Tony Wright

Derek, My compliments - what an absolute beauty. 1959, you say, when it was built - and there's me claiming some sort of 'status' by suggesting some of my locos are 40 years old! All I'd managed by 1959 (at 13) was 'motorise' the first Kitmaster locos by using a Tri-ang chassis - a 'Jinty' underneath a diesel shunter. How ghastly!

Quite a few pictures of it have appeared in the model press down the years, most recently in my book A Lifetime With Locomotives And Layouts. However, I can't bring myself to take a further picture of it - what with buckled tender and wrecked cab. From what I could tell, the loco must have hit the floor tender-first, thus driving the two front edges of the tender into the cabsides. Because (obviously) the window apertures weaken any cab structure, that took the brunt, the solder seam holding the cab roof both sides split and the spectacle plate wrapped itself round the firebox rear. In producing this carnage, the two front edges of the tender were bent inwards, causing a prominent crease both sides ahead of the front bulkhead. The tender bufferbeam was also a bit mangled. Strangely, had the loco been built of white metal it might have been saved - just chuck the lot into boiling water, straighten the bits and rebuild. Unfortunately, brass doesn't behave in this way, nor should it. It's really beyond repair, other than make a new tender and cab because the rest stood up reasonably well. Such is life, but it's the only scratch-built loco I still possess. Anyone else got similar horror stories?

Larry, Standard Romfords used to fit an XO4-type motor - steel worm and brass gear wheel (still will). I used dozens of them in the original scratch-built or Jamieson chassis I made. In my teaching days when I had access to a fully-equipped workshop I made a master pattern in steel which gave the exact angle/pitch necessary for fitting an XO4-style motor. The trick was to sweat the two frames of one eighth width together, blue one side, put a Romford axle through the hole in the master and the driven bearing in the frames, clamp the master and frames together and mark out the shallow 'V' in the frames. Then on to the milling machine to cut out the 'V', finishing off by filing the little slots for the lugs on the motor. Then the two frames were separated, held together using a Jamieson jig and then the flat/turned spacers were soldered in place (I never screwed spacers in place) with a 70 Watt iron. The slot was necessary for OO because of the width of the motor, but for EM , if you used thinner-section frames, an XO4-style motor would just fit between with no need for a cut-out. I rarely used XO4 motors because they were three-pole, preferring Airfix or MW OO5 five-pole equivalents, or, the Rolls Royce of such motors at the time (1970s), those 'made' by Bernard Jepson of Lichfield. He used to take Tri-ang XO4 motors and fit five or seven-pole armatures, replace the brush gear and re-magnetise the whole things, stamping a unique number on the top. They were sold by Modellers Mecca and were more expensive than the equivalents, but boy were they good! They came in a splendid little cardboard box. They were my motor of choice for dozens and dozens of chassis I made at the time, especially as later equivalents went for a more chunky brush arrangement, meaning they needed a wider slot in the body to accommodate them. For those who wished to 'improve' a standard Tri-ang chassis with an XO4, there was the availability of a replacement 'single-start' brass worm (I assume the originals were 'twin-start'?).The trick was to use a 'worm-puller' to remove the original worm, then fit the replacement - a friction fit. It made the locos slower but smoother. Looking back, the method of making chassis 30/40 years ago was dinosaurial (please note the '0' in place of the 'a' - pedant mode), but they were immensely reliable and robust. So much so that when a friend dropped my scratch-built K4, though the cab and tender were effectively wrecked, the chassis was untouched and still runs as well as ever. It's pictured below. How different it is today with more and more layouts, many on this site, using RTR motive power. Good they are, but aren't they all rather the same, no matter how much they've been altered? Nostalgia makes me look back to 'the good old days' when railway modelling meant just that - to actually make models! Here's the K4 scratch-built chassis. Coupling rods are filed-down rail and the gear a mixture of Jamieson/Nu-Cast/scratch. Romford 30-1 gears provide the 'gearbox'. The Jepson motor is still going strong, despite its age and having been dropped! The disadvantage of the slot in the frames is that it's easily seen in side-profile. Apologies for this loco having been seen before but it illustrates the principles of scratch-built frames (scratch-built loco, too) quite well. Now, 40 years on, would I do the same? Of course not (compare this with Hornby's O1), but at least it's all 'mine', something that has been essential throughout all my modelling 'career'.

