Chris Higgs

22 hours ago, CF MRC said:

I suspect it was 1980, Chris.

 

Tim

That might have been the first time we met, Tim.

Chris

On 15/09/2022 at 18:53, rprodgers said:

Well there is an opening there, the Hornby unrebuilt one is showing its age.

Given Dapol are now over a decade from this being announced in N, I think the Hornby one will be quite ancient before they ever get to doing an OO version.

Chris

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Chris,

 

I'm sure Heckmondwike ran reliably (as a friend of the late Bob Essery, I know he'd have expected nothing less). However (I didn't know Bob back then), I didn't stay long enough to actually witness any running. With that in mind (and my obviously short attention-span), I wonder how long spectators are prepared to stand in front of a layout before something runs in front of their eyes? I ask this because at one show with Stoke, an Up train's brake van was just disappearing underneath Westby bridge as a Down train's last vehicle was just inside Stoke Tunnel. At that moment, one punter turned up, looked at the layout, then looked at me and stated (in a loud voice) 'Nothing happening here. Not good enough!', then promptly strode off. Fewer than 30 seconds later, another train appeared in view.

 

Returning to Heckmondwike, didn't it end up at York? I seem to recall Bob telling me that attempts to get it operated regularly in the Museum had failed, and the layout was eventually broken up. Does anyone know what happened to it in the end? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

As I recall (and it is a long time ago) there was a plentiful audience for the whole operating session of Heckmondwike. The other thing to say was it being Bristol there was a whole lot of OO Gauge GWR Branch line layouts of quite variable quality there and a P4 LMS layout set in West Yorkshire did have a novelty value. And there was plenty of quality modelling to take in without a train in sight, let alone running.  Layouts a re a lot more than just the stock.

I fear there are some people who go to shows to nit-pick and will find a problem with any layout you care to mention.

It did end up at York and what I heard (again third hand so there might be others who know better) that for whatever reason the baseboards warped to the point it was inoperable. Perhaps through poor storage. There is a certain irony in them once publishing articles on their baseboard construction... 

Chris

7 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Merry Christmas Bill,

 

As someone else has remarked, 'boring' is subjective. 

 

I find shunting boring (I did when I was a trainspotter because it could, at times, interrupt the flow of more-exotic trains, and was usually the same engine performing the tasks). Yet, some modellers 'rejoice' in it, often building layouts which acquaint to a 'shunting puzzle' (though I've never known any civil engineer deliberately make a yard difficult to operate). 

 

I only saw Heckmondwike once (note the 'i'), and, as others have observed 'The bells rang but nothing moved'. It did satisfy Cyril Freezer's challenge for someone/a group to build a (largish) layout in P4 which operated as well as the 'best' contemporary OO ones. Except, because it operated to 'real time', movements were so few and far between (relatively) that it was hard to compare. I have to say, with nothing actually moving for over five minutes when I looked at it (though lots of bells rang), I walked away. 

 

Purists might argue (with justification?) that because Heckmondwike operated as near as possible to an actual timetable, then its running was more-realistic. As realistic as in the 1955 ASLEF strike or on a winter Sunday? It certainly was not my cup of tea (had it been in OO, with that level of operation, it wouldn't have been, either). That said, it was visually-beautiful.

 

Yet, in comparison, Stoke Summit's (which was built by a group of mates, not just by me) operation was most-unrealistic. A Down mineral empties would be released on to the double track section through Stoke Tunnel at a sedate 20 mph max. Moments after it had returned to the fiddle yard (in reality, just reaching High Dyke), a Down express would roar after it. Were that for real, an almighty collision would have occurred outside High Dyke's 'box. 

 

One 'critic ' said of Stoke 'It's only trains going round - look, there's one, and another, and........... I shook his hand, much to his puzzlement. Another said he didn't think much of it, having read about it in the mags, but couldn't comment first-hand because the punters in front of it were at least four-deep, and he couldn't see. Attending over 80 shows in its exhibition life (it was a fair bit bigger than Heckmondwike) must say something.

 

Takes all sorts, I suppose.

 

Best regards,

 

Tony. 

