Tony Wright

As others have said, Peter, a P2 is inappropriate inasmuch as I never saw one (how could I, when I was minus two when the last one was rebuilt?). They were all A2/2s when I saw any of them.

I didn't make any of the diesels, Mike.

Here goes, then.................. I've organised the list in class order, with a brief description of the origin of each loco. In most cases, any painting of the big green engines (and some of the lined black ones) has been undertaken by Ian Rathbone, and, more recently, Geoff Haynes. And, in almost every case of a listed kit-built or modified loco, it is my work. Which proves, if nothing else, after over 40 years of building locos, one can end up with quite a few! A1/1 60113 Crownline. A1 60114 DJH A1 60116 DJH A1 60117 DJH A1 60120 Pro-Scale A1 60121 DJH A1 60125 Modified Bachmann A1 60128 DJH A1 60130 DJH A1 60136 DJH A1 60146 Crownline A1 60149 Wills adaptation A1 60155 DJH A1 60156 DJH A2 60526 DJH (to be painted) A2 60528 DJH A2 60532 Wills A2 60533 Crownline A2 60538 Modified Bachmann A2 60539 DJH A2/1 60508 Jamieson hand-cut kit A2/1 60510 Nu-Cast A2/2 60501 DJH (prototype) A2/2 60504 Crownline A2/2 60506 DJH A2/3 60500 Crownline A2/3 60513 DJH A2/3 60515 Bachmann/King conversion A2/3 60516 DJH A2/3 60523 DJH (to be completed and painted) A3 60039 Wills A3 60048 Wills A3 60054 modified Hornby A3 60063 SE Finecast A3 60077 modified Hornby A3 60080 DJH A3 60103 Wills A3 60104 DJH A4 60002 modified Bachmann - new tender A4 60008 modified Hornby A4 60014 Wills A4 60017 SE Finecast A4 60018 modified Hornby A4 60026 SE Finecast A4 60027 Golden Age A4 60030 SE Finecast A4 60034 modified Bachmann - new chassis, new tender A5 69800 Craftsman B1 61022 modified RTR - new chassis B1 61028 modified RTR - new chassis B1 61033 Jamieson B1 61159 modified RTR - new chassis B1 61175 modified Hornby B1 61206 modified RTR- new chassis B1 61208 Nu-Cast B1 61231 modified RTR - new chassis B12/3 61530 PDK B12/3 61552 Coopercraft B16/1 61416 DJH B16/1 61477 PDK B16/2 61437 PDK B16/3 61448 Nu-Cast B16/3 61454 PDK B17 61620 Crownline/PDK J6 64174 LRM J6 64190 Nu-Cast J6 64234 WSM J11/1 64354 Little Engines J11/3 64413 Little Engines J39 64747 Anchorage J39 64790 Wills K1 62038 Nu-Cast K1 62070 PDK K2 61738 LRM K2 61745 Nu-Cast K2 61759 Nu-Cast K3 61812 Bachmann/SE Finecast/LRM K3 61825 SE Finecast K3 61832 Anchorage K3 61907 modified Bachmann K3 61975 modified Bachmann K5 61863 Wills/scratch L1 67781 ECJM L1 67800 modified Hornby N2 69521 modified Airfix - new chassis O2 (all sub classes) 62925 PDK 63927 Nu-Cast 63934 Ace 63937 modified Heljan 63980 Nu-Cast 63987 modified Heljan O4 and O1 (all sub classes) 63585 Little Engines 63652 modified Hornby 63701 K's 63707 Little Engines 63738 K's/scratch 63777 scratch 63786 modified Hornby 63843 Little Engines V2 60800 Crownline V2 60820 Jamieson V2 60821 Jamieson V2 60837 Graeme King/Comet/Bachmann V2 60852 Crownline V2 60858 Graeme King/Comet/Bachmann V2 60905 Nu-Cast V2 60943 Nu-Cast W1 60700 SE Finecast 7MT 70003 DJH 7MT 70036 modified Hornby 7MT 70054 modified Hornby - new chassis 5MT 73069 DJH 5MT 73159 modified Bachmann WD 90040 DJH WD 90146 DJH WD 90299 DJH 9F 92042 Model Loco 9F 92044 modified Bachmann 9F 92167 DJH 9F 92192 modified Bachmann 9F 92196 Kitmaster/Crownline/Dave Alexander All of these work on the ECML bit of LB. I haven't listed those locos running exclusively on the MR/M&GNR bit, nor any diesels. There are probably several mistakes and omissions.