With regard to Toram Beg's (Norman Mackillop/McKillop?) writing about the P2s, I think his position regarding them is slightly suspect. Pre-war he can only ever have been in the most junior links at Haymarket (according to Geoff Lund) and thus rarely had to fire them (he probably wouldn't have driven them). That their long fixed wheelbase gave trouble on the torturous route through Fife there's no doubt, but they should never have been rebuilt. But, it's all been said before many times, and it was all a long time ago.

Raymond46, Others have commented already about the Hornby Black Five. I've never had a tender drive version (yours), so I cannot comment from first-hand experience - other than to say that anything I've handled with a tender drive from Airfix/Hornby has been awful. The later, loco drive Hornby Black Five is far superior and apart from a few issues (anorexic axleboxes on the tender for instance) looks the part. On the Right Track Four DVD, I fitted a Brassmasters detailing kit which makes it even better. Someone mentioned the original tender-drive 'Black Five' loco chassis has a backward-facing slot for an XO4/XO3 motor. Does this mean it shares the same chassis block as the B12, Hall, A3 and streamlined Coronation produced by Tri-ang? The B12 and the Hall had 'forward'-facing motors - for the A3 and Coronation, the driving wheel size was increased and the chassis turned around, but it was still the same block. I suppose you could use an XO4 five-pole replacement to fit in the slot - Airfix/MWOO5 etc. My real advice would be to build a Comet replacement chassis, especially as the original Hornby valve gear was/is pretty dire.

Simon, Thanks for the comments on the K3. As Will 5210 has mentioned above - wrong sized wheels in an L1. I am most certainly aware of the book you mention, since I was asked to proof read it and date the pictures (none of which was done by Peter). So, if you can find mistakes in the dating, those are down to me. Given your almost reverence of ET, the Chapter by TCB Miller makes most interesting reading. Considering that he was responsible (as Shedmaster at Haymarket) for running the P2s, for a senior man to consider the work of his superior to be a 'criminal act' does rather substantiate the 'prejudice' regarding the Thompson Pacifics. Remember, by then 2001 was a conventional loco so any of the criticisms about it (noted elsewhere in the book) didn't apply. It's a pity Geoff Lund's observations weren't published as well (Irwell had them), for he was equally scathing of ET's work as well. Since he was shedmaster at 64B post-war (subordinate to Miller at the time in question), his first-hand accounts paint a very poor picture of the A2/2s in particular. Jack Somer's chapter, though containing some praise for the A2s (including 60533), does acknowledge the short-comings of the Thompson chassis arrangement, which nobody can deny was wrong. Though it's not mentioned in Trask's chapter, his opinion of ET was also pretty low. The comments by BC Symes say it all when the drawing office staff effectively 'hid' the drawings from the CME. Draw your own own conclusions............ And, despite my obvious interest, I recommend the book even if some of the pictures have been published before.

A complete coach construction DVD by Activity Media was thought of and was actually in the planning stage until my condition precluded its ever being made (by me, I mean). A replacement chassis DVD was actually made (not by Activity Media but 'in house'), where I made new chassis in OO and one in EM for (amongst others) an original Bachmann B1 (EM) B1 (OO) and V2, Airfix 4F and 2P (replacing the hopeless tender drive), a Hornby Dean Goods (again junking the tender drive) and a Hornby tender-drive 'Britannia'. However, despite my preparations and work the DVD was never edited, such was the poor quality, and all the footage was dumped as far as I know. Making a DVD of the Right Track quality requires professional know-how and (of equal importance) professional equipment - not amateur point and shoot stuff, despite its claims of being HD! If someone else contemplates making more DVDs, I wish them well, but it won't be me.

Thanks for the kind words Iain, and I'm glad the DVDs were of use. I'm also glad the most recent pictures were a help. It's rarely I do much in the way of modelling these days (depression is not to be recommended for anyone!) and I no longer attend shows as a demonstrator/speaker/layout operator/punter, etc. However, I can occasionally manage to tackle the likes of the K3 new frames project, and it's nice to know it's appreciated. Best wishes.

