Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

By some diabolical piece of computer function, the following pictures have also appeared on the Gilbert Barnatt's Peterborough North thread. I give in!

 

 

Further progress to report on the Jamieson V2. Frames erected, square and true and pick-up pads installed. These were superglued to the base of the frames then re-enforced from the top with epoxy. 

 

 

Comet gearbox installed with flat Mashima motor. As usual, it ran better backwards than forwards - hence its turned-round position on the rear coupled axle. Though mechanically not as balanced as driving of the centre axle, this does have the advantage of subsequently needing less taking out from the bottom of the boiler. Since I'll be using Nu-Cast valve gear (in stock since the '70s!), I employed the same firm's rods off the fret. They matched perfectly and are visually superior to Jamieson's lengths of bullhead rail with holes drilled in it. Since the Jamieson pony truck is just a brass stamping (though I'm sure I've used a cast one in the past), and since it's the second decade of the 21st Century, I decided to use a Comet replacement.

 

 

Brakes on (sorry for the pun) - spare etchings from the hundreds of odd frets I've got - and pony trucks installed. At this stage I always begin building the body next. 

Edited June 1, 2014 by Tony Wright

[Michael Delamar]

Ive always fancied trying one of these thick chassis, no chance of them twisting.

[Tony Wright]

Ive always fancied trying one of these thick chassis, no chance of them twisting.

Michael,

              You're quite right, though if they're not erected squarely, there's no chance of their being twisted straight. They also are indestructible (if such an adjective can be applied to a a set of model frames) and, most importantly, when the body is fixed on it's that which deflects (if need be), not the chassis. I've seen too many examples where the opposite occurs.  

[Barry O]

Michael,

              You're quite right, though if they're not erected squarely, there's no chance of their being twisted straight. They also are indestructible (if such an adjective can be applied to a a set of model frames) and, most importantly, when the body is fixed on it's that which deflects (if need be), not the chassis. I've seen too many examples where the opposite occurs.  

Tony

 

I have seen someone using a good big engineers vice and a set of mole grips to straighten a set of frames someone had built slightly twisted.... it takes some doing but once straight they stay straight.

 

Barry

[Tony Wright]

Tony

 

I have seen someone using a good big engineers vice and a set of mole grips to straighten a set of frames someone had built slightly twisted.... it takes some doing but once straight they stay straight.

 

Barry

Barry,

          Never say never - why don't I learn to qualify my statements? Yes, of course with hefty tools it could be done. What I meant was that, in the past, where I've erected a set of (say) Comet frames slightly askew, just twisting in the hands puts them right. Not with a set of Jamieson frames, though...........

[Michael Delamar]

Michael,

              You're quite right, though if they're not erected squarely, there's no chance of their being twisted straight. They also are indestructible (if such an adjective can be applied to a a set of model frames) and, most importantly, when the body is fixed on it's that which deflects (if need be), not the chassis. I've seen too many examples where the opposite occurs.  

yes ive had that happen with a few of mine, doesnt take much to twist a brass or nickel chassis, sometimes mine were the body being out or the captive nut being scew iff and when tightened up twisting the chassis.

[St Enodoc]

Tony

 

I have seen someone using a good big engineers vice and a set of mole grips to straighten a set of frames someone had built slightly twisted.... it takes some doing but once straight they stay straight.

 

Barry

I can imagine who that might have been. Probably the same person who uses a hammer to adjust the vertical alignment of rails at baseboard joints.

[coachmann]

Thanks for posting the picture comparison of the two V2's. The Bachmann banjo dome looks like its been through a planer! The taper on top of the boiler doesnt look much but I suppose when it is applied to the sides as well, it make a big visual difference. Thing is though, how does this leave the diameter of the smokebox untouched?

Edited June 2, 2014 by coachmann

[Horsetan]

..., how does this leave the diameter of the smokebox untouched?

 

The smokebox diameter is also oversized by up to 1mm overall.

[Tony Wright]

Work has continued on Graeme King's A2/3 conversion.............

