t-b-g

My personal choice, on the minories style layouts I have built, is to use larger radius points and straighten the plan. No matter how well it avoids reverse curves, small radius points and me do not get well together. They never look good to me other than in an industrial yard layout.

The original out and back reverse curve was one of the aspects that I was not keen on. Even in that tight a space, it was not necessary and wasn't something I think a real railway would do in that sort of situation. So I am happy with the lines in and out being offset compared to the platforms and I have used a gently curving platform rather then a dead straight one, which appeals to my eyes. I have also moved the loco spur point nearer the first trailing crossover, which gives a nicer alignment and a longer siding, with no down side that I can see.

52 minutes ago, jamesinkl said:

To see DJH kits on Clark Railworks… I found that if you go to a specific loco full details page, you then can see the tags on the page which would let you have a link like https://clarkrailworks.com/collections/oo-gauge/djh.

See the image below as an example. Those category boxes are clickable so you can see specific category pages for the DJH kits if needed.

 

James

Or you can put DJH in the search box and they all appear.

4 minutes ago, Red Devil said:

This 'might' work for you.....reading the info as they're listed as new, you may well be right.

Sorry thought it may not.....link won't embed easily but they're on the Clark railworks site rather than the Ellis Clark site.

Thanks for trying but I have been having another look and found them. As I said, it gives no clue as to whether they are going to produce any kits or if they are just selling off the remaining stock.

16 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

I fear there may be a misunderstanding here but not wishing to raise rabbits, I will just say visit the Clark's website - no mention of taking over the business but a lot of cheap DJH 00 kits alongside the second hand offerings.

I have tried and failed to find stuff on their website. Their filter system beats me every time. Of course that could mean that they have just bought up the remaining stock and are selling them off.

2 hours ago, Harry Lund said:

Tony.  Apologies if I have missed any discussion about the future of OO Gauge DJH kits.   Geoff West visited York today.  The subject came up so we rang DJH.  The range has been sold to Ellis Clark Trains.  Giles  

It is interesting that the announcement of the sale is released this way. It takes the wind out the sails of any announcement DJH or Ellis Clark (no "e" as you have put but others have added it) might want to make.

58 minutes ago, Willie Whizz said:

Doesn't the lack of a smokebox number enhance the looks of this engine!

As does the Robinson style chimney.

24 minutes ago, lezz01 said:

If you imagine your train as a piece of string with a heavy weight on each end if you try to pull this in a circle the weight at the rear will always try to make the circle into a straight line. To stop this happening make sure each wagon is as free running as possible, try to make sure that each wagon is as close to the same weight as possible if some wagons are heavier than others put them as close to the loco as possible and have the lighter wagons to the rear. If a wagon has a binding axle remove it and replace or free up the offending wheelset as this will act as a weight. Objects will try to move in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force in this case a heavy brake van at the rear will induce a lateral force to the train and straighten out the circle so it will fall off the rails towards the inside of the curve. Newtons first & second law of motion are in business here. An objects reaction to an external force is proportionate to it's mass.

Regards Lez.     

Thanks for that. It is along the lines of what I was thinking. In my case, the first 100 wagons were all plastic, a mix of kits and RTR. All have pin point bearings. We then attached 35 wagons, a mix of plastic, whitemetal and etched (with varying weight) at the rear of the train. I fully expected the heavier wagons at the back to pull the lighter plastic wagons at the front over but they didn't. We were probably at a stage where the pull forwards, through the coupling and the low rolling resistance was just enough to keep them going. I can imagine just putting a finger on the roof of the brake van would have had them all off.

Examples have been given of trains being pulled over on curves and I have seen it happen. I just can't work out whether just the length of the train would make it come off or if it is down to variations in weight and rolling resistance.

If all vehicles have the same weight and rolling resistance, would an exceptionally long train get pulled over on a curve just due to the overall weight of the trailing load or would it stay on? That is the bit I don't know the answer to. My instinct says that they would stay on but I don't know for sure.

Why I even bother thinking about such things is another matter altogether!

Quite a few years ago, we ran a train of 135 wagons around Tickhill & Wadworth, which had 3ft radius curves (EM Gauge). The train went right around the layout and the brake van was a few inches in front of the loco. It would run at various speeds with pulling over into the centre and we didn't get any derailments.

I expected it to come off but it didn't.

