Tony Wright

Thanks Phil, It was good to see you over the weekend. My voice is now returning (cue groans of woe), but its disappearance meant my having to cancel a publisher's meeting in London today, which was a disappointment. Still, it enabled me to complete the A2/3. Actually, there are only relatively minor differences between Thompson's 'stealth fighter' (the A2/2) and his production A2/3, with almost all the components being compatible. I hope the picture below shows the similarities, and the differences. Despite their perceived unpopularity among railway enthusiasts, the Thompson Pacifics are very common as models. The A2/2 (the nearer one) in this picture was built for a friend, and another friend has just asked me to build two more!

Can you not? I've learned something today! Many thanks, Mike.

I'd agree entirely with your assessment of Tim's incredible P2. However, might the cabside windows be a tiny bit small? Especially in comparison with the spectacles. My observation is based on the amount of 'land' on the cabside between the cab front and the vertical edge of the leading cab window, which seems to me to be too much. There is a greater gap above the windows as well. I've checked against the drawings I have, and dozens of pictures. I offer the above entirely in the spirit of 'constructive criticism', and at least it gives us mere mortals a chance when even the very best model makers (would appear to) get things slightly wrong. If I'm wrong in my observation, then I most sincerely apologies to Tim. Anyway, it's still an incredible piece of work, especially in 2mm!

Al, I'd think 100% more counts as 'substantial', dependent on points of view. In my case, it's 400% more because I only have one insulated wire; the other connection acts as the motor stay as well. Many of Carlisle's locos have tender pick-ups as well (which I don't need), which means another two wires to consider.................. Am I against DCC? It certainly might seem so, but if one is 'for' something, is it automatic that one must be 'against' something else? You're certainly not, and both systems work for you. Since you're a professional author (which I am as well, well sort of), I've no wish to argue semantics, but may I offer the following pictures of what I consider 'substantial', please? This is a DCC-fitted chassis for an A7 which I've built for a friend (the complete loco). I think it's safe to say that there are a 'few' wires. Obviously, it has no tender, but if I'd fitted pick-ups to the bogie/pony, there'd be a few more. One advantage of my live-chassis construction is that, in most cases, every bogie/pony/tender wheel is live to one side as well, giving excellent pick-up through every axle. It's advantageous to have as many pick-ups as possible (whether it be DC or DCC), but live chassis are not really recommended for DCC, hence my point about a 'substantial' number of wires needed for a DCC-fitted loco in comparison to my DC ones. I hope the pictures above show my point. This is the basic chassis for a DJH A2/3 I've just built. It goes under this (just a few details to add). It goes really well, does not short anywhere and was an absolute doddle to wire up - with just one insulated wire needed (this one only has live wheels on the pony and tender, because I've used Alan Gibson bogie wheels). Multiply this by over 150 (the number of locos I've built for LB), and I think the number of extra wires needed were the locos DCC-fitted might well be described as 'substantially more'. Regards, Tony.

Thanks Baz, The running of locos (on test or on layouts) is something I've always done from time to time in the dark. One can immediately tell if there's a short because a spark can be seen; from a bogie wheel, frame, brake block or any other metal parts of opposite polarity. On DC it (usually) just causes a twitch; on DCC, it shuts everything down. I most certainly do not turn a blind eye to shorts (even if they do no more than cause a twitch) and eradicate every one at source. Speaking of shorts; how can it be that on Carlisle one evening I'd been running lots of trains, positioning them for photography with ease (yes, I can operate a DCC layout, even a vast one), only to return next morning for more photography, and find a short circuit. Because of Mike Edge's excellent arrangement of 'zones', I was able to find which section the short was in and it turned out to be a loco which I'd placed into position (by driving it) the night before (perfectly) without the slightest problem. Then, overnight (and much, much cooler), by next morning, something on the loco (a Princess) had shorted out. I moved it half an inch, and the short went away. I have never, ever experienced that on LB, or any other DC layouts I've built/operated. I know changes in temperature can cause shorts over a (relatively) short time, but it's usually an increase in temp which causes the problem. One observation, on examining the all-metal, and beautifully-built, Prinny, was the mass of wires inside it. Ironic, isn't it, that though DCC lessens the amount of layout wiring needed, it substantially increases the number of wires needed inside a loco (much, much more if sound or lights are contemplated)? All those extra wires increase the risk of short circuits in all-metal locos. Not so for mine; all my locos need are two wires from the pick-ups, one to each brush terminal (only one insulated because I build live chassis). There, I'll use that as propaganda for DC - all one needs are two wires! Sounds good, doesn't it? And, I agree, wiring Carlisle for analogue would have been much more time-consuming (not more difficult, just lots more wires and switches). Regards, Tony.

