.

 

I'm sure you've been asked before but have you given 2FS a try. I've done some major hacks on N models for customers and, to be honest, find them far more difficult than scratch or kitbuilding in 2FS, mainly because you are forced to work with what you are given by the manufacturer. The wide range of wheels, gears and an increasing number of kits available from the Association means the world is your oyster in terms of what you want to build. 

This is not meant to knock N, far from it - I'm a huge fan of modelling across the 2mm/N family. I offer it simply as a suggestion to someone who obviously enjoys making things.

 

Below is a batch of Q6s I have recently built from the excellent Bob Jones kit, one of which is destined for Bob's Fencehouses layout. They are just in plain black at the moment, boiler bands will be added using decal strip at the final painting stage.

Jerry

 

Thanks Jerry. It's been suggested to me before to try 2mmFS. The reason I don't go that route is primarily because I ultimately want a large mainline railway which all this stock will ultimately run on, rather than my interim 9x6' system. This is something N is underrated for, and actually fairly rarely used for. Being a pragmatist, building all the equiment needed to do that is something that I just don't think I could achieve time-wise (even being only 34!).

 

Therefore I try to have a pragmatic approach of using modified RTR where appropriate (minimum a mechanical strip down and fettle - all locos get this) and full modification/building where prototypes aren't available. What I do try and achieve is a reasonable uniformity of standards across the various models, and this has moved as time has advanced meaning older models tend to get revisited and revamped.

 

But building something unique and different that nobody else has has grown on me massively over my modelling time - I totally understand Tony's viewpoint on this - I used to be RTR unmodified like many others, but at the time RTR was so basic (detail-wise) in N that I quickly started adding lamp irons, coupling hooks and various bits to enhance the front ends of steam locos* - that was the start! From then I've built most of the N gauge kits out there, and moved on to more advanced hack-ery, such as above, an A2/2, the soletary W1 4-6-4 and others.

 

I like your Q6s - where is this kit available? Do you think it could be adapted for N gauge use?

Thanks,

Alan

 

* As an aside, it amazes me how many don't even fit the detail bits that come with modern RTR N - they might spend oodles of cash on DCC conversions, sound, and all the likes, but don't bother fitting the coupling hooks, which stand out way more! Strange!

[MJI]

Good to know the information is being put to use. I would have liked to have spent longer watching Grantham at Warley.

 

My carriage workings collection (now over 1,000 books) has taken years, and huge amounts of money, to build up. The four-figure dent to my bank balance today indicates that I have been successful in another auction so a few more books should be on the way very soon.

 

My main objective is to share the information and make it as freely available as I can, in contrast to some others who are very territorial, seek to suck up information from others but give little back and act as though they are superior beings in possession of knowledge and information they only share to a very limited extent in ways that they believe make themselves appear experts or in some way special. They tend not to interact very well with others though.

 

As a coaching stock enthusiast I am gratefull

[Mallard60022]

Somehow I have missed this thread in the past, now playing catch up and reached page 112. Some awesome stuff here which I now know I have been passing within yards of twice a day for a number of years as I commute past Little Bytham daily. Amazing what you miss if you don't know about it.

 

I don't get to pop into the Willoughby Arms as much as I used to (it's a great pub if anyone is in the area, used to be the home of Newby Wyke brewery, it had a spell of lesser fortune after the brewery moved but is on the up and up now it seems). I also made one visit to the Mallard (now a private house). Since the Mallard closed in 2002 it means I've been visiting pubs in the village for at least 14 or 15 years now!

 

I've seen Tony at the Peterborough show a couple of times now and I have to say what a gent, able to educate and amuse and yet, somehow, remain so natural in his delivery that it all seems very casual yet totally entrancing. So, Tony, please continue you are appreciated by far more folk than many realise. And as for that photography, a very skilful eye there.

The Willoughby Arms is one of the few pubs I would actually drive to ( although it is an hour away) as it is really very good indeed. In fact, if I did drive there I'd book accommodation so that I could actually have a few drinks as well as some of the lovely food they have on offer. Then I'd try to bunk Little Bytham..................

