Tony Wright

While you guys are talking about coaches, may I interrupt again to draw attention to the second of Tony Wright's series in BRILL, " A Cestrian Urchin's Tale".  The pile of stuff awaiting my return from holiday means that I've not read it yet but it will go on my insomnia pile which accommodates much quality reading matter.  To save me butting in again, though I may do it anyway, I did notice that there will be at least one more instalment.  This is good news. 

 

Chris

Thank you Chris,

                            So far it's been very well received, and my memory has not let me down too much. I think the next instalment will be in a couple of months' time. Still to come are memories of North Wales - Mold Junction, Shotton, Rhyl, Abergele, etc, then Crewe, Manchester, Liverpool, Hartford, Weaver Junction, Warrington, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the mag' folds!

I've also written a book on BR blue ('70s/'80s) for Irwell using pictures I've taken (to be published this year), and a further modelling book is in the offing.

My apologies for this self-promotion.  

Quote"That said, what 'youngsters' like Tom Foster are doing is surely 'modelling' of the highest calibre - and he's now started making locos." Quote.

Tony, I sent Tom a PM telling him what a lucky lad he had been being shown by a master the correct way to go about kit building.I did not want to embarress  you in the public forum. However this was an object lesson in encouraging younger modellers to become the masters of the future. Well done Tony and I trust you,  Mo and the boys have a Good 2014.

Regards,Derek.

Kind words indeed Derek, but the praise is due for a guy prepared to have a go.

Now there is inspiration for 2014; I just love that 4th shot 'up the embankment'. Last two are neat too.

I have a SR Utility Van (as seen in this set of vans/wagons) and a few weeks back I was going to drop some EM wheels in. No chance as it has such a neat underframe set up that it will need considerable surgery.

Does this mean I need to get on with an OO layout?

P

Phil,

        Thanks for the kind words.

One thing I omitted in the J11's descriptions was any comments about the stock. Credit for that is down to Rob Davey (Herbert Hopkins) who built and weathered the second vehicle in the train and also weathered the SR van. I weathered some of the rest. It was remiss of me not giving credit where it should have been given, but I've always been very fortunate in my model railway building in having the help and support of many gifted friends. It's always been team-work where each has contributed his/her expertise to a project, all free of charge (with the exception of Norman Solomon's peerless trackwork - though part of this was in the making of a DVD - and Ian Rathbone's painting of some of my locos). Professionals of the highest calibre more than earn their stipends. However, that said, it's because the majority of the projects I've been involved with (Fordley Park, Moretonhampstead, Leighford, Stoke Summit, Charwelton and now Little Bytham) have all been built by a group of self-reliant individuals that I think they've been 'successful'. Individuals who make/made things for themselves, which is what I keep on beating my drum about. 

With the likes of Tom Foster embarking on his own modelling and his being involved (stock-wise) in Graham Nicholas's epic recreation of Grantham (and the examples of lots of others making things), the future of the hobby looks bright.

Shucks, I wasn't even aware the J11 was available. Where've I been? It will be a darn sight more useful working a two coach up from Guide Bridge. That J11 looks smashing Tony now it's been weathered.

 

Happy New Year... And here's to more Wright writes in 2014.....

Happy New Year to you and yours as well Larry.

And, please keep on posting examples of your professional work for the inspiration of others, where you can comment on how you achieve such superb results first-hand. The greatest credit should always be given to those who actually make things/adapt things/modify things, whether they be the most experienced or just the raw beginners. What you achieve can be a spur to those just beginning making carriages - It has been to me in the past.

As for the J11's availability, the one you see in the pictures is the one I've reviewed for the next issue of BRM, to be published in a fortnight. Since examples are sent out to the magazines first (usually before they're available in the shops), the J11 might nor yet be universally available. Since the dry-brush weathering techniques I employed (which anybody can do) were covered in the recent piece in BRM on tweaking the Bachmann 4Fs, I decided to post the results on this site, there being no need to reiterate them in the magazine. So, in a manner of speaking, I've jumped the gun a bit, but thanks for the kind comments. 