Wonderful work, Tim, It's a good job you're a better model-maker than you are a speller - Missendon?

Dennis, One thing I should have mentioned, is that the bogie has a coil spring on top of it (half a Jackson screw-coupling one). This helps with the road-holding.

Thanks Phil, Some most-interesting points.............. Clearly, your wiring is very sound and you, I would surmise, get excellent running from DCC. I'm not disagreeing with anything you say, but may I list the things I find easier/better/enlightening in my use of analogue, please? 1. A stray short doesn't shut everything down. 2. Locos never lose their address because there is no address to lose. 3. Fault finding is far easier with DC, though, at times, it would be nice on encountering a fault to just switch off the 'juice', then switch it back on and things work again. I think it's called re-booting! 4. I can run any DCC-fitted loco anywhere on my layout (as long as the chip has not been programmed not to respond). 5. Having a separate controller for each circuit and an independent control panel is much easier to understand. No real railway runs all its operating functions from only one console - roads, points, routes, signals, trains, etc........ 6. It is much cheaper. 7. Because almost all my locos are built from metal kits (with the obvious chance of a stray short), there's less of a chance of a problem with DC. 8. I needn't bother leaving space in the locos for a chip. 9. From time to time, I've assisted others in getting their model railways to work properly. In every case, I've found it far more difficult to get DCC systems (with faults) running to the standard I insist upon than DC systems (with faults). 10. Where I have given assistance, those I've helped seem much easier to grasp what I'm trying to do if their system is DC. Which begs the question; why do folk buy into a system which they don't understand and are stuffed when things go wrong? To be fair, many analogue-users don't understand their railways, either. 11. When confronted with a DCC loco which needs my doctoring, I suggest the owner visit one of the traders specialising in the systems. In those cases, I'm stuffed! 12. Over 50% of the users of DCC I know have now abandoned it and returned to DC. Nothing on the above list should be taken as my being anti-DCC (despite my being reported as thinking it to be the 'spawn of Satan!'); they're just my personal thoughts and observations. It's interesting how this thread keeps on coming back to DCC (it won't be long until it's back to P4!). I know I'll never use it, so that's that as far as I'm concerned............. I believe my own layout of Little Bytham would benefit not a jot from DCC for some of the reasons cited above and because I obtain reliable, smooth and trouble-free running without it. Finally, though I'm sure the illuminated loco lamps are very effective, LB runs to a timetable set in the high summer of 1958, between the hours of 8.00 am and 6.00 pm, when lamps on locos would not be lit. Regards, Tony.