Now, I wouldn't normally blow somebody's trumpet as it is unhygienic, however I must say how useful Mr Carrol's information is. It is such a wonderful resource and I do hope that when the 'time' comes and may that be many many years hence, it is passed on to another thoughtful and considerate Curator so that it remains available.

This info + the wonderful collection of Mr Bartlett's Wagon photographs are just invaluable. Thank you gentlemen.  

Phil

Edited December 14, 2016 by Mallard60022

[The Fatadder]

As a coaching stock enthusiast I am gratefull

As a coaching stock enthusiast I am gratefull

Without wanting to post a "me too", I don't know what I would have done in planning the passenger working as for Brent without it. Likely used just a few working from photos and leave it at that. In the process would have missed out on a lot of enjoyment going through lots of other old

Timetables and working dockuments filling in the gaps. All in all it's been a facinating addition to the planning of the layout.

[Headstock]

Tony,

 

Some time ago I super detailed a Bachmann K3 ... One little trick I did find improved the appearance of the Bachmann model was to cut away a fairly large section of running board, a section that Bachmann seems to have invented for no particular reason I could decern. I also removed the molded on sand box fillers behind the smokebox. What a difference this makes to the appearance of the boiler, suddenly it's big and round and curves away from the running board as on the real locomotive.

 

 I'm intrigued, Headstock, but I don't follow/understand what you did. Can you give us a photo or two to show the difference between the standard Bachmann K3 and the change you made? I might then understand.

 

As it happens, I've always thought Bachmann's K3 a lovely model, and one that is often overlooked, But I'd be really interested to see the improvement you've done. Many thanks,

 

John Storey

 

Good Evening John,

 

to clarify.

 

Photo 1 The areas highlighted in red are the parts removed from the tender and replaced with spare brass replacements.

 

Photo 2 The areas on the Bachmann K3 boiler that I wanted rid of. They consisted of

A. An unsightly seam line

B. An odd extension of the running board back towards the boiler and a right angle upright.

C. A sandbox filler molded to the boiler.

 

To my eye all this clutter made the boiler look puny, and none of it existed on the real locomotive. The running board was also filed back at an angle on its back edge.

 

Photo 3 The finished result after removing the clutter so that more of the boiler became visible to the eye, hopefully creating the impression of a more muscular locomotive. In addition, a large screw head was removed from the motion bracket, a sliding ventilator added to the roof and various pipe runs added to the lubricators and smoke box. In addition, the locomotive received front steps, injectors, and the boiler bands were paired back. Despite the modifications, I remain unhappy with the chassis with its undersized wheels and clunky valve gear. Has anybody noticed that the radius rod doesn't even reach the valve spindle guide?

 

It was with a twinge of sadness that I took some pictures of my late father's unfinished K3 this morning, the loco that was due to replace 1870, I include them below. Time to put sadness aside and get the little beast finished I think. The first photo shows that a little bit of work is required to straighten up the motion bracket and repair or replace the forward valve guide. The second shot reveals the two to one leavers, a sight to behold when in motion. Both the cylinders and motion bracket iare designed to come off as one unit to facilitate painting.

Edited December 14, 2016 by Headstock

[Tony Wright]

Somehow I have missed this thread in the past, now playing catch up and reached page 112. Some awesome stuff here which I now know I have been passing within yards of twice a day for a number of years as I commute past Little Bytham daily. Amazing what you miss if you don't know about it.

 

I don't get to pop into the Willoughby Arms as much as I used to (it's a great pub if anyone is in the area, used to be the home of Newby Wyke brewery, it had a spell of lesser fortune after the brewery moved but is on the up and up now it seems). I also made one visit to the Mallard (now a private house). Since the Mallard closed in 2002 it means I've been visiting pubs in the village for at least 14 or 15 years now!

 

I've seen Tony at the Peterborough show a couple of times now and I have to say what a gent, able to educate and amuse and yet, somehow, remain so natural in his delivery that it all seems very casual yet totally entrancing. So, Tony, please continue you are appreciated by far more folk than many realise. And as for that photography, a very skilful eye there.

Richard,

 

I'm stumped for something to say (and that's very rare indeed!). 