Well I wasn't going to get a Bachmann J11 but having seen Tony's pictures I can see a 3rd coming along to go with my two Little Engines kits.  I suspect I have cabbed more J11s although B1s would be close behind, then any other loco since they were the most common loco on the Grimsby Louth daily pick-up

My compliments on a very nice loco. I see you've got the correct-sized central roof rib for this Vulcan-built loco - the Bachmann one I illustrated has the low one, correct for the first Neilson-built ones. You've also placed your cabside numerals slightly higher up, a feature of some J11s. 

It's good to see so many individually-made models - please keep them coming.

In this particular case is their a "decent" kit of the J11 as a altenative anyway ,I cant think of a current available one?

 

  The J11 has weathered up nicely . Happy new year TW and all on here.

Mick,

         There used to be a Bec kit (though it's probably only found on second-hand stalls these days), then there's Little Engines (both J11 and J11/3) if you can get them and finally (I think), Alan Gibson.

All the best to you as well.

Other things - my faculties are fading fast, I also altered the BR emblem on the tender to the earlier cycling lion (more appropriate for a J11 for my period). I also added real coal to the huge lump in the tender. For those who think the coal load might be excessive, please take a look at page 59 of Steam Colour Portfolio Eastern & North Eastern Region by Keith Pirt (Book Law). This shows a J11/3, with the final (correct) manifestation of the BR heraldic device - only the second picture I've seen of a J11 with this. 

How did one picture appear twice? Sorry!!!!!

I've amazed myself by being able to delete one. I'll never get on with this interwebby thing!

I've been following this debate with some interest and agree with others in that we are all big boys and girls playing trains in one form or another and all are equally valid. The hobby is a broad enough church to provide us all with fun and entertainment although I am very much in the camp of gaining the most satisfaction from making things

. 

The only thing that peeves me a little is when I have spent ages building a loco only for the said prototype to appear in RTR format. I have recently completed a MR 4F (2mm scale), probably a matter of a couple of months before the new Farish one hits the shops. That said, it would be difficult to have too many 4Fs on a early 20s Midland layout so I will be finescaling and otherwise personalising at least one of the new offerings. It will be interesting to see if it gives as much satisfaction as my metalsmithing - it will almost certainly be crisper and a lot quicker!!

 

IMG_0999a.jpg

 

I'm currently working on an eight coach rake of Midland clerestories for the Manchester Diner (renamed Pines Express in 1927) - the odds of anyone doing these RTR are slim! See my Bath Queensquare thread for pictures.

 

Apologies for hijacking this largely 4mm thread but with Tony's recent excellent articles on upgrading the new Bachmann 4Fs I thought it would be relevant.

 

Jerry

Jerry,

         Hijack away, and my most sincere compliments on an outstanding locomotive. You must have good eyes!

I think it inevitable that our hobby is loco-centric. After all, it was the steam locomotive that made railways viable in the first place, not simply steel wheel on steel rail, which already existed with horse etc power. That said, go back a few decades and kit-and scratch-building were much more common among modellers, as being the only route to having a balanced stud of locos. A 4mm Western Region layout in the early '60s could only really call upon a Hornby Castle and Graham Farish Pannier and Prairie as RTR items, for example.

 

As others have pointed out, the availability of pretty reasonable ranges of RTR locos for many prototypes does mean the modeller can cut corners, but it also means they have more time and money to spend on scenery and structures, whereas back in the '60s those were seldom of the sort of quality we see now - well-exemplified by Alan's Wencombe. I feel I see more "complete" layouts now, where the railway is in decent landscape, than would have been the case then.

Well said, and I think everyone will be in agreement.

It's also true that there are many more exceptional layouts in all forms of the media than ever there were in the '60s. Even many of the most famous from the period probably wouldn't stand direct comparison with the 'best' that's on offer today. I once had the opportunity to photograph Ken Northwood's outstanding North Devon Railway; well, what remained after his death. I didn't because I thought it would have been cruel and unfair. Why? Because a re-painted and 'fiddled with' Farish 'King' could only ever be that, and Exley LMS carriages, though painted chocolate and cream, were only LMS, after all. The scenery and buildings had suffered down the years, and to photograph what was left (in razor-sharp clarity) would not have been fair to a great railway modeller's memory. All that said, and despite my above observations of the selected stock, Ken's outstanding railway was made by him, with generally precious little in the way of RTR support. It was creative railway modelling in the finest tradition - no waving of chequebooks, and what he wrote was first-person singular - how he did things. 