Thanks Dennis, Sorry we missed the chance to chat. The chairs in front of me were occupied for most of the time, which, I can only conclude, must mean that what I have to say/show might be of interest, or that folk just wanted somewhere to sit down. The configuration of the front bogie by providing a slot works, as long as the curves to be negotiated aren't too tight. I've used it on an A2/2, but changed it to a swinging link when the loco was sold to Gilbert Barnatt for service on Peterborough North (his curves are tighter than those on Stoke Summit). I've also used it on a B16/1, and the minimum radius it runs over is 3'. Less than that, I don't know. The H16 you mentioned has to negotiate 2' 6" radius curves, which it does, though I had to remove the front steps because they fouled the front bogie wheels. As for the 'dodgy' RTR chassis, my only empirical evidence is what's put in front of me to be fixed at shows. What's evident from this is a high proportion (much higher than I'd have expected) of up-to-date RTR chassis (steam-outline) which don't work properly. To be fair, this is not exclusively Hornby's problem (has anyone been able to get inside an RTR 2-4-0 well tank yet?), and others I've had to fix include Heljan's O2s (valve gear coming adrift, or the keeper plate tightened too much; that sort of thing) and Bachmann's older-style split chassis (now abandoned by the manufacturer, which tells me something). The latter frequently fail because the plastic centres to the driving wheels crack. However, it's the number of more recent Hornby locos' chassis which have failed which most surprises me. They are visually-excellent, but is it a case of poor quality control? When they work (as I'm sure most of them do), they're really good but, as I've already said, if one is (modern) RTR-dependent, then beware! Many locos which are brought consist of the old Mainline/Palitoy split chassis mechanisms. When these arrive, I change from a loco-doctor to a loco-mortician! One final point I forgot to mention was the increase in enquiries by folk observing what I've made, asking 'How much?' What I have on display is not for sale, but it does suggest to me (over the last year or two) of an increase in the number of late middle-aged men who are interested in model railways, are 'time- and cash-rich', but are skill-poor. It would seem that they get others to do their railway modelling for them, which is their right, of course. That said, I'm at shows as a demonstrator/loco-doctor, not as a salesman. Regards, Tony.

Thanks Ian, I really don't mind confrontation (I've learned a lot from it on many occasions). It's just that, why is it that DCC is perceived (not by anyone who thinks) as the one-stop-shop cure for poor running on model railways? There's no doubt that (if used correctly, by those who know what they're doing) it can bring a whole raft of (desirable) functions to a layout's operation, but it is not a 'medicine'. As you say, there is no difference in the wiring (other than one doesn't need as many on/off switches) between DCC and DC. If the wiring is poor, won't a DCC layout suffer more? Regards, Tony.

Thanks Clive (see above as well), Good to see you on Saturday. If you've caught a cold, you didn't get it from me. I don't have one, just a loss of voice. Regards, Tony.