 

All I'll try and say is that I agree with you that the Willoughby is always worth a visit, particularly when Pete is the chef. 

 

The business of assisting other modellers is something that this hobby, in the main, should be proud of. One of my mentors, over 40 years ago, was the late Brian van Meeteren of Rugby. His layout, Kelston Road, appeared in the 1980 Model Railway Constructor Annual. I'd never seen Thompson Pacifics in 4mm model form before (apart from one by Steve Torres of York) and thought 'I can do that'. Why? Because Brian was the most modest of men and very self-effacing as to his abilities. He more or less said 'If I can do it, anyone can.' And, I did. 

 

I've always tried to live up to that approach. 

 

Robert Carroll is a good friend of mine and, without wishing to make him squirm, what a fantastic job he's doing in making all those carriage working records available. I only scratched the surface over 20 years ago in building trains for Stoke, but he's making a superlative resource, available to all. 

 

I wonder why some folk are 'precious' about what they know. A friend is contemplating building a prototype layout, the like of which has been done before. When he approached the owner about sharing information, he tells me he was effectively snubbed. Why? Could the other guy have been potentially jealous in case the new layout proved to be better? 

 

I've been lucky enough to ask the right questions of the right people at the right time. If I can impart just a tiny bit of what I've leaned from some great modellers in the hobby, then that's the least I can do; either through my writings, through DVDs, through demonstrations and tutorials or on RMweb.

 

It's humbling when I see what other folk are building; so, my thanks to all for posting examples of their work on here.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Edited December 14, 2016 by Tony Wright

[it's-er]

Many thanks, Headstock, for your full explanation at post 13,416 above, and especially for your second and third photos - they make really clear what you did to the Bachmann K3. Not sure I'll follow suit, but I'm interested to see the difference it made.

 

John

[Headstock]

Many thanks, Headstock, for your full explanation at post 13,416 above, and especially for your second and third photos - they make really clear what you did to the Bachmann K3. Not sure I'll follow suit, but I'm interested to see the difference it made.

 

John

 

No problem John,

 

I'm glad you found it of interest. For myself the way forwards will be the South Eastern Finecast kit, it is very impressive. It has the advantage over the Bachman model that the boiler is fully rounded and the work on the footplate is all done for you. The only problem is that when I get the loco finished it will require about thirty assorted fish vans building to go with it. Maybe that's not a problem at all, fish vans are cool.

[Tony Wright]

Thanks Jerry. It's been suggested to me before to try 2mmFS. The reason I don't go that route is primarily because I ultimately want a large mainline railway which all this stock will ultimately run on, rather than my interim 9x6' system. This is something N is underrated for, and actually fairly rarely used for. Being a pragmatist, building all the equiment needed to do that is something that I just don't think I could achieve time-wise (even being only 34!).

 

Therefore I try to have a pragmatic approach of using modified RTR where appropriate (minimum a mechanical strip down and fettle - all locos get this) and full modification/building where prototypes aren't available. What I do try and achieve is a reasonable uniformity of standards across the various models, and this has moved as time has advanced meaning older models tend to get revisited and revamped.

 

But building something unique and different that nobody else has has grown on me massively over my modelling time - I totally understand Tony's viewpoint on this - I used to be RTR unmodified like many others, but at the time RTR was so basic (detail-wise) in N that I quickly started adding lamp irons, coupling hooks and various bits to enhance the front ends of steam locos* - that was the start! From then I've built most of the N gauge kits out there, and moved on to more advanced hack-ery, such as above, an A2/2, the soletary W1 4-6-4 and others.

 

I like your Q6s - where is this kit available? Do you think it could be adapted for N gauge use?

Thanks,

Alan

 

* As an aside, it amazes me how many don't even fit the detail bits that come with modern RTR N - they might spend oodles of cash on DCC conversions, sound, and all the likes, but don't bother fitting the coupling hooks, which stand out way more! Strange!

Dr Al,

 

I think you're wise to stick with N Gauge for your putative large main line railway. 

 

I've usually found N Gauge layouts more difficult to photograph, particularly getting in close, showing the rather fat flanges and over-wide treads on the wheels. 