Many thanks, and a good point. There are still too many round-roundies, with no trains terminating and no locos changing where still no lamps are displayed. Where one has a terminus, I wonder which is more incorrect. A train (set) with no rear lamp, or (red) lamps attached to both ends, all the time? The hand of God? Surely it's no more difficult to fiddle with lamps on locos than it is to fiddle with screw/three-link couplings? I admit, I'm lucky, in that all the trains on LB (apart from the pick-ups) are fixed formations, and it's therefore easier to display lamps.

Interesting observations, Martin, Thanks for posting. You're right, I'd forgotten that almost every 'Layout of the Month' description in the past used to include a list of locomotives, and their origins. Were that to be carried on today, many (most?) would read like extractions from the RTR manufacturers' catalogues. I've never thought of writing a list of mine (other than for insurance purposes), though it would be more of a list from kit-manufacturers' catalogues. Is anyone interested in one?

Thanks Mick, I have to say I find Hornby's fixing of its bogies on its A1s/A3s/A4s the strangest of arrangements. Does it improve the bogie's road-holding? I find a simple pivoted link far simpler, much easier to remove and then put back, and much easier to adjust.

Mike, I haven't tried it yet on any heavy stuff - the brief is to photograph it (and many other Bachmann locos) with lamps describing different trains. That being the case, I have a question, please. What colour should the lamp bodies be for those carried by GWR/WR locos? And, what colour should the lamp bodies be at the rear of GWR/BR trains? Were LMS/LMR lamp bodies black? Just about all the shots of LNER/ER locos I've got (thousands) show white-bodied lamps. As you know, I have a thing about locos carrying the correct lamps. Far too many (steam age) layouts run locos and trains displaying no lamps at all. No signalman would allow such a working to proceed. Though some of Springside's lamps are a bit chunky, if weathered down they look fine, and those by Lanarkshire Model Supplies and ModelU are dead scale. I wonder why some are so sloppy as to not bother fixing lamps in place. I just drill a hole in the lamps' bases, fill it with BluTak and stick them in place as appropriate on the brackets; they can be changed then as needed. I rate the non-carrying of lamps along with non-working signals in my list of pet hates. Regards, Tony.

I don't think so, David. They're Markits replacements, which ride better, anyway. What I did find that was the tender pick-ups were creating too much drag, so these were removed (I don't generally need tender pick-ups). However, the loco pick-ups (which were pretty poor) then didn't give consistent pick-up, and these were replaced by my own. I just think the Hornby ER Pacifics (though fine for hauling plastic, lightweight stock) aren't suitable for taking heavy kit-built cars. As I've said, though, that's not what they're made for. It comes back again to what I've stated on many occasions. Where circumstances dictate (in 4mm, though it could be true in other scales) that prototypically-heavy trains, in both length and, especially, weight need to be hauled, the only way to do it successfully in my experience is to build your own locos. I've seen this to be true on Stoke Summit, Charwelton, Retford, Carlisle...................... There's no doubt that improving bearings can help, but (even though all my stock is free-running) it's still build my own locos for me.

Continuing the theme of haulage power................. This modified Hornby A3 took this 10-car rake with relative ease, though only half of it is built from metal kits. Add another two metal cars, and it won't shift it. Why this modified Hornby A4's performance is so light-footed, I don't know. This eight car (modified RTR) Tees Tyne Pullman is its maximum.