Having just spent a most-enjoyable weekend at the Doncaster Show, perhaps some comments might be of interest................... Firstly, my thanks to the organising team at Warners for doing such a good job. Secondly, may I please thank all those folk who asked after Mo's help? I was quite astonished, and my faith in human nature (if not completely) is restored. She is now much better, thank you. I thought the show overall was very good, with a range of high-quality layouts on display. There were too many 'box-shifters' for my personal taste, though, judging by the number of bulging plastic bags, they were what a lot of punters wanted. For my part, I fiddled away in the main in my role as loco-doctor, with some success I'm pleased to say. This week I'll be posting a cheque for Cancer Research, including £62.00 which I made at Doncaster for fixing duds. May I please thank all those who donated so generously? The only loco I wasn't able to fix was a modern OO one, a Hornby WC. Though the motor whirred, no 'drive' took place, just a sort of 'chattering'. I assume the gear train has fallen to bits? Another Hornby loco, a Royal Scot, displayed similar traits, but by tightening up the keeper plate, the drive re-engaged. I have to say, I wasn't entirely happy with this solution, but the owner was. Another Hornby loco (sorry about this, but this is what occurred), a Duke of Gloucester, was brought with the valve gear having fallen off one side. It's plastic, and was easily re-attached with a dab of superglue, but it really is flimsy. The easiest fixes were to a collection of 1950s' Tri-ang locos. Just a clean of the wheels, adjustment of pick-ups, a cleaning out of the crud from the slots in the commutators and a drop of oil, and off they went - good for a further 60+ years! I asked myself the question, 'How much, in terms of robustness and reliability, have we moved on with modern RTR?' For those who are dependent on it, might I suggest 'beware', please? There was great rejoicing, the waving of bunting and the throwing of hats into the air when I lost my voice, halfway through Saturday afternoon. I just about squeaked through, much to the amusement of spectators. My thanks to those who gave me throat sweets - they were appreciated. One punter complained to me about the running on many of the layouts, saying there was far too much in the way of jerking, stuttering and flying starts and stops. 'Why don't these people employ DCC?' he opined, loudly. Ah, thought I, that's it, DCC is the automatic panacea for all the running problems on model railways. Forget dirty track, dry joints, sticky locos, dodgy pointwork and broken connections. Just employ DCC and all those things will disappear. His final point was to graphically demonstrate (by waving his arms about) that how, with DCC, two locos can be on the same track and be going in opposite directions (on a collision course?). 'You can't do that with DC!' he proudly-proclaimed. I didn't mention to him that by merely reversing the polarity of one loco's motor one could, easily, with DC. And, anyway, is he modelling Abermule on a certain day on the Cambrian?, I wondered. Or Quintinshill? I asked him how many all-metal locos he had. The answer was none. How did he configure the decoders? It would seem he just bought RTR ready-fitted or used one of the service providers. There was a mention of something called 'Stay-Alive' (which Andy York explained to me later). Apparently, this is a sort of mini-'battery' (capacitor?) which will have just enough 'juice' to enable a loco to go over a section of track where the feed has broken. This, I'm told, is another great feature of DCC. So, according to this DCC-acolyte (read into that chump, in my opinion), there is no need to fix feed problems at all. If a joint fails, just leave it. DCC will automatically cure it! Are people like him deluding themselves? Do they live in a sort of fools' paradise of DCC, where all is perfect with their trains' running? If there are any problems, surely it is best to fix them at source, not by hiding behind electronic trickery? Fortunately, a mate (thanks Clive) kind of took him away.

Rich, What I'd do is to obtain some double-sided copper-clad PCB. That way, you can solder the PCB strips to the base of the frames. Tin both the PCB and the base of the frames with 145 solder, then solder them in place with low-melt. The bond will be quite secure. I hope this helps.

Point taken, John, However, when I take more front-on pictures (in perspective), the difference is quite noticeable. This is the Hornby A3 60049 (which featured earlier), after I'd modified/detailed/weathered it (including new bogie wheels). I notice the difference, but that's me. This loco has since been sold. The problem with inaccurate bogie wheels gets worse in my view with the current RTR B1s. Neither, to my eyes, are right. In fairness, this is an older Bachmann B1 which Geoff West has improved/weathered. I'd still change the bogie wheels, though. When I wrote the review for the first of Hornby's B1s, I commented on how the bogie wheels didn't capture the 'look' of the real things. Though LNER bogie wheels tended to have a large centre boss, were any as large as these? I honestly think that they're worth changing. It makes the loco look far more realistic in my view. I've taken this one a bit further, to be fair; changing the chimney, detailing it and changing its identity. Tom Foster then weathered it for me. What shouldn't be forgotten is how generally good the featured RTR locos are, but, they can be improved with relative ease. I think it's worth it. I fully-understand, from a distance, can one tell? And, if matching paint finishes is difficult or the originals don't derail on less-than-perfect track, then, by all means, stick with them. To me, though, RTR bogie wheels are just too chunky; so, I replace them. Rummaging through pictures to find the ones above, I'd forgotten that I'd taken a picture of Hornby's P2 on Little Bytham............. There were certainly no problems with haulage-ability with this loco! Edited to include a picture of some real B1 wheels; my apologies for not including them. I think it's the distinctive shape of the spokes which is most important to me, not captured at all by the RTR bogie wheels. And, don't bother to file that flash-line off your cast buffers!