Thanks for the comments, Graeme. The thin brass strip is, as you surmise, is just super-glued to the tops of the original motion support brackets. The original centre piece of the bracket did not fit easily onto the 'open' frames of replacement chassis, so I just snipped it away. The remains just butted nicely onto the outside edges of the frames and the brass strip was just glued across their tops, fixing everything to the tops of the frames. This is secure enough in use, but the joint (brass to brass) would break easily with just a twist of the pliers if removal were subsequently necessary. The dummy 'weighshafts' (fixed in full forward gear both sides) were pulled out of the original Bachmann chassis and shortened. I then drilled the ends to take a piece of .7mm brass rod, which was super-glued in place. These fitted perfectly with a slot in the SE frames and were attached with solder - in and out mightily quickly otherwise you breath cyanide gas and just before you die the plastic weigh shaft turns to goo! For those wanting to live longer or those who can't solder with speed, epoxy might be a means of securing the items, or even superglue, though the latter is inclined to fracture too easily. I'm reluctant to advocate 'risky practices' because some 'ambulance chaser' might be likely to to see an opportunity for litigation, but 'risky' unsoldering does allow later removal of such items with ease. In the original description I said they were just super-glued in place - an obvious lie, though admitted here! Superglue just held the wire in place in the ends. Self-tapping screws? I must admit I never use these items, preferring to tap holes beforehand - 6, 8 and 10 BA being the most common. Even 'blind' holes (holes that don't go right through) can be done with care. The reason I dislike self-tapping screws (even though they're used by the RTR boys) is because (correct me if I'm wrong, please) I believe they're really meant for one action only - to hold together two items permanently; thus not meant to be removed and re-inserted as needed - taking loco bodies off for instance. This is especially true where the 'tapped' material is soft - plastic or white metal, etc. As for reaming the Bachmann chassis to take nearer-to-scale wheels, it never crossed my mind. Why? Because the thing was such a wretched runner in the first place, it probably made no sense. Even though it was new, there was so much slop everywhere it was never going to run properly - gears, bearings, rods - you name it. I suppose it comes back again to my observations with regard to RTR chassis versus kit or scratch-built ones. Because of the need to negotiate tighter radii, every RTR 'steam' chassis I've examined has way too much slop. Every one I've made (for customers and myself) has just the minimum necessary, and they all run the better for it - smoother, quieter and with much greater tractive effort (Hornby's P2 being the exception). But, they have to be made, and with fewer and fewer modellers actually 'making' things these days (or so it appears to me), then perhaps the day of the kit-built loco (out of necessity in the past) has significantly gone. But, we've been there before with regard to that topic. All the above said, I think you're conversions are a fantastic idea and I thoroughly endorse what you've been doing - a return to the 'good old days', but to a much higher standard. However, isn't it significant that out of five K3s I own, the three which work the best - smoothly, quietly, powerfully, etc - are the ones where I made the frames? The two Bachmann-powered ones (though nowhere near as bad as the one I've just replaced) don't run anywhere near as well.

Oh, I should have added to the above that extra lead ballast was glued inside the body. Result, it'll haul 40 wagons with ease!