Somebody cleverer than me can explain why some heavy trains pull off the track inwards on a curve and some don't!

There will be a good turnout from our little gang. Two are in the show and at least five of us are coming as visitors.

Looking forward to it.

7 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks for the tips and comments regarding the poor old white metal kits' 'armour plating'. I really should find the time to take notice of them and put them into practice. 

 

At a time when the the building of loco kits (in all media) seems to be a 'dying art', I try to encourage those of little experience (or even none) to 'have a go'. Not just philosophically, but practically, through one-to-one tuition and demonstrations at shows. White metal kits (the more-recent ones) are a good starting point, but for the newcomer to be confronted by the need to make new parts from sheet metal and spend a fair bit of time altering parts in the name of 'accuracy' can add to the perception of kits being daunting. Yes, what's been suggested isn't that hard to achieve, but it seems to come from a position of being preached to - or preached at; at least that's my perception, though others might accuse me of the same! 

 

Another thing which crosses my mind is what is a modeller wanting to achieve? As I mentioned earlier, by just 'fiddling' a little with a Bachmann J11, the end result is better than I can achieve by building the Little Engines' kit for the same. I could incorporate what's been suggested - new roof, thinning down visible edges (which I do in many cases, anyway) and so on, but it still wouldn't be as good. What's more important is that I made it myself - warts and all. If that seems 'slapdash', then so be it, but I'm talking of building hundreds of locos; 'layout locos', which will last a lifetime, because they're built from scrapped battleships!

When I was an absolute beginner, my mentors taught me to thin off the over thick edges on whitemetal kits.

As far as enhancing a model, it is just about the simplest job I can think of. If a novice is going to go down the route of building fairly ancient kits without trying to do anything to bring them up to modern standards, they are just going to end up with locos that look rather poor if placed next to modern RTR ones. That may be even more discouraging for them than being shown how to improve the kits.

Replacing a cab roof, especially something as complicated as a GCR one, is a bit trickier and should possibly be attempted by somebody with a bit more experience but my Millholme N5 got a new cab roof and that was the third or fourth loco I built. At least it didn't have all those complex ribs and angles on the outside. Perhaps the hardest one I have done is a GCR C14. That was tricky!

Older kits often turn up at Missenden Abbey and it is a very satisfying to see the reaction of people when they are shown what a difference a few minutes with a file can do to make things look better.

To me, it is well worthwhile with a big reward for little time and effort.

3 hours ago, gr.king said:

I've been away for a week, so I'm possibly a little late in posting this, but there's something about most "as received" GCR loco kits that I cannot tolerate for my own use, and it isn't just the old white metal ones that display the fault as I've seen on J11 models made from an etched kit too. The edges of the cab roof are totally wrongly portrayed! Robinson's cab roofs barely projected at all beyond the cab side, if they projected at all, and the rain strip was NOT on the outer edge, it was set well-in. The top corner of the spectacle plate was also slightly rounded. So many models are put together with the roof edge sticking out, the grossly excessive roof thickness showing, the rain strip right on the edge, and the spectacle plate with a sharp top corner, looking much more like something designed by Stroudley, Drummond, Pickersgill, Urie or various others. I altered the roof edges on all of the white metal GC kits that I built.

Fortunately, the error is not perpetuated in the G-Train 4-6-0 etched kits, nor in Bachmann's RTR models.

I agree completely. I don't think I have built any GCR loco and used the cab roof as supplied. The large scale "Ypres" illustrated above is a great example of what it should look like. As does Mike Edge's B7. I did find a problem with the G Train etched B3 roof but I can't remember why now. I think the rear extension was not to my liking and altering it messed up the half etched part of the angles. I think I used brass T and L section to make a new one.

I also dislike GCR locos which have an obvious join between the cab front and the roof. In real life, the cab roof sat behind the front, set down below the top. So many kits have a roof that sits on top of the front with a very visible join. In the case of a thick whitemetal roof, you also end up with the front windows not going up high enough. So I replace the thick roof in a whitemetal kit with a thin brass one and try to fill and make the joint flush.

With all whitemetal kits I thin down the visible edges, on roofs, cab sides, tenders etc. to remove the idea that they were built to withstand an attack from most small arms and anti tank weapons. It adds to the construction time but makes a big difference. A chamfer on the edge is better than armour plate.

