Tony Wright

Frank, I agree; I think the feature on Dent in the current issue of Railway Modeller is one of the most interesting layouts I've seen in many a long day. It really is a bit of a 'throwback' to the past, with many locos (and I assume stock) built from kits or from scratch; how refreshing at a time when (in my opinion) far too many featured layouts are just 'swamped' with RTR stuff. The mention of Jamieson 'hand-cut' kits brought back so many personal model-making memories! One might question the position of some of the lamps displayed, but the whole thing was a return to 'proper' railway modelling in my view (and not just the stock). The sort of thing which I used to devour all those years ago in my 'formative' years in railway modelling. Regards, Tony.

Martin, I'd share your views in the main about the current model press. However, (abstracting the fact that I've got articles in each this month) both BRM and the Railway Modeller feature layouts which are far removed from mainstream RTR and, to me, are what railway modelling should be all about. There's not an RTR layout at all in BRM and only two in the RM (though one is prominent on the front cover). I think the editorial teams on both mags should be congratulated for featuring something different (and inspiring?) this time around, though, as you observe, the review and new products pages suit the box-openers more. In fairness, this is how the hobby's been going for some time. Regards, Tony.

Of course, but all ships (not just warships) have always been feminine in description (even if they were named after men). I can't recall where I read it, but, after witnessing the launch of the Bismark, Hitler insisted that his capital ships be described as being male gender (previous German ships had also been shes). His reasoning was that they were far too powerful to be described as females. Not that it did the German battleship much good. It was sunk (principally) by two British Battleships, both named after men, though both King George V and Rodney have always been described as 'she'. I think it's one of those quirks and eccentricities of English. However, in the cases of the likes of locos such as HYCILLA and MELD, the feminine gender was entirely correct, since they were both fillies.

We're very well, thanks Dave. That Crab of yours is a beautifully-natural model, one of the finest I've seen of the class (in any scale/gauge). May I make one observation, please? I've never seen a real Crab with cabside numbers that small. There are two shots of 42790 in Irwell's recent 'Book of the Crabs' (on page 245) and both show the normal (8"?) type. I know some Scottish-based Crabs had even larger numbers in BR days (applied by St. Rollox?), but none shows anything quite so small. My observation is based on the amount of space between the vertical lining and the first and last digits. Regards, Tony.

Tony, Nobody need apologise for turning this thread to anything they like (other than puerile insults or dictatorial statements). It's part of what makes this thread so active and interesting. I think trolleybuses are wonderful creations, though I cannot remember any from my youth to any great extent. Chester never had any (and its trams disappeared pre-War), and Sheffield had trams when I was a kid. Did Rotherham ever have any? Liverpool had trams. I seem to recall trolleybuses at Doncaster; am I right? The ones at Wolverhampton had long gone before I made it my home, though roadside stanchions remained for many years (some might still).

