Headstock

4 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

My trying to be 'sensible', Andrew,

 

To equate copyright 'theft' with terrorism and murder is a bit asinine in my opinion. 

 

Let's keep WW sensible, please. Why do some discussions have to 'deteriorate' so badly? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Because some people think it is ok to do it, they can't see that it is a crime that can have serious consequences, If you don't think it is as serious as other crimes mentioned above, you might wish to look at the theft of images in the catfishing case associated with the Delphi murders, horrific!

Image theft is a crime, no better than breaking into a house and steeling from the owners.

3 hours ago, APOLLO said:

I don't really care if anyone uses my images (on my Flickr site below), though an acknowledgement would be nice. (I'm sure there are still some nice people around).

 

I'm 70 later this year and I really don't want my photos to disappear with me, whenever the good Lord chooses. 

 

So sad these days when everything is monetised, and thought (well, image) police are everywhere.

 

Brit15

Evening Apollo,

If that is the case, why have you set your images to C All rights reserved on your Flickr settings? Wouldn't under creative commons be more appropriate, if you don't mind people using your images? Do you know how to change you settings?

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

Anyone who uploads an image to the internet does so in the sure and certain knowledge that the horse, at that precise moment, has bolted!

 

Despite the legal nicities, the image is in the public domain for all practical purposes. In order to regain any control over its use, it will be necessary to resort to the legal profession; not something to countenance unless you have deep pockets.

 

If you are precious about your images, don't post them on the internet - it's as simple as that.

 

CJI.

People don't take image theft seriously, until something serious happens. In cases were photographs of peoples family, kids and Grand kids have been taken without permission and digitally manipulated, people suddenly have a much better appreciation for the law. Just recently in America, there was an instance related to a famous case, were a man stole online photographs from a trendy young mans website. He then used the photographs to pretended to be that young man, in order to set up a catfishing operation to lure young girls.

2 hours ago, bbishop said:

I look after photographic collections in copyright for a line society.  We are happy for them to be used for research but not commercially without our permission.  I think RMWeb falls within research but it might be a good idea to acknowledge the source of a photograph. RMWeb is universally accessible so there is always the risk that an image could be purloined. 

I love the images that Rob posts on RMWeb from his little niche within our hobby.

A couple of musings: (1) the spelling is actually "copyright", caught me out in the past; (2) turning over a postcard made from a photograph taken in the nineteenth century, I was mildly surprised to find a copyright notice affixed in the last decade.  Just because one has purchased a postcard, it doesn't incur any rights on the original image!

Bill

I'm sure that there are plenty of fans of Roberts work, such as yourself, who would supply him with free photographs if he was to actually ask for them.

15 hours ago, robmcg said:

 

I do not steal others' artwork or photography, and claim it as my own. 

 

I sometimes take sections of public domain photos, like track or smoke,  and use them as templates for my own painting, which is where my skill are I think quite good, that is, painting with a computer mouse and software like Paintshop Pro. Not unlike making stencil over a photo and freehanding a painting from that.  Is it fair to describe my own computer painting over a small piece of a manipulated distorted re-sized re-coloured google image as misappropriated when it is not being used for any financial purpose whatsoever, and bears only superficial resemblance to a photo I didn't take myself..

 

Clearly we differ.  Tony and Andy York are pretty strict about respecting copyright, and I respect them. My own late father was a prolific author and publisher so I am not unaware of the value of copyright.

 

Your comparing of my usual computer artwork to the theft of your own commercial work for someone else's commercial benefit leaves me having to just politely disagree.

 

Back to modelling please. 

 

 

 

 

Good Afternoon Robert,

I don't wish to embarrass you by physically pointing out were you are not using public domain images. I've just looked at one of your images and found were you have got the original image from. The person that originally posted it holds the copywrite and makes it very clear that it is covered by 'All rights reserved'. At the very least, you must seek permission of the copywrite holder if you wish to use the image and provide a credit. It's simple with copyright images, illegal, don't use it. Legal, provide a credit. The responsibility is yours to check if the original image is genuinely in the public domain or not. This particular image makes it quite clear it is not.

All i'm asking of you, is if you use copywrite images, seek the permission of the copywrite holder and provide a credit. Some people will say yes, others may wish a payment, some will say no.