37 minutes ago, Pebbles said:

Many years ago, and predating anything  that is currently available, a layout at Warley operated a 4mm B7. Now where did that come from? 

Possibly a P4 layout called Knutsford. Quite a few years ago there was a plan to have some Gladiator 7mm kits reduced to 4mm scale. It didn't come to anything but a tiny number of test etches for the B7 (and a D9) were produced. One ended up built in P4 on Knutsford and Roy Jackson also had one. He built most of it in EM many years ago. That is the one I have now. The castings were never produced at 4mm scale so Roy got a friend to machine parts for the slidebars and crosshead but he never got around to assembling them. So that is a possibility. They are certainly rare beasts in 4mm scale but I have seen some gorgeous 7mm models from the Gladiator kit.

33 minutes ago, 30368 said:

 

I have a G-Train GCR 9Q/LNER B7 kit to build so many thanks to all who have taken the trouble to post all these images of GCR "Standard" tenders. A fair bit of variation in the LNER B7 4-6-0 too. Modeller beware!

Despite the variations and possible pit falls, I am looking forward to the build, it will join my Judith Edge kit B9.

 

 

Kind regards,

 

30368

I just love a B7! There is an air of brute force about them. I have one that the late Roy Jackson almost completed to finish off in EM, a set of G Trains etches for another EM model, plus a Gladiator Models kit in 7mm. One day.................

14 minutes ago, Woodcock29 said:

Here's a rebuild of a Bachmann O4 4000 gallon tender body into a 3250 gallon tender for a J11. I used etched Millholme coal rails from the spares draw and added thin plastic card for the outside plating. The height of the body was reduced by 1.5-2mm at the base above the sole plates to convert it from a 4000 gallon to 3250 gallon. Note I think the hinges and handles on the boxes over the water pick up gear next to the rear dividing coal plate should actually be reversed now. I copied what Bachmann did on its J11 LNER 4000 gallon tender in respect to the position of those - might have to change those around! The resin water filler/pickup covering boxes are by Graeme King. The 'ships wheel' on the finished model below is the lost wax Gibson casting but will be replaced at some stage with Mike Edge's corect etched 6 spoke wheel that I have in stock.

 

 

and the finished model (seen before on WW).

 

Andrew

 

Very nice!

It is good to see somebody going the "extra mile" to get these details correct.

This is what the hinges and handles look like, at least on one example:

30 minutes ago, 65179 said:

 

The angular dome of the same general form as fitted to the O4s was pretty uncommon on J11s, although there were at least one or two. Most BR J11s had a dome with a flatter top than the GC dome. This N Jordan Flickr image shows the most common BR era boiler fittings:

 

 

It took me a while to realise when doing mine that both the whistle and middle front lampiron are off centre. The whistle presumably to stay in loading gauge and the middle lamp iron to avoid the centre hinge on the valve cover.

 

I think @t-b-g was referring to the fact that you have modelled both the D shaped water filler with the extra box for the water pick up gear (I'm not sure whether any retained the extra box despite losing the scoop) and more importantly you've added the box that the ship's wheel fits on in front of the front coalguard. If your J11 is not scoop fitted then this definitely  needs removing as per the image above.

 

Simon

That mounting block is what made me mention the water pick up wheel. My thinking is that the boxes in the back of the tender were kept. There is little or no evidence to prove this but if the boxes were removed, there would have been big holes in the tank top that would need plating in and I know that some tenders were built with the boxes but without scoop gear, so I call it an informed guess. It also made it easy to put the gear back in at a later date if the tender was transferred to a loco that needed it. The mounting for the wheel on the tender front was removed as you say and illustrate.

I have made wire flat by tinning a sheet of brass, soldering wire onto it and filing it flat.

It doesn't have to be absolutely precise. You can do both sides but at that size, just getting a flat on the outside facing surface should be enough.

I hope that is a possibly helpful suggestion.

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Despite numerous diversions during the last week............

 

 

I've managed to complete the Little Engines J11.

 

 

Did they run with the tall GCR dome in BR days Tony? That isn't a combination I have seen, as I thought they all had shorter domes by then. The chimney is puzzling me too. If it is supposed to be a "flowerpot" it isn't a very good one but maybe it is a type I am unfamiliar with.

Alan Gibson will supply a shorter dome and a better chimney should you wish to improve it.