Thanks Rob, Anyone fizzing through Little Bytham these days on the ECML will need sharp eyes to pick out anything which is recognisable from years ago. Coming south, once you've come over the viaduct straddling the village, the abutments of the MR/M&GNR formation are still to be seen (though reduced in height) but, since the goods shed was demolished a decade ago and new houses built on the site, any glimpses of the still-standing booking hall and the Willoughby will be very fleeting. Behind trees now, the stationmaster's house can just be seen, but then that's it. Anything like rock outcrops or the site of the limestone loading dock on the Down side are now totally obliterated behind mature trees, some close enough to be near-brushing the sides of trains on the respective slows. No matter, it can still be replicated as it was on the model, as, I hope, the following pictures illustrate............... Marsh Bridge, at the south end was a typical GNR three-arch overbridge, demolished with electrification in the mid-'80s. In this shot from '60 years' ago, Class A2/3 60500 EDWARD THOMPSON (Crownline/Wright/Rathbone) heads a Down express. Today, a concrete raft-type bridge gives access to Marsh Farm, and it might just be possible to get a similar view from the stationmaster's garden, rampant Mother Nature permitting. Looking north from Marsh Bridge, one needs to be very tall today to see over the parapet. Not so in 1958, when the station was fully-operational, for the parapet was very low (and civilised). Another Class A2/3, 60516 HYCILLA (DJH/Wright/Rathbone) heads an Up Newcastle service passing a 9F (Kitmaster/Crownline/Dave Alexander/Wright/Wright Junior) on an Up minerals. Though a shot in the same direction could be taken today, catenary would cause visual obstructions and there are just four tracks. Trees permitting, the stationmaster's house and the Willoughby might well appear, but any limestone outcrops are covered in greenery. I suppose it's conceivable that two of the preserved A4s might still pass at Little Bytham, but not these. 60014 SILVER LINK (Wills/Scratch/Wright/Rathbone) heads a Newcastle-bound express, passing 60026 MILES BEEVOR (SE Finecast/Wright/Rathbone) in charge of an Up fast goods. Bachmann's splendid Thompsons (modified) form the first two cars in the express and the goods is a mixture of kits/modified proprietary, hardly any of which is my work. Though it's possible to scramble up to the top of the MR/M&GNR formation to get a similar position to take a shot such as this today, unrestricted tree growth over the last four decades has rendered a picture impossible (unless one wants a picture of tree trunks). Though that retaining wall still stands, it's been invisible for years beneath creepers; so much so that it's not been inspected for the last 20 years (probably more!). The loco is a real museum piece of mine. It's an O4/8, made from a K's set of frames, footplate and tender from their O4, on to which I scratch-built a boiler and cab. To be kind to it, it is of its day (43 years ago!). I feel quite 'proud' of its train, since it contains about six wagons I've made (a rare occurrence). I moved a little bit further west to get another shot, this time including the 9F described earlier. Another O4, this one a Little Engines O4/1, sitting in the Up headshunt on an engineers' train. The third wagon is that ancient K's white metal one I built on Friday, now finished as a stores van. I have no idea whether the numbers I applied are correct (beautifully made by Cambridge Custom Transfers), but weathering probably disguises any wrong applications. Time was when this headshunt was the nearest track to the edge of the embankment on the east side, though there are only four tracks now. Anyway, even if it were still there, mature trees behind housing built over the decades would make such a shot impossible from this position today. It occurred to me that it might have been an idea to attempt take some pictures today from similar positions to the model ones above. I didn't (for the reasons already cited) and also because it was wet, and I just find the current subject matter too boring!

As always, lovely work, Tom, As Tim has suggested, the white/black/white lining bands (transfers?) will create the cladding bands. They'll probably be nearer scale, anyway.

That's great progress, Richard, and well done! Wasn't it just before the Warley Show when we made the frames for it? I don't scratch-build any more (though that little Sacre 2-4-0T your building, out of necessity, has to be created that way). Having completed the latest A2/3, I've just started on a further pair of A2/2s. It's odd, isn't it, how, though 'reviled' as prototypes, Thompson's Pacifics (particularly the P2 rebuilds) are popular as models? Of course, they have to be built, which, up to a point, is where I come in. Though I no longer build professionally as such, the latest pair (60505/6, from DJH kits) are being built for a professional model-maker friend on a sub-contractor basis. When these are finished, I'd reckon that must be over two dozen A2/2s I've built (though never 60502 or 60503; I wonder why?). I also wonder how many Thompson Pacifics have been built in model form overall, especially in 4mm? Is there a potential RTR market for one? There certainly seems to be a fair bit of interest on this thread, but nobody hold their breath!

Thanks for all the positive comments on numerous subjects. I've returned from a most-enjoyable day at the Biggleswade Show. Most ably organised by Dick and his team, may I thank them all at East Beds for such a great day, a very good show and splendid hospitality? If you didn't go (though many did) you've missed one of the best one-day shows on the circuit (in fact, it's better than many two-day shows). Mo wasn't with me, though she is much better, but had 'family' matters to sort out. Which she's done. So, my thanks to my good friend Geoff West who was an excellent stand-in. For my part, my voice lasted, I made £18.50 from my loco-doctoring for Cancer Research, and all but two of those wagons went to good, new homes. I was able to fix every loco which was brought, including a venerable Tri-ang Princess, which needed a new motor. May I thank all those who donated so generously, please? So far this year, Mo and I (and Graham Nicholas and Geoff West) have raised in excess of £200.00 for Cancer Research. I'll be sending a cheque to the charity at the end of the month, when I hope it'll be more. Last year, we sent over £1,000, and our target is the same for this year.

Thanks Tony, Just out of interest, I made one up this afternoon; one of the SECR/SR 8 Ton vans. It took me no more than 45 minutes, all soldered. I substituted brass buffers, but that's that. Despite its weight, it's quite free-running (in the original bearings). I'll have the lot with me at the Biggleswade Show tomorrow, asking a fiver each (including wheels). I hope they go. Regards, Tony.