9 hours ago, robmcg said:

 

I hesitate to reply but would like to point out to those who find RTR boring that many who enjoy Tony's excellent and wide-ranging thread are somewhat limited in modelling ability, and derive great pleasure from it.

 

No intention of causing any argument whatsoever, but it takes all my skill to open a box, place an engine on a diorama and photograph it, while having huge admiration for the craftsmanship and skill others show here, I must accept that this is primarily about modelling, not purchasing and photographing RTR.  For what it's worth I have been paralysed for 47 years after a bike crash and serious multiple injuries, with only one working hand.

 

It shouldn't make any difference to appreciation of models, photography, or the quality of these things, but may add a little perspective to those who find my pictures a bit tiresome, there are certainly other places where they are shown and enjoyed, and I think some readers of Wright Writes enjoy photography too.

 

In fact, good photography is a lovely way to enhance craftsmanship, whether it be scratch-built, kit-built. or the work of RTR designers and assembly workers.

 

I'll leave it at that, thanks for looking at my pics regardless. 

Good afternoon Robert,

I'm not keen on the way you do things rather than what you do, you sometimes take other peoples artwork, other peoples photographs and other peoples paintings and coble them together and claim it as your own work. I can see were you are getting some of your material from and it is not right. You provide no credits for sources and I doubt that you have asked permission of the copyright holders.

I'm a working artist who has had his work stolen in the past and used to advertise somebody else's digital services. I can tell you now, I sued their asses. The pandemic has been a difficult financial time for many creatives, especially freelancers. Their work is their income and their reputation. As for those who support what you are doing, no doubt they are in financial clover but the shoe would very quickly be on the other foot if it was their work that was being misappropriated.

Perhaps you would consider crediting the artwork and photographs that you are using or at least provide reassurance that you have received the creative persons permission to use their work. Expensive stock photography may not be an option for your hobby but I'm sure that if you can't do so yourself,  those who support you would be willing to go out and take suitable photographs for you to use. Tony or others may be able to help in this regard.
 

18 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning David,

 

Thanks for showing this.

 

If anyone finds your picture (and/or its subject matter) boring, may I suggest they look elsewhere than Wright writes?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

P.S. If you can build trackwork to that standard and structures to that standard, you'll build locos with ease. 

Good morning Tony,

as you wish.

20 minutes ago, landscapes said:

Hi

 

I enclose a photo from my Haymarket layout.

 

can I ask you in your opinion is this boring?

 

I do not have the skills as the likes of Tony and other modellers on this website to build locomotive kits, I am the first to admit that.

 

The two locomotives in this photo are both RTR models, but everything else you see including all structures and buildings I have scratch built from archive photographs, and to a point as well that includes the trackwork which is C&L Finescale and had to be made up.

 

Regards

 

David

Good morning David,

that's far more than just a photo of a RTR loco.

2 hours ago, ScRSG said:

On the subject of Nu-cast V2's, here are pictures off the latest one I have done, the unique (?) 60813,

 

 

 

From the photos of the new Bachman model, I think the Nu-cast one stands up pretty well and looks more "elegant".

 

Going back to a previous item on D49's and particularly Morayshires tender, I got one of my club colleagues to take a photo of the only plate on the tender, I don't know if it helps but here it is - 

 

 

Any help?

 

Chas

Good day Chas,

I have a soft spot for the SEF V2, yours displays a great deal of craftsmanship and skill.

3 hours ago, landscapes said:

Hi

 

There is nothing wrong or boring about RTR railway photography 

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

15 minutes ago, rowanj said:

I built this V2 several years ago, as an old fashioned cut-and -shut. If I recall correctly, it was based on a suggestion made by Graeme King when he was developing his resin version.

The boiler is a shortened Triang A3, I think the smokebox is from the same source, but can't quite remember, The cab is a Hornby tender-drive A4, and the footplate is either Bachmann or GBL. I added a few wiggly pipes a la TW, and paired it with a Bachmann stepped GS tender .For variety, I lined the firebox band, as Darlington did when they started servicing the class after Doncaster ceased. It runs on an original split chassis, and runs well.

That's and interesting wagon, should I be triggered?

1 hour ago, micklner said:

Graeme King resin V2 body  using the upgraded chassis version and Bachmann tender  , is the new one worth £200 plus more better ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Afternoon Mick,

you can pick fault with anything. However, I would much rather look at your V2 or Tony's V2 or any of the other stuff that people build, faults and all. This thread is rather rapidly becoming just another display cabinet for RTR loco photography, kind of boring.

