thegreenhowards

Tony, Please don't go! Reading this thread is a daily tonic, and I would miss it sorely. I understand that it takes a lot of time and, as you say, it will probably rumble on for a while without you. But I think it would slowly stagnate without an occasional ' hand on the tiller'. Why not limit yourself to a occasional (every week or two) update on your modelling or thoughts to keep the debate fresh, and don't feel the need to respond to other people's posts. There are plenty of others on here to do that! Obviously your decision...but it would leave a big gap. Andy

I can't claim to remember it, but such a vehicle was shown in the carriage workings for many years. It served dinner for the Aberdonian punters, and was detached at York and returned empty. By the early sixties this was a Mark 1, but for most, if not all, of the fifties it was a rather unusual Gresley D.11 restaurant car which had a larger saloon and smaller kitchen than the standard D.10C. No kit is available AFAIK, but I'm trying to work out whether one can cut and shut Kirk kits to produce one. In the '57/58 period when the Aberdonian title switched to a later train, I think this Restaurant car duty disappeared. Andy

Gilbert, the Aberdonian is a fascinating train with a wide variety of stock (at least pre Mark 1s!). It traditionally left King's Cross at 1900 or shortly after, but had a wobble in 1957/8 when the name transferred to an all sleeping car train at 2215. However, while not titled, much the same service left at 1945 in Summer '58. On FSX this was formed: BZ,BZ, SLSTP,SLF,SKx3,CK,BG,SLF,SLSTP,BCK,BG (the train split for Aberdeen and Fort William). This is shown as all mark 1s for the day cars, but otherwise ex LNER stock. However, if you accept your theory on the sleepers, these could be substituted with Mark 1s as well. I know you have some lovely BZs which could be incorporated ( although I read somewhere that one of the BZs was a ex LMS Stove R - not sure where I'm afraid). This would make a lovely 13 coach train and one which would be more likely to have the Mark 1 sleepers in 1958. Admittedly on Friday it grew to 14 vehicles including a couple of Gresley SLS convertible sleepers (as per the Kirk kit). I suspect that these would have remained as non Mark 1 for longer as they were weekend strengtheners, so you may have to settle for the FSX service, but just think how magnificent that would look! Andy

OK, I stand corrected! That's very useful research, and it would be good to see a Summer 59 book to see if the Mark 1s were in that. Photos of sleeper trains are very thin on the ground unfortunately. I still think you're pushing it with the 1930 FO though, as that would be the last to get converted. I suppose you could argue that it was a trial?

Hi Gilbert, I hoped my comments might provoke a debate! I've been putting together rakes for the car sleeper limited and the Aberdonian and trying to work out when the Mark 1's came into service, but as you say, the information is not entirely consistent. I tend to work of the carriage workings which, I think, only show three Mark 1 SLFs and no second class cars in winter 58/59, with significant numbers not appearing until 59 (I haven't seen the Summer 59 carriage workings but there are plenty by winter 59/60. I suspect they were introduced gradually from late '58, but it would be great to have some confirmation. I think the mark 1s and Thompson's had similar capacity so may have been used interchangeably. I've decided to go slightly earlier for my rakes based in Summer 1956. This allows me to use Hornby CCTs and Kirk SLS's on the Car Sleeper Limited, and for the Aberdonian has an eclectic mix of Thompson's and Gresleys which will be fun (masochistic?) to recreate. A third train may follow based on the post Mark 1 era but mixed with Gresley twins. This could represent the Night Scotsman in 58/59 if I thought that Mark 1's were coming in from that era. Regards Andy

That sounds like a convenient excuse, but weren't the Thompsons beautiful (still work in progress)?!

