Jol Wilkinson

A trip into Ipswich today reinforced my view that the ability to buy/run a large late plate BMW or Audi does not endow the driver with any intelligence or bestow superiority over other road users. A young man driving a white Mercedes convertible on personal plates, possibly a member of the local football club squad given his direction/proximity to their training ground/hair and beard also aspired to join that elite.

Hello Peter, I found several photos of CTs in the period I am modelling which were fitted with the later brakes. They are, as you say, easier to assemble so I took the simple route! While there is much information about CT brakes, this tends to centre around the efficiency (or otherwise) of the vacuum cylinder and linkage, so a photo of your chosen prototype helps. However, as there were few other obvious extrenal changes to the locos during their lives, modeller's license can be invoked. The Precursor makes up into a lovely looking loco. Although I opted to do my own chassis, I have a LRM Precursor Tank with the original Brassmasters chassis supplied when they were first introduced. This has the swinging front end but I added a centralising/springing wire to the top of the front frames. This locates into a hole in the underside of the body below the smokebox and keeps the front end under control. Jol

Tony, the subject of "high" or "low" gear ratios is a confusing and contradictory one. A "low gear" ratio has more output revs for a given input speed than a "high gear" ratio (think low gear and high gear on a road vehicle). The contradiction is that the quoted numerical ratio is the opposite way round. So 2:1 gives a higher output speed than 5:1. Driving wheels of different sizes as in the Stirling Single will require a lower output speed for the for the big wheel and a higher one for the small wheel. The two ratios will be in proportion to the difference in the two wheel diameters. The gear train will need additional gears but as long as there are an even number of extra gears in the train to the extra axle, the rotation will be in the same direction (I knew my Mech. Eng. course with Ford Motor Co. would come in useful one day). Jol

It has been a long time but the Brassmasters Precursor is now finally complete! When the one shown above was painted a number of surface defects in the boiler tube were apparent.They turned out to be difficult to fix so my friends at Brassmasters supplied a new etch , while I obtained a new piece of brass boiler tube. The existing chassis and tender were okay, but other modelling commitments took over and the new Precursor body took rather longer than usual. I've also just finished a LRM Coal Tank. Like the Precursor this is 18.83mm gauge, powered by a Mashima motor through a LRM motor mount and gears. There are also seven LNWR carriages on the bench, undergoing final detailing. I hope I'll be able to post some photos of these completed soon

Larry, one thing that has changed since the 60's and 70's - beyond the move to collecting/modelling as opposed to model making - is that original works drawings, well researched textbooks, etc. have become more readily available, often through the work of Line Societies. When building a LNWR carriage I can refer to five or more books containing prototype information, "reduced" works drawings, period photographs and drawings produced by someone who has closely researched the subject.. Modeler's drawings published in magazines have also been challenged as to their accuracy over the years. They were often drawn by experienced and skilled draftsmen, but as they were covering a wide variety of prototypes from different eras and railways, were understandably not always that familiar with the subject. So the change to improved RTR, together with a drift away from the "do it yourself" approach by the mainstream magazines, means that modeller's drawings are much less important to the magazine reader than previously. Are there fewer traditional modellers? Who knows, although if you based a view on RMWeb you would probably thinks so. However, nearly all the "model builders" that I know don't frequent this forum. Almost all are members of the "finescale" societies, Line Societies, etc. What I do believe has changed over the years is that the hobby now has a clearer separation between those that make their own "railway" models and those that buy them RTR. The one area of common ground is what we could call "scenic" modelling where the RTR or RTP option isn't so readily available. Jol

It should be remembered that Rapido are producing a RTR OO model. Therefore it is important that they produce something simple to use, robust and reliable.

Ah, the old myth. There was, published some years ago, a very interesting and authoritative treatise that showed "wheels rotating in opposite directions" wasn't possible. Owing to the lack of volume in the low pressure "steam reservoir" (actually the pipes connecting the HP and LP cylinders) there wasn't enough power (steam volume and pressure) available to spin the LP front wheels.. Likewise the myth - put about by Ahrons I believe - that teams of men with pinchbars were employed at Euston to move the loco into a position where the LP and HP cylinders were all in forward gear was also very questionable. While they might, after a plate of spinach, been able to move the loco, it wasn't very likely with 250 - 300 ton's of carriages coupled to it. Some compounds were equipped with separately controllable gear for HP and LP cylinders, which gave good results but for some reason Webb didn't persist with it. The Teutonics, the last and most powerful of the 3 cylinder 2-2-2-0s, were very strong runners. Jeannie Deans, the only non "ic" named member of the class ran the 2 p.m. Scotch dining train (London to Glasgow) daily from January, 1891, until August, 1899. It's unlikely that the LNWR would have put a poor performing locomotive on their prestige express. As for the RTR manufacturers introducing such a loco into their range, I consider it most unlikely. There isn't a preserved version for them to scan, they disappeared many years ago and are so unknown to most casual collectors. They also have a complex outside valve gear (even if you model a "static" version). Here is a picture of the chassis for the London Road Models kit. While this can be built in "fixed" semi working and fully working versions, I suggest that it would have to be more robust to suit the needs of the RTR OO market and therefore outside the scope of RTR manufacture. The only other LNWR loco that might appear from the Chinese factories is of the Precursor Class 2-4-0, as they could copy Hardwicke at the NRM.