 

 

Six coats of sable-applied Railmatch BR/GWR mix of green were needed to cover the resin. I haven't much used this paint but its covering powers are very limited from this experience. There are six times the possibility of bits of muck contaminating the surface. Has anyone else come across this with Railmatch? The paint itself is very easy to apply and dries to a pleasing semi-matt finish, but two coats of the old Humbrol equivalent (was it 104 or 114?) would have seen complete opacity. My last tin of that marvellous paint turned to solid many years ago. Is there a current equivalent out there? I know Graeme mentioned one which nearly matched Hornby's BR green. Does one equate to Bachmann's? Just two coats of Humbrol No. 85 black were needed.

 

You'll note a visible difference between the two finishes. This has more to do with surface texture than colour/tone. In fact, it looks more different under my lights, and heavy weathering (which this York-based loco will finally receive) will disguise the subterfuge. The cab is lined with Modelmaster's BR orange/black/orange, which is a good match with Bachmann's. The cabside numbers are from the HMRS 'Pressfix' range, but are old stock. I initially used a new sheet, but the numbers were much too thick. Has anyone else come across this more recently? I don't know what to do, because all the numbers/letters appear to be the same and I'm running low on 6s and zeros. Yes, I know inverted 9s make a 6 but when some recent models have been numbered 60009, 60039, 63670, 63980 and 67394, you can see how those essential ER digits are gobbled up. Does anyone want umpteen sheets with 4s on in exchange?

 

The cab has been glazed with thin, clear plastic and Krystal Klear. The former is difficult to do because of the thickness of the window reveals (why did I give my spare DJH A2/3 cabs away?), but painting those reveals matt black disguises them. A start has been made on weathering the chassis.

 

It awaits 247 Developments' nameplates, and the cabside plates are from the same source. The front numberplate (with incorrect 6) is from Ian Wilson's Pacific range. A glance at Colin Walker's Trails Through Peterborough will reveal 60515 in (I think) the middle of 1958, where she still has the high numberplate of the incorrect style. My mouldering 1957 Combined Volume also has a picture of her in that guise, with the scribbled hand of a none-too-bright eleven year old proclaiming to have seen it at Retford. At her next overhaul, the plate fixing was lowered to the top hingestrap and the correct font cast. The 50A plate is from Charlie Petty's range

 

When the nameplates are fitted, it'll be out with the muck! 

Edited June 2, 2014 by Tony Wright

[gr.king]

Quick work or what? Looking good, especially the twiddly little pipes. I'm relieved to see no joints on the firebox and smokebox have been revealed by painting. You can never quite tell before some paint goes on.

 

Yes, I've found the Railmatch paints very poor for coverage when brushed. Maybe it is worse still when using no grey primer on the resin. On jobs such as this I've always sprayed on primer to check that the surface is perfect, then sprayed on the Railmatch too. For areas so small that spraying is unwarranted or impractical, I tend to use an unconventional brushing technique, basically "blobbing" the Railmatch on as heavily as is possible without getting runs, rather than brushing out a thin layer. It aids coverage but is not the art-school approved technique at all, I'm sure! If only I'd fully appreciated your plan for painting, I would certainly have suggested a base coat of that Humbrol 195 to provide enough opacity to kill the resin colour.

 

Owing to that problem of exhausting all of the sixes and nines I did once suggest a kind of "transfer exchange" over on the LNER forum, with limited success of course as all Eastern Region modellers want the same digits! Maybe there is more hope of getting something going via RMWeb. I gather that HMRS transfer paper has recently changed and that the future of the range hung in the balance for a while until a new paper source was found. I don't know if that ties in with a change to thicker lettering, or whether that is an older change of style. My LNER gold insignia sheets have certainly not been entirely consistent with respect to correct registration of the different colours, one having been very bad for the small buffer-beam numerals etc. which were effectively useless. I think Mick B may have said that he has had more frequent and more serious problems. Maybe he will tell us?

[micklner]

HMRS Gold are in my experience (not bought any for last two years) are diabolical in alignement. I contacted HMRS at the time who kindly sent another set which was even worse. On further contact, I was told quite rudely that I was being too fussy and what did I expect !!. At this point I didnt buy anymore !!.

The solution was to buy up any that come up on ebay normally the older they are the better they are. The only problem is the glue dries up, I have seen suggestions of treating as Methfix, I have tried this with no luck personally.