I wouldn't expect anything but honesty and frankness.......................... Otherwise, what's the point of discussions, here, or anywhere? original Hornby. Markits' replacements. The real thing......... The striking light has given an impression of the wheel rims being polished, which they're not; the loco is just ex-works. The big differences between the two model wheels, and there's more than enough difference to me, is the shape of the spokes, the size of the flange and the width of the tread; the Markits ones being far more realistic. Of course, neither are really realistic (is that tautology?). To do that, you'd have to adopt P4!

Thanks, but are you sure? If so, I've learned something new today. Regards, Tony.

Believe it or not, the highest point on the ECML - in Lincolnshire!

Thanks again Andy, Few layouts have the good fortune, as mine does, to have trackwork made/laid by Norman Solomon, but he didn't lay the fiddle yard tracks (which is the majority); I did. I say that, not to boast, but to illustrate that with care and a reluctance to cram too much in, trackwork can be laid so that's it's reliable and doesn't cause derailments. My fiddle yard track is all Peco Code 100, though not the old-fashioned 'universal' sort.

Andy, Many thanks. I count you as a dear friend, so I'll tell it as I see it............ Using a (rather poor) analogy, you're 'curing' a knocking noise from your car's engine (though I'm not suggesting that your MGB's engine clatters) by turning up the radio so it's so loud, that you then can't hear the banging! Surely, any high priority with regard to building a layout (after building sound baseboards) is to make sure the track is laid 'perfectly'. If not, and the only way you can achieve 'good' running is by the use of train set wheels, then, in my view, you're masking a problem which will only get worse. As for your club, tell 'em the track's no good! I did recently; there was some huffing and puffing, but I just altered a section of track and readjusted a point. Next time I went, a lot more had been improved. But then, I'm a thick-skinned sort of bloke whose parents 'never married'!

Further to the discussion on bogie/pony wheels, the following pictures might be of interest................... I think this was the first Hornby A3 supplied with German blinkers and a GNR-style chimney. Without doubt, it is a cracking model at source and is, no doubt, superior to many a kit-built equivalent. However, those bogie wheels are really rather poor. Surely it's worth replacing them with something more realistic (forget the other alterations). I still have this modified Hornby A3 (I don't still have 60049, though I did modify it) and the Markits bogie wheels do not derail. Hornby's SPARROW HAWK as supplied.......... Again, don't bother with the other mods, but look how much better the bogie wheels look. The difference is even more marked in comparative close-up. Note in the replacement Markits wheels the correct shape of the spokes and the rim. And, they do not derail. Since we usually see the bogie wheels before any others, the originals supplied are really worth replacing. This time, a Bachmann comparison. Again, ignore the other 'improvements', and, even though these are ancient MGW bogie wheels on 60125 (with deeper flanges than Markits), the shape of the spokes, with that typical flair, is far better in my view. And, would any 'serious' modeller leave these bogie wheels on an otherwise excellent RTR product? Just to finish............... P2s have been mentioned. Are there any finer-looking models (of no-finer-looking prototypes) than these Loveless O Gauge RTR examples?

I can only speak on this matter as I find. Just about every locomotive on the list I produced yesterday has Romford/Markits bogie/pony wheels (as appropriate), including every modified RTR loco. Though it would be stupid of me to state I never get bogie/pony derailments, they are very, very rare (as you'll bear witness, Andy). I wonder why? Is it because my track is well made and well-laid, that no curve (on the main running lines) is less than 3' in radius and every fiddle yard point (apart from in some sidings) is the largest RTL radius? I've personally fiddled with too many layouts where too much track has tried to be crammed in (particularly in fiddle yards), resulting in too-tight radii on plain track and points of too-sharp a radii for each road. This results in poor running and too frequent derailments. Andy, I'm not suggesting you've got those faults (nor Micklner), but might I suggest you look at your trackwork before abandoning Markits bogie/pony wheels out of hand? Hornby's bogie pony wheels are just too clunky, and bear little resemblance to the real things - wheel centres, spokes, rims, etc. They're designed for train set curves, and they work fine for those but they do look pretty poor, especially in photographs. Bachmann's bogie/pony wheels are better, though they're still best replaced.