Subjective indeed. I saw Heckmondwike at Bristol in (I think) 1978, probably one of the few shows it actually did. I and a friend, we ran the school MRS together,  watched the whole sequence. We didn't find it boring. The gaps even gave us time to barrack the operators. What distinguished it from everything else at the show, except perhaps Chiltern Green, was that nothing fell off, or needed something poking to get it started. So it certainly met your requirement of reliable running, Tony. And they even did a bit of shunting.

Chris

The other thing is that you might be able to pick up Farish detail packs from the Bachmann spares site. 

The place you used to be able to go was Taylor Precision Models. http://www.tpmodels.co.uk/modernlocodetail.html

But not sure if Bernard is still operating. He posts on RMWeb on occasion so he may step in and let you now.

B.H. Enterprises was the other place with lots of parts.

Chris Higgs 

On 04/12/2022 at 23:37, justin1985 said:

Here's a direct "before and after" comparison of the Colman's mineral wagon (old wagon weathered and loaded):

 

 

The differences in proportions are really striking!

 

And with a (rubbed down for weathering) Mathieson wagon:

 

 

The sides of the new PECO wagon are definitely thinner than the Mathieson, but I still feel the (prototypically slightly smaller as a 1907 wagon) Mathieson has detail that feels a little more refined, or 'balanced' overall.

 

Definitely shows how far away the old PECO "minerals" were from the real look and proportions though!

 

I'm sure we'll see the prodigious range of liveries, and retailer specials etc, appearing on the new moulding wagons - which has got to be a great thing!

 

I also like the 'barely there' gaps between planks which are how a real wagon actually looks.

 Chris

1 hour ago, Izzy said:

 

I have a feeling that the basic principles are similar Chris but that perhaps operate in a sightly different way. Anyway, I thought perhaps digging mine out and taking a look might be worthwhile. Not having been used in quite a long while, can't remember when, it needed a good strip down and clean up. It's an 8" version with the rollers being 5/8" dia.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As you can see the two driving rollers are geared, with the third being adjustable for curvature. The sheet is inserted into the two rollers - adjustable for sheet thickness and grip - wraps itself around the top geared roller, and is why this is designed to be removable to get a get a tight roll off. I can't really see how I could reduce it's size,  the gears would prevent it, while the size of the third roller is really immaterial in general terms. Thanks for the suggestion though.

 

Bob

Mine (a GW Models one I think) wraps the item around the adjustable roller - my adjustable roller is at the top but I don't think that makes a difference. So minimum radius is determined by that roller, which is the one I changed.

Chris  

On 18/12/2022 at 23:23, 2mm Dabbler said:

Will,

 

David Eveleigh offers a replacement chassis for the 4500. Contact details and price are in the Small Suppliers section of the Association website. A few people have commented that there's an error in the cylinder placement as they don't line up with the smokebox and steampipes but otherwise it seems fine. Not my area of interest so I've not purchased one.

 

Michael

If you prefer to build your 45XX as a 44XX (smaller wheels, wheelbase reversed) I do a chassis for that. Having said that, I just sold the last one so would have to order it from the etchers.

Only applicable if your 45XX is the earlier version with flat tanks.

Chris

2 hours ago, Izzy said:

Ah yes, thanks for that idea. Not quite sure it would work with mine, the rollers are geared together, but I’ll give it a look and see. 
 

Bob

On mine, the two lower rollers (on the outside of the curve) are geared together, the upper one runs free. I replaced that, I had to modify the end bearing to get it at the right height.

Chris

7 hours ago, Izzy said:

A Steam Era Branch Train pt 2

 

Having converted the Farish loco wheels I’ve started on the loco by making up a chassis. Originally I sketched it out to use the common two stage gear reduction, a 30-1 worm gear followed by a 14/18T second to give around 38-1.

 

 

 

 

But following the posts on here from those using the new brass machined gearbox that takes the 30-1 worm set in a couple of similar tender locos with good results I thought that I would give that a go. It seems to run nicely and certainly has great advantage space wise. I've just got to work out how to use it with my keeper plate system. Using DCC and with another Zimo MX615 to power it I don’t foresee any slow running issues. I might try to incorporate a flywheel with the U/J's as discussed elsewhere.

 

 

 

 

Now I’ve moved on to the loco body. The footplate and cab have been made and assembled so it’s on to producing the boiler.