In a similar vein, when the late Frank Dyer brought the great Borchester up to Wolverhampton, I took some pictures. One of his scratch-built V2 did it no favours, for the painting was a bit scruffy and it wasn't entirely straight in places. But, I say again, he made things and was inspirational to a generation and more of modellers, and he wrote about how he made things.

Finally, on this issue, I pulled-back slightly when photographing some of the late Peter Denny's stock nearly four years ago because, in close-up, it didn't do some of it any favours. But, as with the two above, he was a creative modeller of the highest calibre, and he also wrote about how he made things. 

Though maybe not up to the 'standards' of today, it's my belief that those three layouts, in terms of personal creativity, were/are far more important to the history of the hobby than many 'better' ones seen today. They all represented an input of real skill across the whole spectrum of the hobby, and gave an 'impression' of the real railway in a hugely personal manner. Even the very best of box-openers and modifiers, despite the current very high standards of RTR and RTP, will struggle to be as influential in the hobby in my opinion.

Finally, despite the overall excellence of what's now available (narrowing the gap between those who can/cannot and have/have not?) it still takes critical observation of the real railway to create a believable model railway, whoever built it. In a current issue of a model railway magazine there's one layout which appears to exploit what's currently on offer to the full, yet it's really unbelievable because almost nothing of it appears to be based on prototype practice. The creator might have been 'freed up' to produce scenery, structures and what have you, but the end result is unrealistic, however pretty. Still, if it pleases him (and those who read about it), then does it matter?

And I assume it's  an N gauge layout looking at  the scale and the pictures. It might have been useful to point that out particularly for new comers to the hobby.

If my memory serves (and it serves less well!), it's 3mm TT. However, since it's one of hundreds and hundreds of layouts I took pictures of, do check through long-ago issues of BRM.

On another point to do with the supplement in the latest issue of BRM, Phil; why did you solder a track feed to a fishplate? Unless I've missed part of an explanation, fishplates are there to accommodate expansion. It's good practice to solder a fishplate to one of the rails before fitting them together (it makes the job easier and also prevents future movement of the plate), but surely not to solder a feed to a fishplate. 

From the thickness of the wire feed, I assume it's part of the fiddle yard supply. If not, the wire is far too thick for visual satisfaction, surely? Why not use discreet droppers (no larger than .3mm tinned copper wire). That way, any heavier wiring can be connected out of sight, under the baseboards. It's also easier to solder thinner wire to the rail webbing.

Most kind of you Tony.

Speaking of making locos, some size 10 blades arrived this morning, so I made a start cleaning up the boiler. I'm not sure if the original photos I posted of the boiler on the chassis, showed the nasty seam on the boiler top, with a good 4mm of raised up whitemetal.

 

Here is how things look after filing, scalpel and burnishing brush work. 

 

IMG_5850.jpg

 

IMG_5849.jpg

 

IMG_5848.jpg

 

It generally feels nicely smooth and rounded. Would you gents be happy with this, or suggest some more work on it?

 

Thanks

It looks fine, Tom. 

Remember, white metal is very soft and highly reflective, so shows up every scratch. A sensitive finger is as good as anything for checking if an object is round and smooth. One way of identifying surface imperfections, though it's a really time-consuming fag, is to prime the boiler at this stage. Primer always shows up any nooks, crannies and bumps, though it has to be taken off again before any more soldering takes place. Personally, I wouldn't bother, because primer (Halford's red-oxide acrylic) acts as a filler, anyway. 

Are you sure the boiler halves were 4mm out? A slip of the keyboard, perhaps? They were a bit out but not a scale foot!

Just for those who refuse/can't/won't do things for themselves, if my memory serves I soldered the firebox top seam and Tom soldered the boiler top seam. Can you tell which is which? 

Westerner,

                  Splendid examples of kit-building - completely natural and most realistic. Have you written anything for a magazine? If not, you should. 

Some interesting points; some of great validity.