A couple of years ago in BRM I reported on making a GNR-tender K3 using the Bachmann product for the loco and London Road Kit for the tender. The loco was altered to right-hand drive and a substitute cab from SE Finecast was fitted. It didn't look too bad but the running was horrendous - jerky, noisy and wobbly. What to do then? I mulled over trying to get a replacement chassis, but since Bachmann had donated the original model for the project, this seemed a trifle cheeky. So, a SE Finecast set of frames was ordered, one of the same firm's motor/gear-mount combinations and a set of 22mm drivers and pony from Markits. The real K3s had 5'-8" drivers (22 and a bit mm) but since the scrapping size of tyres might eventually make the wheels 5' 6", then I thought OK. Bachmann's drivers come out at about 21mm, which is a bit too small. It is quite noticeable in comparison. Here the frames are made up and the motor installed. The Bachmann pony truck was used - I added a brass bush and a shouldered screw for retention. The replacement wheels just squeeze in. Using the original dud chassis as a guide, I altered the profile of the etched frames to suit - a bit of trial and error, with the risk of too much of the latter! I used the Bachmann cylinders, motion and valve gear, but for Romford crank pins the bearings in the big end and return crank are much too big. So, I inserted suitable brass bushes, opening out the original holes to make them a friction-fit. The centre piece of the motion support bracket was snipped off and a brass strip substituted. Cylinders and motion fixed on - the cylinder stretcher is screw-fixed and the motion support bracket and cross shafts just super-glued in place. Though the running was smooth, the valve spindles tended to bounce up and down in operation (they do on the Bachmann originals!). I just drilled a hole through the valve guides and inserted a piece of brass wire (black arrow) - the simplest of cures and one worth doing on your Bachmann K3s. Bigger wheels, though visually much better cause problems underneath Bachmann's footplating. So, out with the dentist's burr in the mini-drill and the offending metal was removed. Here's the result. An unusual variation and a much better-running loco. A more expanded report might appear in the pages of BRM.

I cannot comment about the gears in the Heljan Garratt or how long they might last. From personal empirical evidence with the actual model reviewed in the next issue of BRM, I can state that it easily hauled 108 wagons around LB with little or no signs of slipping. These were all four-wheeled examples, RTR-based or kit-built. More could have been added but the stability of the train on the end curves was reaching its limit. It ran about four/five circuits, and a short presentation will appear on BRM's website. This individual model had been to Ally Pally and must have been passed around a bit because a buffer was missing, and another one was almost out of its hole in the beam (the whole thing). Part of the valve gear was also coming adrift and had to be repaired before running could be accomplished. The tank at the 'leading' end was also coming away. I don't imply these observations should be taken as criticisms, but the model appears to be quite delicate.

Test post

It's very impressive Andy - excellent pictures as always. There are one or two points to note - that turned-up buffer for one, and it's securely glued in, not knocked in transit. As you noted, the wires dangling down underneath are a bit obtrusive, but, overall, it looks outstanding value for money.

Two pictures of the loco which will appear as part of a full review in BRM. They're also on Wright Writes, where a few comments have already been made. The bunker cover does come off, revealing a full load of coal

Ben's bringing it round in just over a week's time to do a DVD on LB. He's tested it on his Dad's layout already and it pulled what the prototype would have done, so I'll just keep on adding wagon after wagon until we reach its limit. I ran it along my test track and it appeared to be incredibly smooth. A glance at the pictures above will reveal flywheels which aid smooth running. I won't be writing the review (Ben is to do that), but it seems to measure up. The only 'disappointing' thing I noted was the incorrect 'lean' of the return crank on diametrically opposite sides, caused, I assume, by the same wheels being used on both sides - their axle-mounting 'slots' thus being the same. These locos had outside-admission valves (old-fashioned Midland practice, though Bulleid used them too), resulting in the return cranks leaning to the rear (or the middle on this case). A minor visual detail I know, but very prominent in motion.

Just received the Beyer Garratt from Heljan/Hattons for photography. A full review will be appearing in the next issue of BRM

Gilbert, Might I question the consist of the 1956 TTP given by Ford? It shows only three Kitchen Cars (one being the Hadrian Bar car). The convention was usually half a Pullman rake would be Kitchen Cars, one car serving itself and an adjacent parlour or brake car. My BR consist for the summer 1958 TTP has five Kitchen Cars, one being the Hadrian Bar - with six on Fridays! The mentioned Keith Pirt picture shows at least five Kitchen Cars in the nine-car rake.

Thanks Gilbert, My 'authority' status on ECML matters is certainly most questionable these days, though I'm glad that 'most' of what I posted was accurate. My problem is that a lot of what I did with regard to the making of 'correct' Pullman trains is now history - 20 years or more ago. My QoS is of that vintage and was based on material available then. Current close-inspection will reveal it to be what it is - a product of its time but still reasonably accurate, and a route still necessary if you want a 'representative' depiction of a 'typical' ECML Pullman rake of the period (other than Golden Age's products). I have ten cars, two of which are aluminium-clad, which I think is reasonably representative. It was based on a photograph. I think your assessment of 33% aluminium-clad is pretty near. I look forward to seeing the results.