Nice try Gilbert, however strictly speaking I think that the mark 1 sleepers arrived a little later than your period(late 1958 or early 1959). That 7:30pm FO in 1958 should have two Thompson SLSTPs and a Gresley SLF (same as the Hornby model). I'd always advocate more attention being given to sleeping car trains so will enjoy seeing the photos, but think how much nicer it would look with a couple of those gorgeous Thompson cars! Andy

Thanks Tony, I've lopped a bit of the front spring which puts a bit more weight through the drivers, so I think it will handle a bit more of a load now! There are a number if non used bits still floating around in the bottom of my C12 box, so the offending axle is almost certainly the EM or P4 version from the Markits wheel set that I used for the back axle. Sorry for being so careless! NB this is not an attempt to reopen the gauge wars!!! Andy

A couple of weeks ago, I posted a picture of my progress with a C12 kit. I have now almost finished it, and I took it to show Tony last week. He kindly gave it the studio photo treatment. I need a couple of details to complete it which are the fittings associated with push pull equipment mounted on the left of the smokebox. These are shown clearly in fig 44. in the RCTS green book part 7. If anyone knows where I can get such parts, then please let me know. Failing that I had a rummage through Tony's white metal spares box, and have some shapes that I think I can bodge to work. Willie Whizz asked me to describe the choice and fitting of the RTR chassis for this. I think the four key issues are: 1. Wheel diameter 2, Wheelbase 3. Number of spokes 4. Will the chassis fit! The first is critical. In this case the C12 had 5'8" drivers, while the L&YR tank had 5'73/4" drivers. That 1/4 inch difference is completely irrelevant at 4mm scale, so it was a good match. Conveniently the leading and trailing wheels were an exact match as well, both being 3'8", so I used the Bachmann axles for the pony truck on the C12 and only had to buy one axle from Markits. This is not essential, but saves some money, The second is also pretty critical, especially if the loco has splashers which make any difference quite evident. In this case, the C12 should have an 8'3" wheelbase while the Bachmann L&YR tank scales out at 34mm - i.e 8'6". This 1mm difference is a compromise that I'm happy with, although I appreciate, it's not for everyone. The wheelbase for the leading and trailing axles didn't work out, so those parts were scrapped with just the wheels retained. The number of spokes is a nice to have. In this case, it should be 18, and the Bachmann tank has 19. Again not ideal, but I can live with it. The leading and trailing axles were spot on with 10 spokes on both locos. Generally I find that if the first two points are OK, then the chassis will fit. But this is a bit of a leap of faith when one starts sawing into a RTR chassis! In this case, I had to cut out the driving wheels and find a way of fixing this 0-4-0 unit into the C12 body. This was achieved with a brass bar glued to the Bachmann chassis and screwed into the C12 body. The pony truck was supplied with the C12 kit, but I modified it to pivot of a hole directly above rather than swinging on a long arm as the kit intended - I prefer this so the pony steers the loco round corners, but it only works on relatively generous radii. The pony is attached with an 8BA bolt and is sprung. The rear axle chassis is soldered to the base of the C12 body and sprung with some phosphor bronze pick up strip acting on some 2mm brass tube which holds the axle. I hope the picture below shows the fitting. I can supply more detail if anyone's interested. Overall this was a very cost effective chassis. I paid around £60 for the L&YR tank, and sold the body on Ebay for almost £30, so I effectively acquired a sweet running motor and gearbox plus four sets of wheel/axles for just over £30. Exceptional value! Andy