Regarding the signals Tony, not a huge amount. One just needs the wires attaching to the arm and the counterweight(s), plus lamp fitted. The other needs a platform, ladder (provided), the wires attached and a lamp fitted. All relevant holes appear to be drilled and the spectacles have gels in them. Then, just painting. Do you fancy taking them on, please? Regards, Tony.

Another request, if I may, please, I've just received six K's cast metal wagon kits, with a request to sell them on behalf of a bereaved family (all proceeds to Cancer Research). There are four SR 8T wagons, a GWR mineral wagon and an SR gunpowder van. All are in unopened boxes and (according to the labels) contain Jackson wheels. They would appear to have been sold by Puffers. The address for K's is given as 101 Tubbs Road, Willesden, so they're of some 'antiquity'. The request? I don't have the faintest idea what these are worth. Does anyone have any idea and/or is anyone interested in them? Thanks in anticipation.

I can't tell the two apart as P2s, Tim. I'd go with MONS MEG, the one female in the class (after all locos are always - like warships - described as 'she'). I look forward to seeing it painted. I trust the pictures arrived.

There's some super work there, Tony, Now, if only you knew how to use a camera!!!!!! And, I might have a commission for you. Do you fancy finishing off Mick Nic's MR signals? I've done a bit more on them, but it's a question of time. I've just been asked to write a further book! Regards, Tony.

Tony, If only more posters were this honest; with one caveat (see later)! The only thing I'd 'argue' with is the comment about the sandbox fillers. The ones on my MONS MEG are right for the period modelled (summer 1958). She had them in different places at other times. The caveat? Using a metaphor, if one pops a head above the parapet, one can be shot at. However, one can also shoot back! For many years I've been popping my head above many model railway parapets, probably sending back more in the way of 'firepower' than I've received. That 'comes with the territory'. If you give it out, you've got to take it, and vice versa. I heartily seek out constructive criticism, and yours of my model I take constructively. It was built for review and I only altered the cabside proportions later. Should I have also mentioned the 'faults' you've listed (with justification?) on my A2/2 with regard to the model on the video clip? The reason I mentioned the position of the cabside numbers was because it is so noticeable; their being far too low. I don't know the loco's builder (if I do and I haven't put two and two together, then I apologise), but to have produced such a list as you've done in criticism of his work might have been very counter-productive. As far as I can tell (in the main) he's built the kit as supplied (with the faults you mention), just as, in the main, I did. If everybody's work was subjected to the same 'examination' as you've conducted on mine, it could be very destructive.One thing which delights me about this thread is the number of pictures of models produced by both the finest of model-makers and by some of those just learning the craft. We must be careful of not being too much in awe of the best (as was pointed out recently with regard to that stunning 2mm P2), but at the same time not tearing to bits the efforts of the not-so-experienced. I'm more than happy to have my own work scrutinised, especially by those I respect (such as yourself) but I would be horrified if folk were put off from posting pictures of their work because of 'fear' of a fusillade of 'criticism'. In the past, I've been 'critical' of some modelling, on this site. The reaction to my 'critical' comments about one layout was tantamount to my 'swearing in church'! How dare I, seemed to be the reaction from the said followers of the 'chosen path'. We must all be critical, especially of our own work, and I thank you again for your post. However, just to prove that I can build an 'accurate' A2/2, will this stand closer scrutiny? This is built from a DJH kit, which, in my view, is better than the alternatives. I need to qualify 'my view' because I built the prototype for this kit, built the first production example and wrote the instructions for it. There are some 'issues'; the crank pins are easy to use, but a screw head isn't that real and the drivers on this example are generic 24mm Romfords, rather than the specific ones. And, now, in the best traditions of this sort of debate, it's over to you. May we see what's on your workbench, please, Tony? Regards, Tony.