Thanks for those corrections, Tim. My research goes back two decades, in correspondence with Charles Long and David Jenkinson, so some of it might be (probably is) slightly flawed, and it's right that notes made in good faith in the last century are corrected if they're wrong. However, I misread some of Charles's notes with regard to 62, 63 and 65 - they were originally built in 1925, and converted 1947-50, so would have trussing. My apologies to all for the error. I compliment you on your ability to discern the numbers/names in the Keith Pirt pictures. To another point, though, how many of Hornby's current Pullmans are really suitable for ECML operation in 1958? Not many I reckon. In answer to another query about green-painted Pullman Cars, ex-MEDELINE (1926) was painted green in the '50s, branded BUFFET and numbered S78755S. There were others as well. In the same way that a few ex-Pullman cars were painted carmine/cream for operation in the Highlands in the '50s to act as Buffet Cars.

I forwarded this correspondence to Gilbert some little time ago. I hope it might be of help in the discussion over ECML Pullmans. There's an excellent shot of the southbound TTP in Keith Pirt's little Retford softback, hauled by MALLARD. The front two cars (Parlour Brake Third and Kitchen First) are wooden-bodied, aluminium-clad, pre-'28 cars but neither are the same style as Hornby's cars - size of brake storage, window patterns, etc. The rest, with the exception of the HADRIAN BAR are 1928 all-steel cars. So, three trussed Pullmans in a rake of nine, none of which is made by Hornby. The picture was taken in 1959, so for 1958 the set might be different. That said, I doubt if any of Hornby's cars (with the exception of No. 248) could ever be used in the TTP. Now, ECML Pullmans. Queen of Scots - two rakes of eight/seven cars (one up, one down) plus a pair for Leeds-only. Yorkshire Pullman - one rake of 11 cars (south of Doncaster). Tees-Tyne Pullman - one rake of eight/nine cars including The Hadrian Bar. Master Cutler/Sheffield Pullman - one rake of six cars, older Pullmans originally. There was also the Harrogate Sunday Pullman, which was the south-end Queen of Scots set with two cars taken out of the main train. Up to 1960 these sets were mainly formed of the 1928 all-steel cars (two of which are in the Hornby Railroad range - Parlour Brake Third and Parlour First). The only way of obtaining a complete set of these is by buying Golden Age's cars (hugely expensive!) or by doing what I did - fitting Comet sides on Hornby donors with Mike Trice bogies. Hornby's current Hornby cars are not suitable for making up a complete rake, though one or two in a train might be all right. If a car has no trussing, it's all-steel. If a car has trussing and curved rainstrips on the roof, it's wooden-bodied, aluminium-clad (like some of Hornby's current cars). Check on photographs to see. Several aluminium-clad cars (not Hornby) had exactly the same window arrangements as their all-steel equivalents (look at the previously-mentioned TTP picture), so using Comet sides these can be reproduced with addition of trussing and longitudinal rainstrips. I did two of these for my QoS article in BRM many years ago. As for which cars go in which trains, other than they're the right type, who knows? The ER/NER/ScR had a pool of some 50 cars from which they made up the appropriate sets. 43 cars were usually needed at any one time, allowing about ten spares for repair, etc. As the Mk.1 cars came on stream, the 1928 cars (and later rebuilds) were cascaded to the SR and the earlier wooden-bodied cars (though aluminium-clad) were withdrawn. So, how does this help? Here's a list of the all steel cars (Firsts have names, Thirds have numbers). The Hadrian Bar was Third/later Second and was a wooden-bodied car with aluminium cladding. Only Golden Age makes that RTR. Parlour First. SHEILA, AGATHA, URSULA, LUCILLE, EUNICE, JUANA, ZENA. Kitchen First. NILAR, BELINDA, THELMA, PHYLLIS, IONE, JOAN, LORAINE, EVADNE. Parlour Brake Third. Nos. 77, 78, 79, 80. Parlour Third. Nos. 73, 74, 75, 76. Kitchen Third. Nos. 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72. 29 cars in total to make up the majority of the 37 cars needed (as mentioned, the MC was older stock until it was the first to get the Mk. 1s). The extra brakes needed usually were 1930 all-steel ex-Kitchen Cars rebuilt into Parlour Brake Thirds (the way to tell is an absence of guard's duckets). Numbers of these were 62, 63 and 65 - there might be others. The following are the wooden-bodied cars, aluminium clad. According to my research (though it's not exhaustive), only Car 248 is really suitable for ECML-allocation from Hornby's current range of Pullmans. Kitchen First. ADRIAN, CYNTHIA, IOLANTHE, LYDIA. Parlour Brake Third. Nos. 161, 162, 209, 248. Parlour Third. Nos. 59 (The Hadrian Bar), 64, 83, 84. Kitchen Third. Nos. 32, 33, 58, 66, 81, 82, 105, 106, 107. All the above are from the ER/NER/ScR pool of Pullmans from the mid/late-'50s. Other than No. 248, does Hornby make any of these? Too many layouts have ER Pullman trains made up solely of Hornby's current cars. Most of these were on the SR in BR days, so aren't suitable. These comprise Nos. 51, 64, 167, ARGUS, LEONA, OCTAVIA, none of which is on the list above and never (having looked through dozens of pictures) appeared to have worked on the ER/NER/ScR. However, Nos. 51, 64 and LEONA were not regionally-allocated, being spares, so you 'could' use those, but no more than one or two in a train. Being spares, there more usual use would be in race specials or as single Pullman cars in boat trains (on the SR). My list goes up to the end of 1958, so there could well have been changes after that, and Hornby has made lots of other cars I've not noted. Looking at lists, many of these were in the 'Devon Belle', 'Bournemouth Belle' and 'Thanet Belle'. I hope this helps,