Thanks for your thoughts for Mo, Marcus. She is improving. I like your idea of going back to basics. It was certainly a brilliant idea, all those years ago, which Bob Wills had to produce a cast metal loco body kit which fitted, with only slight modifications, on top of a proprietary chassis. The simplest seemed to be to use the Tri-ang Jinty chassis for, off the top of my head, the likes of the 94XX, Q, Flatiron and J39 (plus many others). More complex ones were the likes of an A2 (and a King Arthur?) to go above a Tri-ang Britannia chassis or an original Royal Scot on a Tri-ang A3 chassis. The likes of BEC also offered a J11 or a J17 to go on top of the Jinty chassis, plus a D11 to go on top of the L1 chassis. I think K's did a J50 body kit to be carried by a Hornby-Dublo R1 chassis. Whether the wheel spacings were correct was completely irrelevant, and many of those early bodies had things like splashers altered to suit the RTR chassis; a bit of a fag to change if one then built a 'proper' chassis. I made loads of such things 40+ years ago, instantly-creating 'scale' models by fitting Romford (all-flanged) wheels to the RTR frames. Amazingly, I still own one example; see below. This is an original Wills A2 on top of a Tri-ang Britannia chassis (you can see the light through the frames because of the original XO4 motor still being employed). It's shod with Romfords, has Jamieson valve gear, has been modified to suit a double-chimney example (complete with correct dome) and it tows a DJH tender (the original, designed around the Roche drawing, was truly awful). The painting is mine, and it shows. It is, in my defence (if I have any defence?), some 45 years old. Here it is in company with a Bachmann RTR equivalent. It's not in the same class, I admit, but over 40 years separates these two locos. Ironically, like the Bachmann loco (which has since been weathered by Tom Foster) I hardly use this old girl now. She's just not up to the mark visually - what a chump I was for following the instructions - look where I've put the generator.It still goes like a bomb, though. I don't really use the Bachmann one because it wasn't made by me (even though I modified it). This kit-built body on top of a running chassis type of thing was a terrific leaning curve for me in my 'formative years. The bodies were simple to put together (the first ones I did were glued with expoxy!) and one got a good-running chassis. Strangely, as things moved on, we then had the likes of etched brass chassis appearing to go underneath the improving RTR bodies, largely because their chassis ran so poorly, not just for changing gauge. Regards, Tony.

The pictures I've just included of Carlisle have been seen before, though any I take this year will, for obvious reasons, appear first in the Railway Modeller. The owner is to be congratulated on bringing together a team of top professionals (led most-ably by Mike Edge) to create this EM Gauge 'masterpiece'. His wife is a very good modeller, too!

Thanks Mike, Having seen the Stanier Pacifics you and others have built for Carlisle, I can testify to their haulage capacities. Handsome is as handsome does, and they're a testament to your modelling skills. As you know, the rakes in these pictures are at least 13-cars long, mainly metal carriages built by Larry Goddard (wasn't it fun changing the wheels? I've still got one here to do). Along with Retford, I don't think I've photographed a more-impressive model railway, and it was a privilege to be invited by David (at the request of Steve Flint of the RM) to take the pictures in 2016. Incidentally, in conversation with Steve at Southampton, he'd like me to go over again this year for an updated photographic shoot. We must get it arranged. Interestingly, a friend of mine weighted his Schools Class so much that the plastic-centred driving wheels went out of the round, after it was left standing stationary for a prolonged period. I'm very much of the 'weight & see' school of adding ballast to locos. I weight them until they're able to fulfill their duties with ease, then add a little bit more. Regards, Tony.