Hello Tony et al, Where to start - it was such an enthralling couple of days. As some of you will know my previous experience was building a few white metal bodies and getting them to run on a proprietary chassis. I really wanted to learn how to make a chassis work. Mission accomplished! The first day we spent getting the chassis to run as an 0-6-0 with no valve gear. This was very successful, and I fell that I could replicate this at home on a future kit (although I may have to eat my words - time will tell!). At the end of day 1 we were as below. This was four or five hours work. The second day we started by adding the footplate, boiler and smokebox which went well. Although this was more in my comfort zone, I now know how to solder efficiently and effectively whereas before I could just solder. Then the most challenging bit as we constructed the valve gear. This kit was advertised as having 'assembled valve gear', which was the only reason I considered it as a first full kit. If I'd bought this for construction at home, I'd have been disappointed as the valve gear was only part assembled and the work involved in putting it all together was fiddly and complicated. Tony demonstrated the first side with me cutting out the parts and watching. I was then supposed to put together the second side, but much to Tony's dismay, I couldn't really remember how it all went together so, while I did all the soldering, I was mighty glad to have Tony there to tell me what went where - and also to have his 'asbestos' fingers to hold the joints while I soldered! So after about 7 hours on the second day the valve gear was up and running, and looked as below. I learnt enough to try this at home on a future kit, but I'm much less confident than with the chassis that I won't have to run back to 'sir' for help! Tony showed the picture of the loco with boiler attached, so I won't repeat that here. We called it a day at this stage, and went to 'play trains'. We had time to run through 2/3 of the sequence, and very enjoyable it was too. Everything ran smoothly except for a couple of derailments in the fiddle yard caused by some 'clot' not setting the road! I'll leave it to your imagination who that might have been! I also brought along a couple of my recent projects which Tony kindly gave the studio photography treatment. The first is the next coach to roll off my Aberdonian 'production line'. This is a D.20 SLC as ran in the Fort William portion until the late fifties. It had 6 First Class berths and two Third Class compartments which were convertible into four berths in each. This is built from Mousa sides on a Hornby donor. It wasn't the easiest of conversions as the sides were marginally too short for the donor (this may be my fault in putting them together), and I struggled with the painting as my masking tape pulled off the crimson when I masked to apply the cream, so I ended up hand painting much of it. So not my best coach, but one which will, I think, look fine as part of a long train. The second project is an FK with ladies retiring room for the Elizabethan, although it will run in my 1960s Flying Scotsman initially as I have another 9 coaches to convert! I'm pretty pleased with the way this has turned out. Southern Pride sides are excellent, and you get everything with them that you need for the conversion (no connection etc.). Finally, thank you once again Tony for your patient, skilled and engaging tuition - I learnt a lot, and have an A2/2 kit which I'm confident of finishing off at home. Thanks also to Mo for her excellent hospitality. Cancer Research and the Deltic Preservation Society are benefitting from my donations as a result. Andy

Interesting that Larry has put a step board on the bogies, and Bachmann haven't. Anyone know which is right, or did it vary?

I have managed to order by phone, and the items arrived swiftly. On another occasion I had to chase it twice before anything arrived, but I got them eventually and he didn't charge me until they were sent. I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, and say that he is incompetent, IT illiterate and absent minded rather than deliberately fraudulent. Not the right guy to be running the business though!

I always welcome pictures of the wonderful coaches behind your engines. They often get forgotten in the lust for steam!

As the guinea pig for the next couple of days, I hope I'm not jumping into too deep an end! I'll be delighted to keep people posted on progress, and post pictures of the ongoing build after my visit. I've built a fair few kits before, but never had any success with the mechanism, so that is the main blockage I need to conquer with 'sir's' help. Fingers crossed

I think they make reasonable donor vehicles. For example for this d.194/5 pair. OK I know I need to replace the couplings, and maybe work on some underframe detail!

I don't think the final loco will be of a high enough standard for a 'how to' article, but I could do something on the choice and fitting of the LYR 2-4-2 chassis. I started it best part of a year ago, so I'll have to rack my brain cells to remember the details. Watch this space! Andy

I can also confirm that LB runs very well at low speeds as well as the more usual high speeds. Whilst my favourite part of the operating session was drooling at the procession of prototypical formations on the expresses, the best operating experience was running the pick up freight across the run of slips and shunting the freight yard. I have to say though that all that twiddling with rotary switches was far more complicated than just tapping the loco number into my DCC controller! (Imagine tongue in cheek emoticon here!) Andy

Bringing the subject back to modelling, I attach some photos of my weekend's progress. This is a SE Finecast C12 body built onto a Bachmann LYR 2-4-2 motor unit which has the correct wheel diameter and wheelbase for the drivers. The Bachmann wheels were also right for the bogie, and I've used a Markits axle for the rear truck. This was my first attempt at soldering together a white metal loco kit and I was pleased at how easily it went together - definitely more fun and quicker than glue. The casting wasn't perfect though and needed quite a bit of filler. Some smoothing down and replacement of beading is still required. As Tony said earlier, I am visiting him next week to learn how to do this properly, and in particular, how to build the clever bit, so will hopefully be the last loco for which I need to use a RTR chassis (although I might still do so on occasion for cost/ convenience reasons). All the best Andy