<railway enthusiast mode on> Not if it's used as the nameplate of 'Jubilee' 45732. <railway enthusiast mode off, with a touch of irony, though point taken>

I'm sure you've done all the research you need with regard to the A3s' front numberplates. However, of possible interest is that I've discovered that the following had the incorrect style to start off with and latterly got the correct style. One might reasonably expect that this was coincidental with their receipt of double chimneys, but this is not always the case. If you have any of the following, they'll probably need the correct style, but not exclusively necessarily for 1958. You need about a dozen or so books from Irwell, Ian Allan, the RCTS, Yeadon, Book Law and as many individual shots as you can muster. They are - 35, 48, 52, 53, 58(?), 59 (wrong with both single, and double chimney to begin with), 68, 87, 88, 94, 110. I'm sure you've also done the research with regard to the post-Gresley Pacifics' front plates. Just as a guide, for 1958, with the exception of 60515 (which changed in '58) and 60119 (which never did), all your Thompson/Peppercorn Pacifics should have correct plates. I hope this helps, though I'm sure you know.

Standard Bachmann? Does this mean that Bachmann has at last done a roller-bearing A1? Look closely and the evidence is there - round keeps to the axleboxes on the Cartazzi truck and tender. Is there also a single mechanical lubricator on the nearside? Since the lastest Bachmann A1 I photographed had none of these things, it looks like someone has done a bit of extra work. Tom or Tim? It looks very good.

Having also photographed the work of Bob Jones, Tim Watson and Denys Brownlee, I perhaps should have mentioned those august gentlemen as well, though 'peerless' means he/she has no peers. 'Peerful' doesn't sound right at all, so maybe I should have said that John has few peers, because those other-mentioned gentlemen have also produced the most incredible locomotive work. But not quite sanspareil? Anyway, the main reason for the praise (entirely justified) was because it's so refreshing to see something so unusual and so well done. My 'dig' (at myself in part) with regard to mainstream stuff is because it's all so familiar nowadays - so predictable. Just re-number, re-name, weather, etc an RTR OO loco and there you go. Though the results are extremely good (see the latest BRM for instance) and it's very encouraging to see folk actually having a go for themselves, I do love to see something so different.