5 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

Andrew

 

The measurements are based on figures on the drawing but also compare well with measuring off the drawing.

 

I agree the valence does also look too thick.

 

I'm going to have to be happy once I get around to making the refinements I've alluded to above. Although I did um and arr for bit as to whether to buy one. I'm trying now to spend my time on building what I already have in stock in the way of the kits - which is rather frightening so when a RTR option becomes available I usually take it. I do actually have a Proscale V2 to build one day - I've only had that for 37 years and I know it has a range of faults and difficulties. My first V2 , which I still have was a Bristol Models version which I built in 1978. I got it out recently to give it a run but it really needs a new up to date motor rather than the old MW005. Its obviously quite archaic in many ways but was part of my learning curve.

Andrew  

Afternoon Andrew,

it seems like you have a similar situation to myself, I will use RTR quite happily when I want to. Though being inspired by the real railway rather than wish lists, the major manufactures rather surprisingly don't deliver that much of use to myself. Once a decade they do and I snap it up.

I found myself in a similar position to yourself with the Bachmann V2 but concerning the Hornby A2/3. It was bought as a quick fix, mainly as a B16 backup loco but had a number of assembly issues that required a rebuild. It also needs a repaint so swapping it out for a replacement was pointless. It will probably stand idle for sometime as I have also decided to build the last few of my kits. Having seen the Bachmann effort, a Comet Trice Crownline V2 will probably displace the A2/3 anyway. I haven't given up on RTR locomotives completely, I will try the new A5 tank but if I am dissatisfied in anyway it will go back, no more adding to the cue.

11 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

Tony

Whilst clearly the new Bachmann V2 is a vast improvement on the 1992 version there are several issues with the 2022 version. It does certainly look like a V2.

 

In the above photo all I've done is substitute the flanged cartazzi wheels (provided with the accessories)  and add the front vacuum pipe and a coupling. The engine to tender drawbar is a diabolical arrangement not suited to steam locos in my view and used previously on the Blue Pullman I'm informed. Its ugly from side on and stretches out as its sprung, when under load making the excessive gap even wider. Also it causes the tender to 'crab' along and on a moderate weight train (9 Hornby and Kirk Gresleys) caused the first carriage to derail a couple of times. I will need to change the drawbar arrangement.

 

The front of the smokebox is too thick and needs to be trimmed back. It doesn't look as bad on this LNER version as a BR version, as it doesn't have the ring of rivets set well back from the front. Fortunately its easily removed by dismantling the body and pushing the weight in the smoke box forward from behind. This pushes the front out at the same time sliding the handrails forward, which are simply bent around and fitted into holes in the smokebox front plate not into handrail knobs as they should be. This will be rectified shortly by filing back the rear of the smokebox front and refitting it, including with handrail knobs for the side handrails.

 

The valve gear is excessively chunky (cf with Hornby A2s or indeed the Bachmann Stanier Mogul). I think, although I can't prove it as I don't have the model, that Bachmann have simply used the valve gear from the chassis upgrade version of a few years ago. Or at least parts of it. On the left hand side the reversing rod is placed too low below the footplate (sorry haven't photographed that side yet). The only plus on the valve gear is that it at least it has a two layered expansion link (should be three of course). I have a plan for dealing with the valve gear - its called Comet.

 

The raised section of the footplate over the driving wheels is about 1mm too high compared with the Isinglass drawing. This accentuates how low the reverser is on the left hand side.

 

The footplate is adorned with rivets. Unfortunately a lot are in the wrong places. I've been studying V2 photos continually since receiving this model (Locos Illus 9, RCTS 6C, Yeadon Vol 4, The Book of the V2s, Gresley Obs 154 - The V2 issue, Gres Obs V2 Supplement), also a couple of photos posted for me by Mike Trice on LNER Forum of Green Arrow and an extensive range of V2 photos posted by Neil Dimmer also on the LNER Forum. The rivets along the outer edge above the cylinders and on the up slope to the rear of this all seem to be fiction, and maybe some in front of the smokebox. Whereas the side curves above the buffer beam are almost devoid of what in photos are the most prominent rivets on the loco. Each side piece has two rivets instead of eleven on the prototype. (I know that locally here in Adelaide I'm known as a rivet counter - this simply proves the fact!).