I have no idea why but the Yellow version are normally ok. The LNER lining sheets can be just as bad in alignement on the various shaped pieces .

 

I agree with Graeme i always prime before any paint application. Railmatch and Precision are very good using a largish brush using long strokes. Light rubdown between coats and finish with varnish.

 

The A4 body is brush painted on this example using Precision Doncaster Apple Green a nice match to the Hornby painted Tender.

 

 

 

[Horsetan]

Looks like HMRS have lost control of the quality of the Pressfix sheets. Not a good sign, and potentially calls into question whether there is any viable future for them.

[Tony Wright]

 

Impatient as usual, I decided to weather the Graeme king A2/3 before the nameplates arrive. This is not a problem, for all I'll do is add a bit more after they're fixed on. Source material from one of Keith Pirt's books is an invaluable piece of reference. It's Steam Colour Portfolio Eastern & North Eastern Region. Interestingly, the same picture also appears in the same photographer's book on Grantham, but the colour reproduction in the latter volume is far inferior in my perception. Also interestingly are the somewhat derogatory comments about the A2/3s in both captions. For further observations on ET, please look at the fascinating thread started by Simon Martin. Most enlightening!

 

As usual, my weathering is all dry-brush, using a mix of matt enamel paints - matt black, various russet browns, several greys and a touch of white (though the last-mentioned has yet to be dribbled on the model at washout plugs and around the wiggly pipes). Almost without exception, York's locos were dirty unless fresh from shops. Both pictures of SUN STREAM in Peter Coster's 'Book Of' the various A1 and A2 Pacifics show the loco in grubby guise, with just a touch of sheen reflecting off various parts, something I've tried to replicate. The dry-brushing produces some random effects, including streaks in the vertical plain, suggesting rain's effect. Since I don't use an airbrush, I cannot comment, apart from some effects I've seen can be too uniform or even splattery. Proprietary weathering can seem like that at times, especially when it looks like just dirty thinners have been squirted at the nether regions. When completely dry, I might rub some thinners on using a cotton bud to pick up a reflection off the top of the boiler, and dribble those streaks of white. The chassis has been weathered in the same manner. I might add that my powerful lights bring out far more than natural (not direct sunlight) or room lighting, especially where brush marks are evident. They almost disappear under ordinary lighting.

 

Something I've neglected to fit is the bracket in front of the rear nearside driver for the (by now redundant) BTH speedo. I'll post some pictures when she's completed.

 

Many thanks for the comments about the HMRS transfers. Looking closely, the transfers I used on 60515 were actually old PC ones, so their gum is still effective. But, if the latest ones are not much use, it'll be down to waterslide transfers, even if a halo can be left.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Tony Wright

[micklner]

Another A2/3 coming together, this will be Airborne as ET less Boiler Bands than normal hence clean up on Boiler sides.

 

 

[ROY@34F]

HR104 Tony . Was that the Humbrol green you refer to ? The perfect match , I always thought too .

Agree also about cabside transfers . I've tried Fox,HMRS,Modelmaster . Some are terrible . as you say  

Fings aint wot they used to be .

Roy.

[Tony Wright]

Thanks Roy........it was Humbrol 104. I wonder if any tins of it still remain?

 

A2/3s a-plenty it would seem. 

 

Once the weathering paint had dried on 60515, I thought I'd try a little photographic experiment. All my locos are 'layout' locos, whether scratch-built, kit-built or modified proprietary. That is to say (I hope) their home is not the glass cabinet but running on a selection of layouts. Indeed, over the years they've been seen on Fordley Park, Leighford, Stoke Summit, Charwelton, Little Bytham and running as guests on Biggleswade and one or two of them (with their EM frames underneath) on Retford. Thus, they're not made to be scrutinised at the closest of quarters but to look right at what a friend used to describe as 'stand-off' scale, or the rule of three feet. Yes, with an Ian Rathbone or Steve Barnfield professional paint job they are made better (well, much better than with my painting) but they must run - run as the prototypes used to, hauling scale-length trains at speed, or move smoothly at walking pace. They must not stutter, jerk, display too much 'electrical' noise, they must go round 2' 6" radius curves without binding or shorting and they must not derail. Otherwise, what's the point in my building them? Would that the same could be said about some 'professionally'-built locos which have passed through my hands. Nicely painted they might be, but they don't 'go'. 