This thread flies along at a pace too fast for me. I spend a day with friends, and it's another couple of pages added! May I bring together a few points, please? Firstly, though it's known I encourage robust debate, the 'calling of names' is something to be avoided. I have no means of moderating this thread (which some folk, rightly or wrongly, believe is my 'property' and of which I'm the 'leader'); I don't know how to, nor do I particularly want to know how to moderate it. Unless it's self-regulating (among all posters) it'll lose its worth, and I, for one, do not agree with censorship. May I scotch any rumours now that I'm considering 'funding' an RTR A2/2 or A2/3? As I mentioned, whether, in the future, one ever comes out RTR, it won't be of great interest to me - I make my own, and continue to do so. My reason for requesting expressions of interest is that in my frequent chats with representatives of the RTR manufacturers, I'm asked from time to time what might or might not be a good prototype to go for in the future. Though I'd never claim to influence opinion, I can report that there has been an interest in Thompson Pacifics, though hardly on the grand scale. As has been mentioned, they had grand names (the A2/2s the best of all), though HERRINGBONE isn't that wonderful. The video clip of the A2/2 on the rolling road is very interesting, and it looks a well-built model. I'd say it's built from a Crownline/PDK kit (because the DJH A2/2 will not make either 60503 or 60504), and it's a pity the cabside proportions have not been altered - the numbers are set much too low because the horizontal handrail is set too low because the windows are set too low. The dodge is to raise the horizontal handrail up (by plugging the original holes with solder and drilling two more each side, right underneath the windows). Though this is still wrong, it does allow the numbers to be put in the right place, with their bottom edges level with the central valance. The pictures below show this. It's also worth adding the wiggly pipes. Dennis Lovett is still very much with Bachmann, though he retires in the autumn. He'll be a very hard act to follow. Operating Little Bytham? Today, four friends came round (two of whom have never operated it before) and we had a grand time. Whether it's DC or DCC, to some extent is irrelevant to the sequence's operation (though some might disagree). To all intents and purposes two drove for most of the time (changing, of course), one on the Up, the other on the Down. I acted as fiddle yard operator and signalman for the scenic section. When the full operating potential is known and realised, four operators are best; one driving Up trains (two controllers), one driving Down trains (two controllers), one signalling (that is setting all sections, signals and roads through the scenic section - busy work via cab control) and one operating the fiddle yard. As it was, we went through the 50 train movements almost perfectly in just over an hour and a half- I cocked-up by changing a point under a train! Nothing is ever 'perfect', and we managed to get through with one point motor failed (previously), one feed failed (previously) and one signal failure (today). Gentlemen, my thanks. I think that's about it for now.

Thanks Andrew, The image is most-helpful. The work on this project is progressing at quite a rate, so my answers to the questions I was asked (answered by all those who've helped on here, so thanks once more to all concerned) should allow it to proceed further. I state again, my input is only minimal, and I'm certainly taking no credit. One question I was also asked was about the colour of the roofs on these wee trams. Were they, at any time, ever white? I'd be surprised if they were, and even if they were white when brand new or just-shopped, the roofs would surely turn to dark grey after a few trips. The commissioning of new RTR models by magazines and retailers seems to be a growing trend these days. What will be next, I wonder? As a demonstrator, I'm frequently asked about whether Thompson's Pacifics might one day appear in RTR form. At Doncaster, I had two on display (one complete, one now complete) in need of painting; an A2/2 and an A2/3, both built from DJH kits (with two more A2/2s just started). My answer is always the same; 'Never say never, but I'd be very surprised'. That said, who'd have predicted a few years ago that we'd now have (or soon will have) things like L&NWR 0-8-0s, Coal Tanks, Lanky 2-4-2Ts, SE&CR 0-6-0s and (among others) LB&SCR Atlantics? All of these (certainly in pre-Grouping form) are before the memory of most alive today, yet they seem to be popular. If nothing else, it shows that many (most?) modellers don't always model what they recall, but for those who do (like me), Thompson's big creations were as much a part of the ECML BR steam era scene as anything built by Gresley or Peppercorn. When I was helping Bachmann with the research for their Thompson carriages (a modest input), I took along two A2/3 models of mine. One was built from a DJH kit, the other from a King/Bachmann A2 conversion. It was the latter which I thought the firm might be interested in. They borrowed it for some time, after I suggested they examine it and consider a potential RTR example in future. After all, the boiler, dome, bogie, pony, Cartazzi frames, coupled wheelbase, coupling rods, crossheads, slidebars and the whole tender were the same for the A2 as the A2/3, and there were an equal number of real locos. The answer came back eventually, 'No'. And, that was that. Though I am by no means a pundit on polls, may I ask if anyone is interested in buying an RTR A2/3 (or A2/2 - the A1/1 and the A2/1s would have no chance?), they contact me, please? On here, if you like. I can then ask again, but don't hold your breath! If nothing else, the above request shows my hypocrisy yet again; talk about poachers and gamekeepers! Other than acting as an advisor, I have not a great deal of interest in an RTR A2/3. The five I 'need', which are more than enough, I've built/modified (Graeme King did the one conversion, which I completed), and those who manufacture the kits for them (or any other loco kits) should be supported; an RTR example is usually the death-knell for an equivalent kit. However, for those who can't build one for themselves or and/or can't afford to pay someone else to do it for them, then an RTR A2/3 would be the answer for them, wouldn't it? What might the price be, though? Over (well over) £200.00? That'll start some bleating! Regards, Tony.