I'd forgotten about the Airfix 61XX, though I never owned one. Perhaps I should have also mentioned (again from personal experience) the Trix LNER Pacifics of the late-'60s. Both the A3 and A4 were poor runners, though the A2 (which had German chassis, I think) was incredibly powerful and very quiet. The fact that none of the tenders supplied with these models was correct, didn't seem to matter. I believe Trix produced tender drives for these locos later on. Did these work better? Things have certainly moved on............. My next submission for Bachmann Times will be about locomotive lamp codes (something dear to my heart, indeed). I've just been sent this latest model to illustrate the 'side-on' fixing of GWR lamps, and how spare lamps were stored on the footplates. Though its running will not be a feature of the piece, I've not long taken it out of its packaging and boy oh boy, what a super-smooth mechanism. It is absolutely beautiful - quiet and smooth. I've not yet tested its pulling powers (again, not a feature of the piece), but I'll report accordingly. I imagine it'll pull with ease it's prototype-equivalent load. What a difference from its split-chassis Palitoy origins. Though I never owned one, one was tried (years ago) on Moretonhampstead, and what a wobbly, noisy thing that turned out to be. One magazine rated this new model as 8 out of 10 for performance. It would be interesting to see the performance of a loco they rated as 10 out of 10! There's a piece on loco headlamp codes in the next issue of BRM. Out of interest, I've not long done some more tests on RTR locos' pulling power on LB. The following are all Bachmann. I'll do some more tests tomorrow with other RTR manufacturers' locos. This new-chassis Bachmann V2 took an 11-car rake with ease (ten Bachmann Mk.1s, one kit-built car). This Bachmann Austerity used to belong to the late Dave Shakespeare, and took this 40-wagon (mainly RTR) train with little difficulty, though not quite as easily, particularly on starting the rake, as my DJH ones. Bachmann 9Fs will haul anything I put behind them. Has anyone else any tales of pulling power, please?

Thanks Theakerr, Your commenting about some RTR stuff not standing the test of time is very interesting. I don't quite know if there was a 'watershed' when what was offered RTR was 'dumbed-down', at least mechanically, but I recall buying an RTR J72 when they first came out (40 odd years ago, and made by whom?). In a way, it was a bit of a paradox - the body was exquisite in every way; streets ahead of what Tri-ang/Hornby had for sale at the same time. Yet, mechanically, it was very poor. The wheels seemed to be fixed to the axles with a sort of 'star-shaped' screw in the middle. They shifted out of quartering under load, and were decidedly wobbly. I'm sure the chassis was electrically-dead, but it was of no use to me. My memory is of building a Comet replacement, and then selling it. Split chassis locos of all kinds appeared later, from the likes of Palitoy, then Replica, then Bachmann, all of which, in my experience, of dubious mechanical worth, though with very good bodies. I recall a layout representing one of the Pennine crossings (was it Marsden?), which ran double-headed 4-6-0s. I could hear the racket they made, even in a crowded exhibition hall, though I thought the layout was rather good. There was another layout, similarly geographically-located, featuring a long, low viaduct. I thought it was lovely, until some clattering, wobbling, contemporary 4-6-0 appeared, shattered any illusion of reality. Most of today's RTR chassis are adequate, but whether they'll stand the test of time is a question of time, and use. Just a couple of little tales to finish; yesterday, a kindly (older - he was in his 80s) gentleman popped round (he'd got my name from the local model shop) telling me that he'd been told that I can 'fix' locos. He wasn't sure how old the loco he'd brought was (builder unknown) but it was a Wills 94XX on a Tri-ang Jinty chassis (I wonder how many locos were built on top of that long-lived mechanism?). It had been re-wheeled (with Romfords), but was 'dead'. A quick inspection, replace the brushes in the X04, adjust the pick-ups, clean and oil it, and away it purred. He was delighted, and seemed to imply that I ought to take up raising the dead, walking on water and changing water into wine! The mechanism was at least 50 years old, but, with the simplest of maintenance, it'll be good for a further 50. How far have we come, I wonder? The end result? Some more money for Cancer Research. Today, I've fixed the motion (both sides) of an old K's 15XX pannier tank (the GWR 'stinker', the only type - apart from the French Atlantics and the rail motors - to have outside valve gear). It was brought to me at Stevenage, but needed my 'operating theatre' to fix it, so he left it with me. A crankpin had come loose, the gear had jammed and 'it wouldn't go'. Though the wheels were Romford, the motor was (is) a K's Mk.1. So, an hour's work (and some very naughty language as the 'domino-effect' kicked in) and it's now fixed. You can collect it at Biggleswade, Roy. Though I'd never claim that K's motors were state of the art at the time (I'm talking of the Mk.1 and Mk.2 types here, not the ghastly HP2Ms), once cleaned and oiled, this'll carry on for years and years. And, more money for Cancer Research. Maybe everything isn't quite as bad as I make out.