Railway modelling certainly isn't just about building locos. That said, I might venture that it's the one facet which generates the greatest amount of interest, especially amongst those of us who were trainspotters in our youth. By that I mean those who grew up in the steam/diesel transition era, when there was vast regional differences and many locomotive classes were essentially parochial. For many, me included, my modelling motives are to recreate what I saw (readers must know this by now), mainly the locomotives. Thus, I've been able to 'indulge' in this passion by working with others whose interests included trackwork, wagons, architecture, scenery, signalling, etc. I'm not deriding those younger who trainspotted in a later era (say BR blue/grey) but it was certainly not the same. For instance, I've just completed the script for a book to be published next year featuring pictures I took in the '70s/'80s, and at one point in the early '80s I photographed 47555 near Thirsk, at Crewe and at Teignmouth, all within a fortnight! Hardly parochial, but, I admit, some of the above is off topic.

As for some folk feeling that they're 'looked down upon' because they don't build things (or have things done for them), perhaps that's an unfortunate inevitability of the all-embracing web. Previously, the only means of 'getting known' so to speak in the hobby was (at least in part) to be able to write properly, build a model worthy of note, take 'professional' standard pictures and become a demonstrator/tutor at exhibitions/events. For the the instant 'appreciation' of tens of thousands, this is not necessary now. I'm not suggesting that a lot of the stuff posted on this site doesn't satisfy the above criteria (I wish some of the marvellous material I see on here would find its way into the printed magazines, because some recent material I've seen in the traditional media has been very poor) but it's much easier, surely, to become a 'celebrity' on the web than ever it was in the 'good old days'. Perhaps that's why some traditionalists feel peeved at losing their status, and become critical or look down at others. In fairness, this is two-way because I recall giving a talk to Chiltern MRA some years ago, quoting the web names of many of BRM's critics where they hid behind anonymity and obviously must have blamed their teachers for their inability to write. If you think some of the looked-down-upon comments recently posted made you peeved, then I assure you they're nothing compared to some of the interweb flak I've received down the years.

As for the longevity of RTR locos compared with (well-built) alternatives, I can only state that, in my experience, they won't last as long, and they certainly (the P2 excepted) won't haul as much. Admittedly, they might look better - crisper, better-finished and so on but, as one observer has rightly stated, most of the work has been done for you. That said, what 'youngsters' like Tom Foster are doing is surely 'modelling' of the highest calibre - and he's now started making locos.

I sense a slight kinship with Coachman, in that all the dozens and dozens of locos I've built down the years have (almost without exception) become available in a proprietary fashion. Thus, kits appeared for all the scratch-built ones, then RTR for all the kit-built ones. I did find it a bit sickening, I must admit but that's egalitarianism for you.

Railway modelling should be as broad a church as possible, and RMWeb has undoubtedly contributed to that. Coachman summed that up in the most erudite manner recently - I wished I'd written that. However, folk are very sensitive (particularly if their stock is criticised) and one must be careful in 'criticisms'. Where I would say there are differences to note is obviously in the 'skill factor' amongst modellers. Some are gifted it, some acquire it through years of toil and some 'never make it', leaving it for others to do or give up. This must be true of all creative hobbies. Many, quite rightly, derive enormous pleasure in exploiting what the RTR chaps have given us (Bredon was one of the finest layouts I ever took pictures of), modifying it or personalising it as they choose. However, until you make a locomotive from a kit or scratch and watch it purr round and say 'I made that', you'll never enjoy the 'ultimate' satisfaction in railway modelling. But then, as a loco-builder, I would say that. 

I suppose in the final analysis it's what gives pleasure to you and all those who view your creation. Whether it be the work of the finest craftsmen/women in the hobby, getting the most out of RTR stock/RTP buildings or just laying a circle of track and playing, as long as it satisfies you and you don't claim things it isn't, then this marvellous hobby is to be enjoyed by all.

Finally, the K1 featured doesn't deserve such plaudits. Model engineering is way beyond me!

It's great to see that K1 on the road to completion Tony, having seen it "in the brass" for so long. It is very rarely that I get to pick you up on anything, but the last of the class was 62070!  Not long before his untimely death Andy Rush told me that the K1's were pool engines for most of the year, and that the only time that March could make full use of them was during the sugar beet season. Their allocations to March, and to York also he said, was really just to give them a formal place of allocation, but that they were available to be borrowed by other sheds as and when needed. Photographic evidence shows many of them on Stratford passenger duties in the peak holiday seasons, and it would seem from what Andy said that there was nothing illicit about that at all. On that basis, any shed in the East Midlands might have borrowed them, and if Colwick, for example, did so, then an appearance at Little Bytham would certainly be possible. I have a photo of 62070 on New England shed, so how did that get there? If it had come from March in 1958 it would have gone to Spital Bridge.