Gilbert, Is the point failure the one I fixed, or another?

Thanks once more for the information on the liveries of the tram locos. I must appear to be a bit of an charlatan at times; being asked for information by manufacturers, then getting it from somebody else (many somebodies!). I'm much happier with the LNER bigger stuff, but it's nice to be asked about the more obscure. Over the weekend at Doncaster, I was handed some bits for the MR signals for the upper section on Little Bytham. These were being made for me by Mick Nicholson, but the bringer of them had been told 'Tony'll know what to do with these'. I'll, thus, complete them. I've done a bit already (adding ladders and finials) but the hard bit of making them operational is yet to come. They're rather splendid, with their scratch-built posts. Thanks, Mick: you must tell me what I owe you. Both are shorter than they should be (to better fit in with the selective compression needed on the MR/M&GNR bit), but they're definitely 'Midland', as they should be for Little Bytham Junction. At the moment they're just worked by Blu Tak and finger, but, since non-working semaphores are a no-no as far as I'm concerned on layouts, then making them work is a priority. In this shot, the Down board is off for the passage of an excursion for the Norfolk coast, hauled by a scratch-built Ivatt 4MT. Now it's the turn of the Up starter, allowing a Kings Lynn-Nottingham three-set to proceed westwards on to the single track section to Saxby Junction. The loco is a modified Millholme 2P.

My thanks to all who've responded to my tram loco question, on here, by PM and email. What a wonderful resource this thread is!

Thanks Phil, I'm a tiny part of that research (through a third party), hence my question. It would seem nobody really knows what the beams' colour should be. From what I've got back, it would seem they should be black; which I'll be recommending................... Regards, Tony.

I have a request, please................ Does anyone know whether the buffer beams on the LNER tram locos (0-4-0s and 0-6-0s) were painted red, or just black? And, what was the actual brown colour used on the bodies? I have no colour photographs (BR ones would do), and it's difficult to tell from B&W ones. Thanks in anticipation.

Thanks for that Ian, Though it's accepted that my ignorance of DCC is manifold (and manifest), and I'm happy for that state of affairs to remain, I've come across DCC systems where the user has set every point, route and signal for a movement (or two) and then drives more than one loco, at the same time, just by using one handset! I cannot see how that replicates any prototype operating practice at all (doesn't DCC claim to give a more 'realistic' driving experience?) and, to me, being simple-minded, it would appear to be, as I've stated before, a recipe for chaos. Carlise has been mentioned and, to me, that vast systems exploits what DCC has to offer completely, but only for driving trains. There are several signal boxes (as there were in reality) and the 'lever frames' for those are placed adjacent to where the 'boxes are (in the main). Ideally, for true operating potential, several signalmen (not signalers in those days) would be required (and several drivers), but I have driven the whole thing by myself (it's certainly a way of keeping fit!). There are several universal 'ports' let into the baseboard edges where handsets can be plugged in and taken out (you can follow a train around that way), but to attempt to operate the railway with everything run from just one handset would result in complete confusion. That being the case, Mike Edge has designed the whole control system much more like the prototype, which DCC has allowed him to do, but only for controlling the locos. Regards, Tony.

Thanks for that, Andy, It's clarified the point I think. It's just that I read in no less a paper than the Sunday Times recently (or, it could have been the Telegraph) that inflation in Venezuela is running at several thousand percent, rendering its currency worthless. One would have thought (hoped?) that journalists writing in the broadsheets weren't too sloppy. Regards, Tony.

May I ask, please (and I have no wish to be argumentative, nor want this thread to descend into enmity); will a person with an understanding of mathematics explain whether it is possible (or, more likely?) impossible to have a percentage of anything over 100? I've used more than 100% in the past (as a 'lazy, sloppy journalist') when I've described increasing, say, a drawing in size to use it for building something '200%' larger in size. Though I taught maths at times, it was only up to 3rd year comprehensive school level, so I hope I've not dropped too many clangers on this point. Thanks in anticipation. Tony.