Thanks Andy, It's a good job I'm retired! That said, I've a meeting with the Irwell chaps in London next week to discuss three further books from me this year. I'll probably take on the editorship of the LNER Society Journal, Booklaw seem to want as many books as I can write and the editors of BRM and the RM are more than happy to accept anything I write. On top of that, I've got models to build and layout photographs to take, not to mention my appearances at shows and a trip to France and Australia scheduled for this year. Have I really retired? A list of what you request might be a little time coming, I'm afraid.............. Regards, Tony.

Thank you John; Mo is a lot better, You might be right as well............. However, I state again, which do you think is the more appropriate name for a locomotive belonging to the fastest class of steam locomotives in the world; PEREGRINE or LORD FARINGDON? I agree, some of the bird names were a bit of a strange choice, and I suppose as many knew who SIR CHARLES NEWTON was as what a CAPERCAILLIE was (the latter, hardly a bird of 'swift and powerful flight'). Was Sir Charles a sprinter? Peppercorn was certainly a sportsman. Ironically, the Mallard isn't the fastest of birds (isn't it strange that swift or swallow were not used?) but to lose names such as OSPREY, KESTREL, SEA EAGLE and PEREGRINE to 'captains of industry' doesn't seem quite right to me (thankfully, they were re-used on the A1s). Anyway, I'll bet any passenger walking by the loco which has just brought his/her train in at Kings Cross would know what the birds were; far more so than the likes of MILES BEEVOR. Do you think that's a more appropriate name for a speedster than KESTREL? I don't, and that's said with respect for the Beevor family. As for other naming policies on the LNER, surely some of the B1s are the most 'ridiculous'. Several commemorate the same beast (just a different, parochial name for the same animal) and one or two might not exist. Even lesser-known LNER directors had their names stuck on some B1s. Regards, Tony. Edited to not appear rude...............

Naming of locomotives has always been a fascinating subject. I think it's fair to say that the LNER's choice to name some of its most prestigious locos after racehorses resulted in some of the most quirky epithets ever bestowed on anything (apart from equine speedsters). All were flat racers - no jumpers were ever commemorated, and most had won a Classic. What's interesting is that the major pair of the ECML constituents at the Grouping had hardly named any of their locos. I think the GNR and the NER had one each. Whatever the reasons, it was a wonderful choice, resulting in some delightful absurdities - PRETTY POLLY being my 'favourite'. 60108 has been mentioned. 60 years ago, when it was a regular through Retford it was greeted with glee at first sighting, then disdain on subsequent occasions. Could a loco be named that today? If so (and apologies if this appears flippant) it could be SEXUALLY-AMBIVALENT SOLDIER (non gender-specific) ON A MISSION FOR CHRIST. Doesn't have the same 'ring' to it to me! The decision (and this is one of the reasons why I loath pomposity) to rename some of the A4s from birds to (largely-anonymous) directors and a military figure towards the end of the LNER's existence was weak in my opinion. PEREGRINE - the fastest creature on the planet, to some late Lord; I think not. I learned lots as a kid from the Jubilee names, and a bit of history from the Kings (the names were in the reverse order of accession when the class was built). When we moved over here, all the 91s were named (with horrid, stick-on, lower-case vinyls) and some were apposite. A few are named differently now. I think, in my opinion, the very worst example of more-modern naming I saw was at Wolverhampton, right at the end of the century, when an HST came in carrying the name - wait for it - THE RED NOSE!

As seen here? Apologies if some of these have been seen already, and some show work in progress on the locos. What a shame these magnificent-looking locos ended up as such ugly Pacifics.