 

A point also on the "sameness" of locos and stock on layouts. Although there  were regional variations, surely fundamentally there was a sameness to the stock to be seen on the ECML south of Doncaster?  That surely means by definition that now there are so many ECML layouts around, at least a degree of sameness is inevitable? I'm not condoning the type of layout where everything is exactly as it came out of a box, without any attempt even at renumbering let alone weathering, but even an ECML layout which had no RTR stuff at all would, certainly to the untutored eye, look very similar to the next one down the line.

 

I would argue that the availability of very good quality RTR has in fact caused more diversity, in that those many people like myself who don't have the aptitude to build kits, can now, if we are prepared to do some research, go at least some way towards giving a layout  a fitting setting and correct locos and stock. Not so long ago that was absolutely impossible without kit or scratch building. If more people are able to produce results which get well above the train set level, isn't that a good thing?  Your experience when assisting Tom(2750) only reinforces that view in my mind. Without your expertise he would have abandoned that kit, and no doubt would have blamed his own deficiencies for the failure to complete it. How many people I wonder have given the whole thing up as a bad and expensive experience in the past when faced with such problems?

 

You will not be surprised, knowing me as you do, that my view is that there should be room for both the doers and the buyers within the hobby. That is because the "doers", or at least the competent ones, are very much in the minority. I'm sure that even back before the RTR revolution some of those who could build to a satisfactory standard chose esoteric prototypes to model, in order to produce something that didn't look similar to other layouts in the magazines or on the exhibition circuit. The gulf between the very talented few and those with less talent, or more thumbs than the regulation two, has narrowed, and I would argue that is a good thing.

You're dead right Gilbert - My K1 will be 62070, though by the time I saw it it was at Retford. How I made the mistake of mixing it up with 62069, I've no idea (fading faculties?). Many thanks as well for the justification of the K1 on LB.

I also agree with much of what you say with regard to the 'diversity' created by the excellence of current RTR products. As I've said to you on many occasions, one can't turn the clock back and we should exploit what's available. Indeed, I try to as well. You're also dead right, by implication, that many people have been put off by 'dud' kits in the past. Even the K1 featured has valve gear components 'impossible' to assemble without serious modification. And, if everyone could build kits to a 'professional' standard, then I would have been unable to earn (in part) a living for 20 years. 

Whether the gulf between the very talented few and those with less talent has narrowed, I'm not sure. Through not-excessive purchasing power (subjective, I know) it might have done. By that I mean it's possible to own, say, the whole A4 class now by exploiting what Hornby has done - merely renumbering/renaming. Previously, it would have required kit-building on the grand scale (or getting someone to do it), with enormous cost-imperatives. So, I agree, the gulf has narrowed between what the not so talented/not so rich and the highly-skilled/very well off can own, and that is a good thing. How it narrows the (fundamental) gap between the 'skilled' and the 'those with less talent' I don't know, because I don't think it can. I can qualify that by personal experience by comparing the stuff I've made with that of the calibre of Geoff Holt and George Ure. In photographing the work of the three of us, what I produced in front of the lens in comparison was very poor. It was, however, 'mine'.

Perhaps it's my being 'selfish' with regard to the making of models. Years ago I scratch-built the locos I needed, then built kits and, now, in many cases, there's no need. In fact, other than in haulage ability, many of today's locos are far superior  to the ones I've built down the years. But, and this is the point of my being selfish, 'anyone' can have them; all that's needed is purchasing power. However, the end result overall is probably superior, and that, in the final analysis, is what counts to the majority, especially as some 'professionally-made' locos I've examined don't work at all.  

May excellence in RTR standards continue, and we really have never had it so good. 

Beat me to it Mike.  The wheels since Colin took over have taken a quantum leap in quality.

 

Tony, some interesting comments on the K1 valve gear.  Some of the issues I found are listed on my blog here....

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/281/entry-7108-fresh-from-the-plant/

 

....the body was certainly easy to put together although someone pointed out to me after the event that the cab windows are a bit on the small side.

 

Cheers...Morgan

Thank you Morgan.