Moore's Handicrafts, Rugby. At the corner of Bath Street and Clifton Road, opposite the Lawrence Sheriff School. Moore's were a hardware store with a model shop on the first floor and carried a range of products for the aspiring model maker in the 1950/60s (and possibly later, but I moved away in 1964). The location now contains a Mobility "scooter" centre, perhaps they are still dealing with some of the same clientele.

I think that will depend on Colin Seymour of AGW producing a wheel conversion set. First thing will be to know what axles sizes Bachmann used.

It is important to separate Webb's compound designs from his "simple" locos. These were intended to be simple to build, operate and maintain - to fit in with the demands of the Board of Directors who sought to maximize shareholder's dividends. They met those requirements. It was that same demand for economy that made Webb concentrate on "experimenting" with compounding and although many of his designs were far from perfect, some, like the Teutonics performed well. In those pre social media days however, we are reliant on the published views of a few observers of the period, including several who strongly disagreed with Webb's approach to loco design. As a result many of today's "experts" don't have a balanced view of his achievements, further distorted by the benefit of hindsight and by a desire to prove that their favorite railway/CME did a better job, etc. Most loco designs were based on function rather than aesthetic beauty, which is why "expensive" liveries came about, to tart up otherwise "plain" machines as part of the railways PR activities. There is nothing especially "beautiful" about most Victorian and Edwardian loco designs, but we look at them through rose tinted lenses, highly polished by nostalgia.

I prefer to think that BR Mixed Traffic lining was the same as LNWR. Suitable transfers are available from Fox, Modelmaster and HMRS. So far I have only used the last two, but will try Fox in future. Ideally a coat of satin varnish, with a small amount of black to tone down the transfers, helps to protect the them from handling.

That'll make the proprietors of Wizard and London Road Models look forward to selling lots of their LNWR carriage and wagon kits to all those new and enthusiastic LNWR loco owners. 247 will hopefully have stocks of new number plates so that each new owner can personalise his loco to stand out from the crowd, although there doesn't seem to be anyone on the traders list who will have LNWR lining for those who wish to apply that to their plain black locos.

What none of you seem to recognise is that getting people to drive "properly" is the nigh on impossible bit. So governments, having largely abdicated themselves of action to deal with that, have left it to the car designers/manufacturers but have imposed legislation to control - to some degree - what they can/can't do.. The manufacturers also have vested commercial interests which, nowadays, means providing idiot proof desirable consumer products for idiots who believe they are geniuses (or is it genii?). As for expecting motorists to know what cadence braking does and how to use it, what isundersteer or oversteer and how to deal with it, etc. you have no chance. Add to that the unwillingness of drivers to understand the need to behave responsibly, with consideration for others never mind themselves, puts us where we are today. The car is another fundamental part of peoples lives that they can't do without, want at the lowest running cost and can use with the minimum of inconvenience. For some it is a status symbol (so they buy something they don't know how to use properly). So, what's the answer, other than assuming that how you drive is how very one else should do?

Mike, I spent all my career (bar three years running a model shop) working for three motor manufacturers involved in the dealer and customer facing areas. I can assure you that a significant proportion of motorists have never understood how their car functions, how to get best out of it, how to drive it safely, etc. I see this as a chicken and egg situation or a patient and doctor relationship. The motor manufacturers are reacting to society's demands for ever more complicated products that are simple to use. But unlike mobile phones, central heating controllers, washing machines, etc. cars and motor bikes are products that can kill or maim if not used properly. Are the motor manufacturers wrong to to produce products that a easier/safer for the majority of unskilled motorists to use to use? Or should they produce cars like they did in the 60's and 70's with no ABS, etc. and rely on the drivers common sense to use it safely. The answer is "of course not". When you see how stupidly people behave anyway (the topic of this thread) even with all these safety (ABS, traction control, etc.) and convenience features (heated screens, easily adjustable steering wheels, seats and mirrors, etc.) then you should look at the user as being responsible for how they drive. The one thing that should perhaps be legislated for is the power of engines. Who needs a car capable of 0- 60 in 6 seconds and 160 mph in our motoring environment. Perhaps only those for who think a lot of horse power is an indication of their social status, sexual prowess, annual bonus, etc. Jol