Just fix up a time, please, Jamie, You're most welcome. This making up of prototype-length trains came about naturally, with a desire to attempt to recreate the trains of my youth. Not all of these were huge (the respective Talismans were only eight and nine cars), but stoppers at Retford on the main line usually poked out both ends beyond the platforms, and on busy summer days, trains would be strengthened or enormous reliefs run. I've mentioned before, that when WMRC started Stoke Summit the Bachmann Mk.1s had not appeared, so we made just about everything, generating kits if necessary for what we needed. Comet kits for the Mk.1s, Gresleys and Thompsons were built in proliferation, and the locos to pull them were built accordingly. Though it might seem a bit 'I'm all right Jack', what the RTR boys chose to bring out (other than the wonderful Bachmann Mk.1s) was largely irrelevant. Heavy trains needed sure-footed, heavy locos; hence kit-building. What might be interesting in your scale is to see how much the promised RTR A3s or A4s will pull, in comparison with, say, a DJH equivalent. Having lifted one up recently, I don't think I've come across a more hernia-inducing loco. Someone has mentioned an OO RTR P2 has having excellent haulage capabilities. It has, and I've shown it running on LB (beating one of my kit-built rebuilds, until I added more weight to it!), but the last P2 was rebuilt into an A2/2 the year or two before I was born, so one would be of no use to me (unless as a flight of fancy). As for a Golden Age A4, I don't think I'd call that general RTR. Mo continues to improve, thank you, but I doubt if she'll be with me at Doncaster. If she's all right by Friday, I'll be there. If not, then family health takes precedence over my fiddling with model trains. Regards, Tony.

Thanks Phil, That's why my preference (as a judge as well) is always towards a model that has been personally-made (and that includes kits/adaptations) to the 'perfection' achieved by far-away factories. Regards, Tony.

Thanks for that information. Just this morning, I've weighed one or two items running on Little Bytham for comparative purposes. The results are interesting, but in no way should be taken as a scientific survey, and, anyway, I have no idea if my wife's kitchen scales are accurate or not. I've tried to get a like-for-like equivalent between my kit-built locos/stock and RTR items. All the weights are in grams and are, at best, approximate. Here are the results................ DJH A1 (with added lead) 875. This was by way of an experiment to show just how much a kit-built Pacific might pull. After 30 carriages on Stoke Summit, the cars at the front of the train 'imploded' because of the resistance on the curves. It'll take 25 kit-built cars on LB with no problem, though only for fun. DJH A1 (with no added lead) 725. Bachmann A1 (with added lead) 550. SE Finecast A4 (with no added lead) 725. Hornby A4 (with no added lead) 430. The weights include the tenders. If nothing else, it shows how much more capable kit-built locos will be in hauling heavier trains. MOPOK ex-GWR BG 280. Hornby ex-GWR BG 120. Bachmann Mk.1 120. Comet Mk.1 252. Bachmann (latest) Thompson 175. Comet Thompson 250. Comet Gresley 250. MJT Gresley (with brass interior partitions) 280. I don't have a Hornby Gresley, but I imagine they weigh much the same as a Bachmann Thompson or Mk.1. Brass/white metal four-wheeled van 125. White metal four-wheeled van (with plastic roof) 75. plastic (RTR) four-wheeled van 30. All the above are similar sized vehicles. What does all this 'prove', if anything? If my maths is right, and I'll do my best, a ten car train of plastic RTR carriages will weigh around 1,200 grams. A brass/white metal kit-built ten car train will weigh 2,500 grams (and more?). Since the majority of my non-Mk.1 cars are made from Comet/MJT/Kemilway kits, and two sets are 14 cars long, then my decision to make my own locos becomes clear. No RTR Pacific I have (even with added weight) will even look at the principally-kit-built long rakes, but, as I've mentioned, that's not what they're made to do to be fair. Since I'm not a physicist, please bear with me. Even though all the kit-built cars run on white metal bogies with pin point axles (meaning they're very free-running), the starting 'tractive effort' required is substantial (for a train of over 3,500 grams in weight - if my maths are wrong, please correct), and no Hornby or Bachmann Pacific will entertain these. With a helpful starting 'shove', once the train is moving, they'll just about go round (slipping furiously! - David West will confirm this), but I wouldn't bet on their longevity if this is what they're asked to do. A conclusion? Hardly, and we've been here before. For my specific needs, the only way I can run my heavy (prototype-length) trains successfully is by building my own locos. That is my choice. I'm sure (as Barry Oliver has shown on LB, with some astonishing HO American diesels) there are some RTR locos which will pull anything. However, for (general) British-outline, RTR, OO Gauge ER/NER/ScR Pacifics, best keep them for lightweight RTR stock. Regards, Tony. Edited to clarify a point.