 

 

 

 

I’ve never rolled a boiler in 2mm so far (not expecting to mainly modelling diesels!), the N7/3 using some correct sized brass tube I had to hand, so it will be interesting. I have Cherry make rolling bars with which I’ve rolled them in 4/7mm scale over the years but that’s far too big to use here and I don’t really want to get involved making a miniature one just for this job, a nice challenge thought that might be. So a bit of simple crudity might be involved along the line…..

 

Bob

I modified my set of rollers using a smaller diameter rolling rod that meant I could just about do a 2mm boiler. It think you only need the bar that goes on the inside of the curve to be small enough.

Chris

8 hours ago, micknich2003 said:

Robert, with out looking through many old magazine, Three Aitch mid '70's.

Certainly 70s. I built one then (and still have it).

Chris

7 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Chris,

 

On several occasions when Mo and I have been finding new homes for model railway stuff on behalf of the bereaved families, we come across lots of metal kits; mainly in 4mm, including locos, carriages and wagons; most are locos. They fall into several different categories.....

 

1. The kit is totally un-examined, still wrapped in its tissue paper, any polythene bags unopened, with the complete instructions lying on top of the contents. It's almost as if we're the first folk to look inside.

 

2. The kit has been meticulously examined, and the contents listed against the instructions. Parts will be re-wrapped (never as neatly as originally), and any bags will have been resealed.

 

3. The kit has been looked at, but not re-wrapped. The instructions are still present.

 

4. Everything is in a jumble at the bottom of the box and the instructions are nowhere to be seen.

 

5. As 4., but bits have been 'pinched' to serve other projects.

 

6. The kit has been started, but abandoned as being beyond the builder's ability. Any construction has been by glue! It's arbitrary whether any instructions are present.

 

7. The kit has been completed but its finish is poor and it doesn't run well (very common).

 

8. The kit has been completed, its finish is good, but its running is rubbish (common).

 

9. The kit has been completed, its finish is poor, but it runs well (very, very rare).

 

10. The kit has been completed, its finish is good and it runs beautifully (rare).

 

11. Most of the parts of a kit are contained (dependent on its age) in a tobacco tin of a certain size! No instructions, but several non-standard nuts and bolts, bits of scrap brass and weird (inappropriate) castings present. Often the top of the tin has been used to mix epoxy on! 

 

I'm sure there'll be other, equally bizarre categories..............

 

The one ever-present feature in all of this is that over 90% of (particularly) loco kits are never completed to satisfaction. In that respect, they can provide rich-pickings (particularly at swapmeets, where kits are often viewed with suspicion) for builders.

 

So, in the same way we should be grateful for 'collectors' supporting our hobby (however passively), then the likes of builders should be equally grateful for those who buy kits which are never completed. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Ah, tobacco tins. Those were the days. My grandfather was a pipe smoker so we got a few.  But a little small for some things, my brother still has a shelf full of biscuit tins full of radio valves. We have no idea what they do, but you never know when you might need one...

Of course, those who really hate the sight of RTR can always choose to model in 3mm, or S.

Chris 

6 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Steven,

 

I wonder if it's common sense to never take an RTR item out of its box in case it devalues it by opening the packaging? Some Bachmann models came with their boxes wrapped in tissue paper. According to some collectors, remove this and the model inside is worth less! Barmy? 

A sale is still a sale for the manufacturer. And perhaps if those sales never happened we would not get some of the models we have RTR today at all. Which I know some would say would be no bad thing.

I know full well that of the etches I produce in 2mm scale, probably 90% are sat in gloat boxes and will never get built. But if I only had sales for people who were actually going to build them, they would never have been designed in the first place.  It's not just in the RTR sphere that people do not put things to use in the way they were intended.

My brother has a friend who died, his house was packed to the rafters with railway and bus books, which he left to various of his friends. When my brother asked why he had bought the books most of which he had never opened, he was told he felt that he wanted to financially support those who wrote and published them.  Good thing or bad?

Chris 

9 minutes ago, Lemmy282 said:

I used to do weathering and renumbering work on diesels for a local model shop some years ago. One day I was in the shop and there were unopened cartons of Bachmann locos on the counter. I was told a special customer was coming in. Sure enough a few minutes later in he came, donned his cotton gloves and the shop owner carefully opened the cartons. Inside were loco boxes wrapped in tissue, the customer carefully checked each wrapped box and selected the one with the neatest tissue wrapping. Then the process was repeated for the other cartons and he happily trotted off with four locos, still wrapped in tissue, and having never seen the contents of the boxes. I was told this happened every time a new release came out!