Paul, then that's down to the car manufacturer opting to define what they want. My Peugeot 308 has auto lights and wipers, both with Off settings on the operating stalks. IIRC, on earlier Peugeots and Citroens the Auto option could be switched on/off by depressing the button on the end of the stalk with the ignition switch in the Accessories position. It's clear however, looking at "owner" sites on the internet, that people often don't bother to read their owner manuals (if they've got one) and much confusion arises. From memory, a Transit Custom I rented last year had Auto lights, which were selected from the facia mounted switch, in the same way that the Peugeot stalk works. Other aspects of the Transit controls make me believe that they both use a OEM system from the same supplier, possibly Bosch. I like the Auto lights facility, but the ability to simply turn it off is also an asset. My wife appreciates the "get you home - stay on headlamp" option on the Peugeot, again something Ford provide. Jol

Not Notting Hill, the tyres would need to be from a Range Rover or a Porsche.

Unless your trackwork is impressively bad, +/- .5mm should be enough allowance for axle movement on a four coupled wheelbase like this. So +/- 1.0 mm would be adequate for the slots and wouldn't weaken the frames too much although I don't know what strength 3D frames would have (all my experience has been with designing and building etched kits). Would it be possible to increase the height of the frames above the axle slots to increase their strength, something they usually did on the prototype. Most locos with compensation/springing have horn blocks in vertical guides. If you had excessive vertical movement then there might be a problem with the coupling rods - moving through an arc - causing the horn blocks to stick. However, that's not something I've experienced or seen. The real thing probably had frames that were 4ft apart, and about 1" thick. So, for 4mm 16.0 mm overall frame width would be close. Depending on the thickness of the frames and beams plus the clearance between, would this leave enough room for the motor/gearbox?

For the legal situation regarding DRL's, see; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/daytime-running-lights Regarding automatic lights, I have had those on cars going back to the late 1990s. They have always had the facility on the light/indicator stalk to select Auto - Off - Side - Head. I am sure that most makes do, as the systems used by (European, at least) car manufacturers tend to come from OE manufacturers such as Bosch, Magenti Marellii, Valeo, etc.

Tony, the problem you may have is the difference of "depth" of brass pin point bearings. Mike Clarke of Masokits even included a bearing depth gauge in his etched underframe kits, to help the builder ensure he used suitable bearings. I have several "makes" in my bits box, AG, Markits, Exactoscale, KM and others, both plain and waisted. I usually end up trial fitting different ones to get the correct version for the model I am building. I've built several BB LNWR wagon kits and had to do this each time. Because my bearings are all loose in a container, I don't even know which I used so will have to go through it again for the LNWR van kits I have. The standard 4mm pin point axle length is 26.0mm. Width between fold up W-irons is, AFAIK, normally 23.0 mm - 23.2 mm. However, there appears to be no "standard" for the depth of the bearing. Jol

Can't you just screw some corrugated plastic to the flat side and door panels? B&Q also do some "corrugated" wallpaper. You only need to get the look to deceive the customers, they wouldn't know what the real thing was anyway.

A 3.0 mm or bigger would be better, smaller bits have a smaller "heat path". I use only a 3.0 mm for normal work and a 1.0mm for adding small detail. The Antex numbers to look for are 1101 - 3.0 mm, 1102 4.7 mm. You may have the 1100 2.3 mm bit. You can download a pdf data sheet for the Antex bits here; http://www.antex.co.uk/soldering/replacement-bits/

What solder are you using? You should set the iron at 75 -100 deg above solder temp, otherwise you will "oxidise" the solder and create the dirt and contamination. It also sounds as though there is some "contamination on the ethes before you started. Clean all the crap off any start again! A fibreglass brush, Garryflex block or 1000 wet and dry paper should do the trick. I use LRM 145 solder and 12% Phosflux with the same TCU without problems.

Larry, it's a long story, but suffice to say I had to build a new body for it. When painted, the boiler tube showed blemishes (my fault) which I couldn't correct. My friends at Btassmasters supplied a new etch and I started again. The loco is now finished and lined, awaiting a coat of varnish. I an completing a mixed batch of LNWR carriages and soon should be in a position to set up the spray booth! I'll put a photo on the original thread when done. Progress has been slow, mainly because I've been building the extended London Road, among other things. I have a BM POW kit to build, but that'll be after the Renown and Teutonic that I designed for LRM. I built test etch and display models but still haven't built my own for the layout (including several other's too). Jol

London Road Models (including the former Geo. Norton range) had already filled in most of the gaps, Brassmasters a few more and Nick Easton's BIWO kits (some marketed by LRM) some others. The former GEM range is also available through Lytchett Manor, while DJH do the Claughton. There are relatively few LNWR locos that haven't been made available as kits, but that is only of interest to those who don't depend on the Chinese to make their models for them.

Didn't they already have the H spoke wheels for the G2A 0-8-0? Those wheels were used only on goods locos. The only one they might consider would be the Coal Engine (17" Goods) which, as an 0-6-0 would be the only one likely to sell in quantity.