Thanks also to Mike Edge for pointing out the improved quality of AG wheels now. My experience with them was years ago, so isn't relevant now.

Morgan, my compliments on a very pretty K1, with excellent painting. However, might I query the presence of the 'bulge' on the top of the firebox for so late a date? According to Yeadon, these had all gone by 1960 (to be replaced on the older 'boxes by a very thin plate). However, I've seen pictures showing two of the class in the summer of 1961 with the bulge still present, but no later, both looking like they're ready for shopping. The emblem on the tenders was the later one but I cannot decipher whether they've got the correct-facing lion on the offside. If yours is correct, still with the bulge, electric warning flashes and the left-facing lion then I imagine it's unique. Do you have a prototype photograph you can post please, because it will then complete my research so to speak? 

Mine will be 62069, the last of the class. In late 1958 it was at March, still with the bulge on the firebox (though its presence on Little Bytham is a bit of a leap of faith). On page 92 of Yeadon's Register of the class there's a picture of 62039 which purports to show the loco descending Stoke bank towards Grantham. Although it's 62039, it's certainly not approaching Grantham, for there were three tracks from High Dyke to Grantham through Ponton and Saltersford. If it were the said location, I'd have made a model of 62039. 

I've included some further shots. Please excuse the 'messy' nature of the finish because she's yet to be cleaned up. So, flux residue, fibreglass filaments and general crud are still apparent. My Nikon D3 picks out any slight imperfections (especially under 2,000 Watts), so I have to live with those. The biggest problem I had with the gear was the crossheads (as mentioned), being so contaminated with flash. Clearances for the rest of the motion were a bit tight, but I managed to get everything in, as I hope the pictures show. I always use brass pins and solder for holding gear together - I cannot get on with rivets. And, you're right, the cab windows are a bit small.

Many thanks for the interest.  

Tony, at the risk of sounding pedantic, extra weight does not increase the coefficient of friction but it does increase the actual tractive effort since tractive effort = weight x coefficient of friction. So if the weight doubles, for the same coefficient of friction, the tractive effort will also double.

 

Wheel/rail materials on the other hand do change the coefficient of friction. This has been discussed extensively elsewhere, but suffice it to say that steel on steel has been reported to give a higher CoE than nickel-silver on nickel-silver.

 

On top of all that is the separate question of weight distribution of course.

 

All the best.

You're not being pedantic - just right.

You'll have to forgive my lack of a fundamental grasp of physics. My teacher, you see, had been a Lancaster navigator in WW2 and the minute something 'hard' to be taught appeared, all we had to do was ask 'what was it actually like over Hamburg'? Thus stuff like Fletcher's Trolley, the Wheatstone Bridge Circuit, bi-metallic expansion, and anything else in Nelkon's Principles of Physics was discarded. The weighty tome did interest me on one page, however, for there was a picture of the Forth Bridge (in the section about cantilever structures) and underneath it was a Nelson class battleship. Capital ships are my second passion where man-made moving objects are concerned.

Similarly, my history teacher, a railway enthusiast of great age, could be instantly distracted from the Corn Laws or the 1832 Reform Act by the simple asking of the question 'were the Baltics on G&SWR very impressive in their original livery, sir?'

No wonder I ended up teaching art!

Best wishes. 

I think for ability to haul long trains cast kit locos have the edge, probably for the simple reason they're heavier. I have a PDK A2/1 which is etched brass / resin. The solid cast resin boiler made adding weight difficult and it can just manage the Thames - Forth set of 9 coaches that I run on the E&LMRC's Newcastleton layout. The alternative loco, a Hornby A3, has about the same ability to lift the train.

 

Another factor which seems to affect the ability of a loco to haul heavy trains is the driving wheel material. I have a Nucast V2 which is still fitted on the non-insulated side with the original non NS tyred Romford wheels; this definately has the ability to lift heavier trains than similar locos fitted with all tyred wheels.

 

Jeremy

Obviously weight is a factor in a loco's ability to move a heavy train. I assume it increases the coefficient of friction, and cast-metal kits do have that advantage. 

The material the tyres of the driving wheels are made of is also a factor; for instance, where I've used Alan Gibson's wheels (though they're a real fight to get concentric and prevent the tyres falling off), because they have steel tyres, locos thus fitted pull more. Compensation, in my experience, does not increase pulling power, even though I've heard advocates of it make claims to that effect.