One more opinion on the analogue vs digital debate. I went DCC a couple of years ago and have enjoyed the process of chipping my locos. Also, it's certainly meant wiring my new layout is much easier. Having said that, for a 'roundy roundy' layout like Little Bytham (and mine in the main), the benefits are limited, but on any layout with significant amounts of shunting, I think you'd be mad to start out in DC today. Although obviously, if you've already built a DC layout with a large stable of locos that's a different matter. I don't think the running is significantly better or worse. Some locos definitely perform better at very low speed on DCC, while others have a significantly lower top speed which can be annoying (if more realistic!). I find stayalive capacitors useful on short wheelbase locos, particularly on dead frogs (I know I shouldn't have any, but I will until Peco do electrofrog slips in code 100). I have had one motor blow out (on Little Bytham as catalogued on this forum before), but I think this was due to the significantly more than 12V in Tony's wires! I never had this sort of problem when running DCC locos on DCC layouts. I have never experienced any problems such as random movements, or refusing to accept addresses. I find that if one follows the instructions, the system behaves well, but I use NCE, which I suspect is more stable than some other systems. For me the clincher is sound, particularly diesel sound. Yes, it can get annoying, but it really brings the models to life, and makes the operation much more fun. Listening to the Napiers fire up on my namesake is heaven! Having said this, each to his own. Andy PS RMWeb 'ate' my first attempt at responding to this debate last night when I tried to add emoticons. I wonder whether it's DC or DCC powered!!!

Hello Andrew, I plan to run the rake in both 1957 and 1958 format, i.e. all in maroon, but with and without the buffet car. So far, I have all the etches and an almost finished FK (with Ladies waiting room) which will initially go into a 1960s Flying Scotsman rake until the other coaches are ready. In the interests of getting something running I'll probably start with the 1958 formation, so the buffet car and SK with ladies waiting room will wait until the end. Andy

I have one on the way, but its behind the Aberdonian in the queue, so don't hold your breath! Southern Pride sides, but I haven't bought all the donors yet, as I'm hoping the price will come down when the new Bachmann Thompson's arrive! Andy

That Gresley brake at the front looks interesting - is that a '1' on the door and curtains in the windows? If so, I don't think I've ever seen a first class brake before. Can we have a closer look?

Morning Tony, I've just finished reading your Deltic bookazine. A very enjoyable read with captions which are much more informative than the usual. One compliant though, I had to read to page 53 before I came across a picture of my machine - number 8. Good news on the A2/2. I will email you with some dates. Regards Andy

Hello Tony, With this category, do you mean on the same train, or on different trains on the same layout? Personally, while I admire the discipline of, for example, LB and PN sticking rigidly to a very short timeframe, I enjoy the variety that comes from allowing a little flexibility in timescales, providing that each train is internally consistent (preferably from the carriage workings and backed up by a photograph). So, I feel that I can get away with a blue Pacific on crimson and cream stock rubbing shoulders with a Deltic on maroon stock, provided each train is correctly modelled in its entirety. Provided it's explained properly, I think this gives a flavour of the march of history on the prototype that is being modelled. Having said that, it would grate if an HST made an appearance on the same layout, so it's clearly subjective! Andy

Morning Andrew, I'm sure I've read somewhere that it was generally a roller bearing A1 on a round trip to/from Newcastle. But I can't remember where! I suspect that it would have changed at Grantham at some periods in the 1950s. Perversely loco diagrams seem more difficult to find than carriage workings, so I tend to rely on photos for the class of engine. Yes the SLFs are Kirk on Hornby, more brutal than cunning I think! The sides are still available from Coopercraft, but not much else! The LSGC overnights look like interesting trains, but they were tough on the GC - no berths! Regards Andy