 

Nigel L

And I should imagine that customer helped to keep that shopkeeper in business. So that those of us who just go in to buy a wagon kit and one tin of paint and then do some modelling have a shop we can do that in. I too used to do some custom kit builds for the local modelling shop (the same one I used to do shows with). But I knew that that was not what kept the bottom line acceptable. Everything in life has its place. 

Chris

1 hour ago, Simon A.C. Martin said:

I write with a query, someone may know the answer!

 

In the 1968 non-stop run made by Flying Scotsman, the rake of BR Mk1 coaches is given as follows: BSK, FO, FO, RK, TSO, TSO, RMB.

 

Of these seven coaches, I have six made by Bachmann RTR (to be renumbered) and the seventh, the RK, is to be converted from another Bachmann Mk1 coach by way of using parts including pre-formed sides from Wizard models.

 

I believe the RK is this vehicle, after studying the BBC film of the non-stop run: https://www.wizardmodels.ltd/shop/carriage/b21k/

 

 

The one thing which eludes me is: what should the carriage number be on the RK?

 

I have tried pausing the film, tried looking through books and photographs, even contemporary articles of the run, but nowhere can I find the exact carriage numbers for the types. So they will all be Eastern region numbered. But the RK is crucial to get as right as possible, and, I don't think (from limited reading) that there were that many of this coach on the eastern region? So the number we can surely pin down closer to the actual vehicle?

 

 

So, if we begin with the presumption that it was a D702 RK (the picture you have posted is a D702), the D700 and D701 examples having anthracite stoves and were withdrawn quite early. I don't have a stock book for 1968,  but the 1976 stock book from RCTS lists the following as Eastern region examples:

E80022, E80023, E80024, E80026, E80028, E80037, and E80039.

Can you see the bogies in the film? According to the RCTS, in 1976 the bogies were B1 on E80022, E80023, E80024, E80026 and B5 on E80028, E80037, and E80039. Confusingly, the Wizard photo has Commonwealths.

EDIT: this post says the RK had B5 bogies. It states there were no ER RKs with B5 bogies, but RCTS say otherwise. So my guess is one of  E80028, E80037, and E80039.

Chris

4 minutes ago, polybear said:

 

The MEE at Ally Pally is/was still going prior to lockdown (there's no show next year, which is worrying); however I did go to the last one and was immediately struck by how many "regulars" no longer had a stand there (friends travelling separately had exactly the same opinion) - there were definitely less Traders than in previous years and the recent introduction of a £16 parking charge for visitors won't help future show attendance.  I've a suspicion that we may not see the show reappear again at A.P., sadly.

I've noted there is a Midlands version near Leamington, not too bad travelling for me. Unfortunately just missed the 2022 edition, will have to wait until October 2023 for the next.

3 hours ago, CF MRC said:

Chris, I would definitely clean off any paint inside the casting. Turn a sleeve that fits over both the axle and inside the wheel. Use 24hr Araldite to fix this to the axle (Loctite won’t work with the flat on the axle). Then use Loctite to attach the wheel to the sleeve. 
 

Is it a Hachette bus?

 

Tim

I'm still going to try and see if I can work it to get a grub screw in, as I would like to be able to removed the motors when needed. And I might need some bearings in the frame as I don't know whether stepper motors can sustain that much side thrust without them. 

It is indeed a Hachette/Agora bus. Really a very impressive piece of work from its designers I must say. Rather let down by the unrealistic external panel strips which are screwed on, but I suppose they wanted something that people could build completely without gluing or soldering. I am going to be etching some replacements for these, I have been measuring them up from the Routemaster at the Covent Garden museum.  

I would rather like to rebuild it as an open-topper, but am a bit daunted as to how to get the part at the rear of the upper deck to the same quality as the current roof.

Chris

4 minutes ago, JustinDean said:

One thing I’ve not seen in this discussion about traders attendance at shows is the advertising element. A lot of folk here are talking from the standpoint of already knowing who a lot of the small traders are and how to reach them. For someone new to the hobby, or wanting to reach further into it (such as scratch building) a show is a great way for small suppliers to introduce their products to them. Wandering around Warley I came across a couple of traders who I will be using in the future. 
 