I think my experience with more recent RTR OO locos is that they look fantastic and run very well, but they are still 'built for purpose', that purpose being to be able to operate over trainset track. Thus, on close examination, there appears to be a lot of inherent 'slop', particularly side-play in the axles. This definitely affects the running - not so much in its smoothness (though it can result in some pick-ups not touching) but in a pronounced wiggle from side to side, particularly under load. I don't think this has a detrimental effect on pulling-power, just the visual manifestation.

Still, we've never had it so good and the poor old kit manufacturers are squeezed more and more with each new release. But, and I know I've said this before, it can result in a 'sameness' in the appearance of locos and stock on layouts, particularly in OO.   

Of possible interest. 

I've been trying out some of the new NOCH grass matting on Little Bytham (it'll be featured in the next issue of BRM). It is very effective, very quick to lay and quite convincing (if a little bright at source). Some slight airbrush weathering should tone it down eventually. Obviously, it's only the first 'fix' so to speak and much more needs to be done but I'm reasonably satisfied with the results.

The trains in the background comprise a brand-new Mogul from Doncaster Works, running-in on pick-up duties (this was BRM's most recent limited edition locos from Bachmann). It's passed by a 9F (Airfix body on Crownline chassis) on up minerals.

Viewed from the north, the field looks reasonable. The culvert (now filled in on the real thing) has yet to be modelled and Ratio fencing provides the boundaries. A Nu-Cast J6 has pick-up duties on this day and an A5 heads south with a Grantham-Peterborough local.

Ian Wilson (Pacific Models) is working on the station footbridge, and progress is shown to date.

Already its only-one-side-done appearance is adding to the scene but the nearest pier stands just a bit too high at present.

Passing underneath the new footbridge, the DMR K1 is now complete and awaits my painting. Although the body was a doddle to make, the valve gear was a bit of a s*d! The main problem was the lost-wax crossheads and piston rods which were too contaminated with flash to use as supplied. I ended up creating new crosshead slippers from sheet brass, formed with great care and profanity. I'll be writing up my observations on this (overall) excellent kit in BRM in the near future but, with Hornby's proposed K1 on the (distant) horizon, yet another 'individual' loco is going to disappear from the market. Though I believe it has already been withdrawn, unmade kits of it must still exist out there. 

A busy scene nicely framed by the footbridge as a DJH A1 heads north past a Crownline V2 on an up express. Both are my work, with Ian Rathbone's peerless painting. The yard is shunted on this day by a re-numbered Hornby B1.

Last week, I tried running the railway's operating sequence and it worked very well, with just two exceptions. Both of these were the 'failure' of RTR locos to haul scale-length trains (10 and 11 carriages respectively). Both were Hornby A4s, which, although beautiful and accurate have nowhere near the tractive effort of my kit-built ones. One just whirred its wheels and the other just conked out (I fixed it later). A Bachmann A1 struggled a bit, even with extra ballast and I'm more and more convinced that kit-built locos have the edge. Yes, they have to be built and painted and they cost a lot more (even if I make them myself) but (apart from Hornby's latest P2), all my RTR locos don't have anywhere near the 'boots' of my kit-built ones. 

I wonder what others think.

Interesting comments on the  DJH gear box  I've tried a branch lines in a DJH A2 it's noisy but is a far quicker loco than that in my DJH A2/3 which has the DJH gearbox. 

 

Can you recommend a box like the AM9 but with a 30-35:1 gear ratio?

The DJH 'box I put in most of my big engines is the GB1 - big Mashima can motor and appropriate gears. This will give you a top speed of near 100 mph and pulling power to match. If you want over 150 mph, then use a GB4-A type, with a D13 motor. Both a quiet and smooth, though the D13 can give off a slight whine, but nowhere near as much as later Portescaps. The GB1 can be supplied ready-made and it's well worth it.

Interesting to hear of your noisy Branchlines (one word) gear mount. I think the conclusion (in my experience) is that most of these tend to be.

Will others comment, please? 