He did, Phil, What amused me (many years ago) was that the original designer (the late Steve Woofe) rather poo-pooed any comments about the wrongness of the original Comet B1 chassis from the likes of Roy Jackson, Tony Geary and me (and probably others). When I built my first one, I couldn't understand why it didn't look 'right'. Not only that, one frame was a tiny bit longer than the other, resulting in a 'fan' effect with the driving axles without alteration. I still have it! Everything Geoff Brewin did was spot-on.

Thanks for posting Alan, I have one thing to say: if what you've shown us you consider to be 'average' modelling, then you're more nuts than I am (and that's saying something)! I wouldn't call Clive's modelling, or the others you've mentioned 'average' either. I'm almost back to writing reports; how about 'Considerable progress made, resulting in (well) above average achievement in his peer group'? That do?

Andy, Since I've never really investigated how a split chassis works (or doesn't work!), I have little idea which polarity is which (once released from the body, they're given, or chucked, away). However, I believe that each motor brush is live to one side of the chassis - one each side. There don't appear to be any wires connecting them, because there are no pick-ups. What I do know is that the insulated plastic muffs in the centre of the axles split over time, resulting in the wheels coming off and the quartering being jiggered.

Though I cannot speak for Comet, I'd be staggered now if the range disappeared. What's the EasiChas system? I've never heard of it.

I did tell him I was only acting, but I was staggered nonetheless.

I cannot keep up with the pace of this thread! In between discussing judging, modes of propulsion, pick-ups, DCC and a myriad more things, I've actually done some modelling today. I've done some more to the DJH A2/3 I'm building. The tender is complete, and the whole lot (I hope) should be finished by the weekend to show at Doncaster (Mo's health taking precedence, of course). As SUN CASTLE it'll then join its siblings on LB. Including two other DJH A2/3s I've built for myself. And a Crownline one. All the above have been painted perfectly by Ian Rathbone. There is another as well, a Bachmann A2/Graeme King conversion. Graeme did this conversion for me and I finished it off by adding detail, patch-painting it, numbering/naming it and weathering it. When Geoff Haynes has painted 60523, that'll mean a fifth of the class on LB. Surely that's enough!

Thanks Clive, I should have made my comments clearer. My disliking of Hornby's tender drive is an aversion to seeing a loco being punted along by its tender, with its motion locked solid!

Very much so.............. This is the line up of all my current B1s. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th (from the left) are all (modified) Palitoy/Bachmann bodies, which were all on their original split chassis as acquired. Having chucked the nasty original mechanisms away, all of them now run on Comet chassis. For layout locos, the loco bodies and, particularly, the tenders are excellent. All the bodies are packed with lead and their haulage capacities are the equal of metal, kit-built equivalents. In fairness, Bachmann's current B1 chassis is excellent. The replacement Comet chassis fit perfectly (it's what they were designed for) and are easy to erect. No modifications are needed to either the frames or the bodies (apart from packing the latter with lead). Tony Geary did this one (I did the others), some time ago, and it's on the original Comet chassis; the one designed from the Roche drawing, with the eccentric rod too short and the die-block too far back. The current Comet chassis is dead right. I've also made a SE Finecast chassis to go under a Bachmann A4 body (after the original chassis collapsed). It's considerably modified, mind, tows a SE Finecast tender and Mr Rathbone painted it. Edited because the Tony Geary one has ended up at the end of this post.....................