 

However, if (in my view) N Gauge is done 'properly' - that is a railway in a landscape where the whole scene can be modelled, then the effects can be most realistic. As long as the temptation to try and cram too much in is resisted. Why doe we (still) see N Gauge layouts where there is not a square inch without something crammed into it? Not only that, because N Gauge locos and stock will go round really tight curves, why not exploit that - but off scene? Not showing some absurd right angle bend which would only be tolerated in a colliery; not on a main line. In fairness, N Gauge does not have a monopoly on the 'nowhere-for-the-eye-to-rest' sort of layout, but it does seem to attract more - or, at least, that's my perception. 

 

However, if done 'properly', N Gauge can be terrific for realism. 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no better example of this than John Birkett-Smith's fantastic Totnes. Nothing is crammed in (though there is selective compression) and the whole scene breaths 'reality'. In the shots where there is no track, can you tell what scale it is? I can't, and I know!

 

 

Adrian Lambourne's Loch Tat is another example of a superb rendition of a railway in a landscape. Just look how much 'space' there is for the scene to breath. 

 

 

 

 

 

Another excellent example of how N Gauge can be exploited to recreate a whole railway/landscape scene is Eric Farragher's Clifton and Lowther - a depiction of a piece of the WCML in the Northern Fells. 

 

In these examples, of course, the modelling is of the highest standard, irrespective of the scale/gauge. 

 

In case 2mm FS feels left out, please look at my next post. 

[Clearwater]

Great photos as ever Tony. I always think one of the tests of the best models, is that when photographed, it is hard to immediately identify the scale

 

David

Edited December 14, 2016 by Clearwater

[Tony Wright]

Why can I never master computers? One of these pictures ended up in my previous post! And two the same have ended up here! Never mind, one for each eye. 

 

 

Should anyone wish to graduate from N Gauge to "mm FS, there is a vast amount of support out there. 

 

 

Chassis-making is made considerably easier by the use of this Society jig. 

 

 

 

 

 

With the nearer-scale (much-nearer) appearance of the track/wheels, then no one can deny that 2mm FS is more realistic, as these pictures showing Jerry Clifford's Tucking Mill reveal. He's exploited the railway in a landscape principle just as much as well - to perfection in my view. 

 

2mm FS doesn't have to mean small layouts, either. Think of Copenhagen Fields and Fencehouses. 

 

So, please, those out there who model in the smaller scale, show us examples of your work. 

Edited December 14, 2016 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

At the other end of the scale/gauge relationship, we have Scale 7 (well, not quite the other end because there's Gauge 1 and bigger). 

 

 

 

 

These are shots of Y Crae, built by Simon Thompson. 

 

Impressive? 

[Barry Ten]

I'll throw my N efforts into the hat, even though it's American rather than British N or 2mm.

 

 

I've tried to go for a less-is-more approach, hopefully avoiding that over-cluttered look and keeping all

visible curves gentle. Off-scene, they go down to 11" radius.

 

 

 

 

This is looking down on the "swamp" module on my American layout, with a deliberate effort made to avoid over-cluttering the scene,

just keeping to a single, sweeping track and some dense foliage.

 

On the other hand, when you want to get into detailing, as in this coaling tower, you can put in as much as you like:

 

 

These are Intermountain FT A/B units, weathered by airbrush and enamel washes - notice the excellent close-coupling between

the units.

 

Alastair (Barry Ten)

[glo41f]

Tony

 

Thank you for the lovely pictures of the smaller scale layouts. Truly something to reflect on. I have to say that the first thing I look for is the track and the horrible out of scale high rails that commercial track uses is a dead give away as to scale. I do not understand why folk who spend ages getting the locos and rolling stock right, put up with this. That is where the fine scale tendencies in all modelling scales win out as the track is part of the model and does not overly intrude into the picture. I think 2mm has a great deal to offer especially in these days of smaller houses and tight budgets. The tolerances though are such that exhibiting must be more fraught.  On these cold winter days when the shed is so uninviting, a 2mm layout in the spare room is a tempting prospect. Trouble is there is as far as I am aware, little for a GE modeller in 2mm given that the way into the scale is altering N scale commercial offerings. I await to be corrected.

 

Martin Long