Tom has been very kind in giving his thanks for my help in the construction of his J25 but it was really only to assist in his getting started. He mentions issue with kits and it rather jogged my memory as to how much I take for granted now with regard to procedures. For instance, I was both surprised and equally not surprised (is this possible?) that the fixing holes in the frame spacers to attach the body were a long way out - not just a twitch but three or four millimetres. Surprised I suppose because this is unusual in more modern kits and not surprised because I've come across many examples of this in the past. I was also annoyed with myself for not checking beforehand. I think the problem arises because it's a generic chassis, manifest by the diagram in the instructions telling you to mount the brake cross hangers in the further forward holes. Tom did this, and was dismayed that this must have been meant for the locos with larger wheels. Result - the brake blocks were 'miles' from the wheels. The problem was solved by 'jiggling' in the hangers (entirely un-prototypical I know, but invisible when painted). Since I never read instructions, I probably wouldn't have fallen into this 'trap' but it shows how the beginner can be bamboozled. 

What Tom kindly doesn't mention is that I melted the back end of one of the cabsides. Having, in true pedagogue style, informed him that 'you will melt a casting' I should have qualified it by stating that 'I will melt a casting!' as well. The damage was done in the classic manner of forgetting that the barrel of the iron is just as hot as the bit. No matter, I just re-sculptured the damage with low-melt solder and filed it back to shape. In a slightly perverse way, it was a valuable teaching/learning experience. I'd done the damage whilst showing him how to solder one cabside to the footplate. He did the other, resulting in a much neater joint and no damage at all. Well done!

As for the gearbox, a DJH AM10, I cannot praise these enough (or other DJH gearboxes). As Tom mentioned we tried a couple of Mashima/Branchlines combinations but, though these ran visually satisfactorily, the noise was unacceptable. I've found this in the past where it's almost pot-luck as to how quietly a simple fold-up gear mount and worm/gear combination will run - the recently-featured J69 I built is as silent as Christmas Eve in forwards but equivalent to July 4th in reverse! Since this was Tom's first kit, I wanted running perfection for him, so we installed the AM10. If there is a downside, it's the size of the gearbox sides, which show up in Tom's picture as a kind of extension to the firebox. In fairness, once the reversing lever is in place, the clacks are fitted, the horizontal rodding on the nearside is fixed and the gearbox is painted matt black, on a layout, it won't be too noticeable. And, for super-smooth running, it's worth it.

With regard to the gap between the firebox and the spectacle plate, I wouldn't be surprised if the latter item was also used for one of the NER classes with a bigger boiler. The 'fixing ring' on the spectacle plate's front (Tom can't have fitted it back to front because of the beading around the spectacles) was the same outside diameter as the firebox. Rather than risk a young musician's career, I pared most of it off with a Stanley knife and file, leaving him the final cleaning up. To a newcomer, though, it would have been a major stumbling block.

How many others have been put off by faults in kits which 'only' the most experienced builders can solve? Would anyone like to start a list?

Finally, well done Graeme King for pointing out one of the numerous descriptions of nonsense one frequently sees nowadays. 100% in agreement is total, how can one agree more? Is it to imply even greater agreement? That rather suggests that if you give 100% to a task, job, activity, etc, that isn't enough. Being pedantic, is it possible to have a description where, say, a locomotive is 200% more powerful than another? I suppose so, but I'm in 100% agreement that 100% agreement is an absolute. Speaking of absolutes, I was appalled recently whilst watching an 'expert' pontificating on some rare piece of pottery that, in her opinion, it was 'very' unique. Really? It's unique or it's not, there is no other possible qualification.   

Having just seen Hornby's proposals for next year, there's yet another loco kit with 'nails in its coffin'. That said, the prototype picture for it is actually of the K1/1.

 

One might have thought a prototype picture of one of the 70 K1s might have been sourced - I would have thought pictures of 61997 were harder to find.

 

Still, at least I'll complete this one before Hornby's K1 arrives. It's from a DMT kit, by the way, which I believe is being taken off the market, anyway. 

 

 

Sorry,

          DMR kit

Having just seen Hornby's proposals for next year, there's yet another loco kit with 'nails in its coffin'. That said, the prototype picture for it is actually of the K1/1.

One might have thought a prototype picture of one of the 70 K1s might have been sourced - I would have thought pictures of 61997 were harder to find.

Still, at least I'll complete this one before Hornby's K1 arrives. It's from a DMT kit, by the way, which I believe is being taken off the market, anyway.