Jay

Yeah, quite probably. And I suspect that the larger companies do the major shows just to be in people's minds, so that when you have to 'name a box-shifter', then their name is on that list. Even if they make nothing at the shows themselves. 

1 hour ago, Izzy said:

 

I think this is at the core of where I’ve been going wrong, the basic drawings on Steve Banks site not being quite right besides the rest of what I’ve messed up. Many thanks for all this Chris, I hate not getting things basically right even if the quality isn’t great.

 

Time to take a break and think it all through I reckon, perhaps start again.

 

Bob

I have the Isinglass drawings of these coaches, they give the width details.

Here are some comparative roof cantrail widths.

Gresley corridor 8' 10 1/2"

Gresley non-corridor 8' 10 1/2 or 8' 10 5/8"

Gresley Quad-Art 8' 11 7/8"

Thompson (corridor/non-corridor) 8'9"

LMS 8' 10 1/4"

BR MK1 8'9"

Some might think one and a half inches (0.25mm in 2mm scale) is neither here nor there, but it makes a lot of difference to how the coach side profile presents itself. So I can see width-wise the Mk1 matches, but the roof profile is all wrong. You might consider thinning the LMS roof down a touch width wise to get the proportions right.  

44 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Mike,

 

Splendid stuff.

 

Who was it who said 'All GWR locos look the same'? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Well, most of the ones built from the Churchward era on did, after a fashion. I first thought this was an absorbed loco, but apparently it is proper GWR, built for the Helston branch. Lovely model.

Chris

14 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Chris,

 

It might be that, in time, all traders will cease to appear at shows, especially as if they can make just as much money by mail order and have fewer overheads; no transport costs, no stand rents and no accommodation to pay for.  

 

That situation will make shows untenable; no stand fees, so no income for the organisers from that direction, and many folk go to shows to see what trade is on offer (hopefully supporting it by buying things). I spoke to one trader recently (specialist RTR) and he hadn't taken enough over the weekend to cover his costs. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Who knows. It's also the case that if you actually have a physical shop, you need extra staff to do shows as Saturday is also the busiest day in the shop. And the average staff member would rather do 9-5 in the shop than 5am-9pm for the show. 

Thinking back, the Model Engineer exhibition was really the show to go to if you wanted raw materials for scratchbuilding. All the nut and bolts, stock metal and tools you could ever need. Do they still have such shows? The big German show in Koln has the best of both worlds, all the model railway stuff downstairs and the model engineering upstairs.

2 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Oh what a nice underframe. Thanks again Chris. I feel a lot of re-working is going to have to happen.

 

 

Yes, I realised this a  couple of days back. Really making a bit of a pigs ear of these aren’t I. At least other may benefit from seeing these and avoid them. This is the result of having just brief info to go on. Basically the web page from Steve Banks which is very helpful in itself but not nearly enough.

 

https://www.steve-banks.org/prototype-and-traffic/408-lner-thompson-non-gangwayed

 

I have no carriage books of any description these days, having reduced my library by 75% some years back. 

The sloping sides are prominent in some of the photos within this excellent link.

On 11/12/2022 at 08:49, Richard Hall said:

Another excellent set of posts and timely for me as I start to look at building a Gresley non corridor brake third. Did the corridor and non-corridor stock have the same roof profile, I wonder?  In my scrapbox I have a Minitrix corridor coach with damaged sides which might give me a roof.  

 

Richard

Technically speaking not, although for most coaches it is indistinguishable. And the Quad-Arts had a slightly wider roof than other non-corridor stock. I chose to ingore that when designing my  kits.

But a Thompson roof profile differs from a Gresley. 

Now I come to think of it, the plastic Ultima Gresley roof would probably form a better starting point than either of the ones the Association sell.

13 hours ago, Izzy said:

 

Thanks Chris, that's useful info. it's funny because this afternoon I've been struggling with the next coach and almost came to the conclusion that the association BR roof was a better match and I'd made a mistake using the LMS.

 

Bob

Well, yes, there is also the issue of the width. Thompsons had a narrower width at cantrail height than either Gresley or Stanier coaches. This gives the sides a more pronounced angle above the waist.