 

So, with 60515 complete (apart from the fitting of the plates and just a few more dribbles to apply), how would she look on the layout? More importantly, how would she look in comparison with my other A2/3s? Since the Cliffe-Uddingston(e?) cement block train ascending Stoke bank seems to have been the apotheosis of the work of the class, I thought I'd set it up and take some pictures. 

 

 

Here's EDWARD THOMPSON herself (himself), probably the most typical on this working of the three A2/3s I possess. Built from a Crownline kit with a SE Finecast A2 cast boiler (for weight and because I'm not a fan of resin), it represents the loco with fewer cladding bands than the rest (apart from AIRBORNE until her first boiler change), which it kept 'til the early-'60s. The cabsides have been altered to allow for the correctly proportioned lining panel (by moving the horizontal handrail up), and Ian Rathbone painted it.

 

 

HYCILLA is built from an A2/3 kit (the second one made after I'd built the first for DJH) and, being a Tyneside-based loco probably never worked this train. It, too, has a Dia.117 Thompson boiler (note the round dome), but the cladding bands are in the more conventional position. Once more, Ian Rathbone painted it.

 

 

And here's SUN STREAM (or will be) on the same train (again, since it was a New England duty unlikely as the loco). As is obvious, this has a different pedigree. For one, I didn't make it - Graeme King did. And, two, Ian Rathbone didn't paint it - I patch-painted it, part-lined and numbered it and applied the weathering. It's also not a kit-build, but modified from a Bachmann A2. Might I suggest others make a comparison and offer an opinion, please? Though I concede the obvious difference in painting standards (though 60515 is deliberately more heavily-weathered), how does she stack up as a layout loco in comparison? It's nice she has a Peppercorn Dia.118 boiler with a streamlined dome in comparison.

 

One thing an outsider cannot reach a judgement on is the relative performances. Though SUN STREAM is fast and smooth, in a way she's more prototypical in her running than my pair of kit-built ones, meaning she's very light on her feet in comparison. The two kit-built ones will march away with 15 bogies with ease (brass kit-built cars). 60515 just polishes the rails! That said, she handles the 30-wagon cement block train very happily.

 

Oh, and yes, the lamps could do with weathering down!

Edited June 3, 2014 by Tony Wright

[coachmann]

Have you got one of these Tony?  I didn't normally photograph the jobs, but I was fond of the A2'2's at the time. At this distance in time i have no idea what kit is was or who built it. The Tender looks suspect.

[micklner]

All beauty's

 

If you want hyper critical

 

Crownline front detail above bufferbeam average compared to other two

 

Superheater covers all vary ,DJH best depth?

 

The smokebox deflector top support brackets are visible on Graemes version. It maybe angle of photo or the deflectors need more curve at top. Something to look at on my two !!

[Tony Wright]

All beauty's

 

If you want hyper critical

 

Crownline front detail above bufferbeam average compared to other two

 

Superheater covers all vary ,DJH best depth?

 

The smokebox deflector top support brackets are visible on Graemes version. It maybe angle of photo or the deflectors need more curve at top. Something to look at on my two !!

Mick,

         I think the smoke deflectors on Graeme's need to be curved a bit more at the top. It shows up more after they've been weathered. 

As for the superheater header covers - I think it's a lot more than just those which put the DJH version way ahead in my opinion.

 

But, thanks for calling them all beauties........

[micklner]

Tony

      What else do you prefer on the DJH version ?

      By coincidence I also have Hycilla on my DJH LNER version.

 

       A quick look at the photos again shows the DJH mechanical lubricators are much too small as are the Crownline versions. I was surprised when I got the Bachmann A2 that their mouldings look enourmous but on checking photos they are correct for LNER days, I havent looked at BR versions . A obvious plus are the etched brass parts such as Cab and Tender.

      At the moment I like both versions.

[westerner]

Tony, for what its worth, probably not much, but, to my totally untutored eye(Eastern Region wise) to this Western region person all three look good.

[Tony Wright]

Have you got one of these Tony?  I didn't normally photograph the jobs, but I was fond of the A2'2's at the time. At this distance in time i have no idea what kit is was or who built it. The Tender looks suspect.