Are you going to add the wheel for the water scoop? I think there is an etched one in the kit from memory but it was a long time ago when I built mine.

1 hour ago, MikeParkin65 said:

Apart from the hand made finescale modelling sometimes shared on here I have yet to see any rtr N scale valve gear that doesnt look like mangled girders.

Perhaps it isn't very good as a scale representation of accurate valve gear but the point I was making was that they manage to have small moving components on RTR models. So as the scale of the people using the models is fairly consistent, if small wiggly bits are OK in N gauge, they should stand a chance in 4mm scale. They are just as likely or not likely to suffer at the hands of the "average modeller".

The lubricator linkage on a Hornby A4 is considerably bigger than the valve gear components on an N Gauge loco, yet both are sold to the same RTR market, yet it was suggested that Hornby had to make the linkage overscale for it to survive.

I hope that clarifies what I was trying to get across.

I am aware of people moaning (hard to believe, I know) about the finer details falling off RTR models, so there is a point somewhere where delicacy becomes a problem but I am sure that Hornby could have done a better job with the lubricator linkage. Just making the crank shorter and the operating rod slightly thinner without altering the joints would have improved things.

I don't have A4s as they are far too modern for me. If I did, I wouldn't tolerate that lubricator linkage looking like a second set of valve gear. If others are happy with it, then that is fine!

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

Because your average Hornby customer would break the lubricator drive taking the model out of the box.

 

What is viable for a high-end, niche-market model does not translate into the mass market.

 

CJI.

Modern N gauge RTR seems to manage with fairly small and delicate valve gear.

The Golden Age models A4 shows what is possible.

If I wanted an A4, I would be quite happy to take the Hornby lubricator off and put a nearer scale one on.

It would be one of the things I would be looking to improve.

I would also make a bracket on my new frames and hang the top end of the lubricator on the frames rather than attach it to the body.

Just because a model is produced for the "average train set" market shouldn't mean that it stays that way.

If folk are happy with it is as supplied then good luck to them but it is something I would want to change.

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Tony,

 

I haven't put a replacement chassis underneath a current Hornby A4 body (the earlier, tender-drive A4s were very poor in body-shape). 

 

I have, however, put a South Eastern Finecast chassis underneath a Lilliput/Bachmann A4 body.

 

 

This was the last Bachmann RTR A4 released (no lubricator drive - see later).

 

 

Here's my Lilliput/Bachmann/SEF combination, painted by Ian Rathbone. As well as the new chassis (with the lubricator drive made as 'flimsy' as I dared), I also made a South Eastern Finecast tender for it (Bachmann's is poor). 

 

Roy's Retford A4s were arrived at by using Lilliput bodies on his chassis, with SEF tenders. If the process were good enough for the great man, then.............

 

 

I don't think Hornby's lubricator drive is too obtrusive (especially when weathered-down). However, what a fag having to part-dismantle it to get the body off!

 

 

I suppose the best RTR depiction of the lubricator drive in 4mm is that provided by Golden Age, seen here on my MERLIN. I say 'mine', but that's only in terms of it being my property. I keep on asking myself why I bought it, especially since I can make A4s.

 

Having a little cash at the time, I must have been daft; especially as it cost more to have the DCC stuff taken out! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Roy's Lilliput A4s dated back to High Dyke days, when that was about the best way to get an A4 without trying to scratchbuild one. If you wanted to stock an EM layout very quickly, it was the best route to go down. If I recall correctly the body was not 100% accurate but was better that the Wills kit or the Hornby Dublo RTR, which were the other options at the time. 

More recent "Retford" A4s have been based on converted Hornby models.

The Golden Age lubricator does show the correct proportional difference between the lubricator and the valve gear. If they could do it, why not others? It is no worse than doing valve gear in 2mm scale and plenty of modellers (and RTR people) seem to manage with that.

1 hour ago, billbedford said:

 

I don't know why you should think that, after all, iron and steel ships had been built from "flat" drawings for over a hundred years. 

I say he did well because so many model A4s, both kits and RTR, didn't get the shape quite correct and he seemed to manage it.

It shouldn't be remarkable but in the case of model A4s, it is.

17 minutes ago, Pebbles said:

The A4 shape is a bit of a poser. When John Edgson draw the rebuilt W1 many years ago he quoted a height immediatley to the rear of the chimney of 12ft 6inches. From what I remember John's  drawing didn't reflect this giving a rather more pointed shape to the from end. John' W1 drawing also quotes other dimensions which would indicate that the front end of the W1 and A4s differ possibly as a result of the W1's bogies having a longer wheelbase.  All subsequent drawings of A4s appear to be very similar to John's W1 profile. I should add that when John eventually came to the A4s he appears to have corrected this.

I have been told that when Finney came to produce his kit he had obtained drawings of the A4 cladding, making his plastic boiler shape far more dependable. I would think that the Hornby shape was as result of scanning the prototype.

It is indeed a tricky shape. I recall Malcolm Crawley building an "as built" W1 from the SE Finecast kit. He had a set of "proper" railway drawings that had several cross sectional views at different places along the boiler. It was clear that they hadn't been used to design the kit, which had an almost triangular shape rather than the more rounded body of the real thing.

There is hardly a straight line in the A4 and anybody trying to make a kit from just a flat 2D drawing has their work cut out. Then trying to turn all those fancy curves into a flat etch that needs to be curved to shape makes it all very challenging indeed to get it spot on.

Martin Finney did extremely well to produce such a good shape if he did it from "flat" drawings and if Hornby scanned a real one, that would explain why theirs is a good shape.

18 minutes ago, 31A said:

 

Do you by any chance mean me?!  If so, thank you for those kind words and if not, I quite agree and this is what I did to try and improve things:

 

 

 

 

 

 

That was it. Lovely!

20 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Tony,

 

My apologies for the ambiguity of my post. 

 

Fitting the right sized drivers to a Pro-Scale V2 means altering the shape of the footplate (which can be done - I have). By making a new firebox with symmetrical sides, then the cab can point forwards without deflection; or, do what I did, and solder a strip of metal to the shorter side, making good with solder and bad language!. Tinsnips (and care) shortened the smokebox. 

 

Alan Hammet certainly was able to build a brace of Pro-Scale V2s into 'acceptable' models, though he told me he wouldn't build any more........

 

 

 

They certainly look the part on Little Bytham.

 

As does this pair of V2s I built from Jamieson kits.

 

 

 

Painted by Geoff Haynes.

 

 

Painted by Ian Rathbone. 

 

All, in my view, are no more than 'layout locos'. 

 

I accept that the Hornby A4 is a good model.....

 

 

Though I dislike the motion and the bogie wheels, and, as to the green?

 

Though............

 

 

With new bogie wheels, etched plates and a bit of weathering.....

 

What bugs me most is the angle of the slidebars - pointing upwards towards the rear, the opposite of how they should be.

 

 

More-evident here.

 

 

And the wrong angle of the return crank on this side.

 

I 'fiddled' with this Hornby example, then sold it. 

 

Of course, along with my mods to any Hornby A4, what lifts them is a superb paint finish..........

 

 

Applied by the likes of Ian Rathbone.

 

Whether this is 'better' than the one below is a matter of opinion.....

 

 

My latest Pro-Scale example, also painted by Ian. 

 

I know which one I prefer, especially since 60010 will pull anything on LB, whereas 60008 struggles on the heaviest trains. 

 

Still......

 

 

Hornby's A4 is an excellent candidate for doing some 'modelling' on, as here; Geoff West's rendition of SEAGULL. New bogie wheels, the tender altered to represent one of the trio with cut-down rears for the '48 Exchanges, a re-brand and weathering.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't want to use the Hornby A4 as it comes. There are always some aspects that need sorting out. One thing I am not keen on is the "working" lubricator drive that is almost the same size as the valve gear. In real life you hardly notice the lubricator as it is tiny compared to the valve gear but on the A4 shown above, it almost looks like it has an extra set of motion on the rear axle. It should be much less conspicuous. If perfect models could be had RTR, there would be nothing left for people like us to do.

Have you any A4s that use the Hornby body on a new mechanism, such as the Comet one?

That might give the best of both worlds.

I did that with the Royal Scot on Narrow Road. The Bachmann mechanism was discarded and Comet frames and motion/cylinders were used. That gave a loco with a more than acceptable body on a mechanism that runs like a kit built loco and there was plenty of room to add weight to give it plenty of haulage capacity.

It was probably easier than converting the RTR mechanism to EM too.