WEB A2-2.jpg

 

 

 

I have indeed Larry. Here's mine, built by me and painted by Ian Rathbone. It's the third DJH A2/2 ever built, after I built the proving model for DJH themselves and the review model for BRM. 

 

The A2/2 in your picture is also built from a DJH kit (what's wrong with the tender, by the way?) and beautifully painted (if I may say so) in ex-works condition. But, it illustrates some points about this small class which might be of interest. As supplied, the DJH kit most-easily builds into 60505 and 60506, after they received replacement boilers. These two have the streamlined non-corridor tender supplied. The A1-type boiler provided in the kit would also suit 60501 and 60502 (after they lost their original shortened P2 boilers), but the tender isn't right (they had the new-style, high-sided non-corridor tenders with beading and a turn-in at the front - 60501's being, uniquely, welded). Also, their cabs turned-in at the rear and had beading. 60503 and 60504 cannot be easily made from the DJH kit because, although the tender is right, these locos retained their original shortened boiler and full 'V'-fronted cab, plus a shorter central footplate section.

 

So, by the time depicted by our respective WOLVES OF BADENOCH, what can one say? Firstly, 60506 never had the main handrails cut short of the smokebox front. They always were turned-in and clipped to the outer ring. 60505 had the shortened handrails with the later boiler, but she also had a Thompson boiler by this time with the dome one ring further forward. She also had an extended plate between the sandbox fillers, and the front numberplate and cross rail transposed. Secondly, 60506 was unique in retaining the rimmed chimney to the end (60505, almost). Does the model you painted have a lipped chimney? Earlier, 60506 also had the transposed numberplate and cross rail. It also had very-close-together sandbox fillers.

 

With regard to the others, 60501 had the shortened handrails, a pronounced wiggle in its vacuum ejector pipe and spoked tender wheels. 60502 had the handrails round the front, a straight ejector pipe and disc wheels. 60503 and 60504 were the most twin-like, though MONS MEG had a plate between the sandbox fillers, but only on the RH side. Talk about the Devil in the detail! 

 

I mention all the above, not to criticise the A2/2 you painted, but to illustrate how easily 'mistakes' can be made. Throughout the whole lives of these Thompson rebuilds, at any one time only two were really similar in detail, so the pitfalls are manifold. Anyway, at least the one you painted has an AWS battery box. Why didn't I put one on mine? 

Edited June 4, 2014 by Tony Wright

[Tony Wright]

Tony

      What else do you prefer on the DJH version ?

      By coincidence I also have Hycilla on my DJH LNER version.

 

       A quick look at the photos again shows the DJH mechanical lubricators are much too small as are the Crownline versions. I was surprised when I got the Bachmann A2 that their mouldings look enourmous but on checking photos they are correct for LNER days, I havent looked at BR versions . A obvious plus are the etched brass parts such as Cab and Tender.

      At the moment I like both versions.

With regard to my preference for the DJH version, I think it's the relative ease with which they go together. Generally, the quality of the castings and etchings are excellent, too. When complete, they also have a 'mass', which enables them to pull prodigious loads. 

 

The lubricators are too small, though they're the right size for an A2/2, so the firm's compromised there.

 

All the above said about the DJH version, it still has to be made and painted, and it's the most expensive. For those on a more limited budget or are not too confident about full kit-building, the Bachmann/Graeme King path has many merits. The mechanism works well and most of the painting is already done. And, as a layout loco? 

[Tony Wright]

 

Just as an aside to my various Thompson Pacific ramblings, here's something new on Little Bytham.

 

This is a splendid model by Heljan and depicts the loco brand new on its way to Kings Cross to 'fail'. It needs slight weathering to its frames, but it's very smart. There were a few issues - bits came off (including the fuel tank) when I took it from its box and every axle had to be (easily) altered to give the correct back-to-back. 

 

It runs beautifully, which is a bit unlike the prototype. To be entirely accurate (as far as my memory goes), I should take out the motor and buy enough to have the rest of the class. Then stick them all in a line, dead, on a model of a remote siding at 30A. 

Edited June 4, 2014 by Tony Wright