 

The livery is generally well done and I think the colour is about right. However, the thick moulded band at the front of the Vee has caused Bachmann to place the V in the lining too high making the black band look well overscale.

The cab side windows are marginally underscale but look better when the glazing in the rear windows are removed - I've done that since taking the photo.

 

As Tony indicated with the test pieces he had on LB there are some really nice aspects such as the off-set lubricators on the left hand side. the off-set plating around the snifting valve. Something I'm not clear on is whether in fact the safety valves should be set into a longitudinal open section in the front of the cab roof (as on the model) or simply set into the plating of the cab roof like on a A4? Can anyone advise please?

 

I'll be attending to the modifications in a couple of weeks after our daughter and her family have gone home to Qld. Unfortunately when they arrived the youngest granddaughter (4 yrs) brought an unwanted guest with her - Covid so we're in a 14 day lock down period. Both my wife and I and our other granddaughter have all contracted it now. But we're not too bad.

 

I'll post a photo when I've completed the upgrade.

 

St Enodoc will be surprised/interested to hear that I've started on a small scenic project on my layout with the elder granddaughter (7 tomorrow) now they're here for 14 days or more!

 

Andrew 

 

Good morning Andrew,

it's far too clunky looking for a V2 IMO. My own impression, in addition to your own comments, is that the running board valance on both loco and tender looks to thick. There is also some ill defined ugliness going on with the underside of the boiler, this area is so open on the prototype and hard to get right on a model. The LNER livery looks mostly good, excepting around the spectacle plate firebox band as you mention. I's a shame that Hornby couldn't have applied the same finish to the A2/3, it would have been the finest mass produced 4 mm LNER loco in my opinion. Based on photographs only of this model, I think that there are plenty of kit built V2's about that are better than this loco. I am rather pleased I ordered two of the Mike Trice bodies while the opportunity presented itself.

One caveat on your review, are you taking measurements from the written instructions on the isinglass drawing or measuring the drawing itself? If the latter, this is a no no, the isinglass drawings are not accurate enough to do this. Even on a works drawing, you should go by the written sizes and not measure the drawing itself.

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

'The 'sci-fi bogies' are a good example of this, because I don't need an extravagant design solution, that side steps but doesn't necessarily deal with the real problem. I would never need to produce such a complication, because I was taught that good track work is paramount before any stock starts to roll. Get the track right and everything else gets a whole lot easier.'

 

But that's my point in earlier posts, Andrew.

 

Nothing you build is expected to go over rubbish trackwork (laid on the floor!) and around Hornby's second radius curves (around 20"!). But, that's what Hornby's products are confronted with. The 'sci-fi' solutions do 'deal with the real problem', or, at least, mitigate it.

 

With your building skills, you have no need of RTR (neither do I, though building over 90 Mk.1 equivalents of Bachmann's examples renders that notion a bit of a lie). But, you (and I, and LSGC's builders, and LB's builders) are in a tiny minority.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Good morning Tony,

I understand your point but your original question was, why don't you get involved with Hornby? I'm only trying to answer the question. Your points are probably doing a better job of answering your own question.

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

It was Headstock (Andrew) who mentioned 'sci-fi' couplings to start with. 

 

I'll mention to Hornby's designers the possibility of a moveable, but 'fixed', articulated coupling between the internal ends of the artics. As you say, like some of the adjustable drawbars. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Good evening Tony,

Not a criticism, but worth noting how the case of the 'sci-fi bogies' leaves me outside the mainstream and the orbit of the RTR manufactures. The 'sci-fi bogies' are a good example of this, because I don't need an extravagant design solution, that side steps but doesn't necessarily deal with the real problem. I would never need to produce such a complication, because I was taught that good track work is paramount before any stock starts to roll. Get the track right and everything else gets a whole lot easier.

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Andrew,

 

That twin looks exquisite. 

 

Why bother breaking into Hornby's experimental lab? Why not offer your help? Your expertise might prove invaluable. You might be invited down, put up in a good hotel, have an evening meal with Simon Kohler (where much is discussed), be given a guided tour of Hornby's facilities and be able to sit inside a real Coronation Observation Car! 

 

Unlike your models, Hornby's (in many cases) have to run in 'linen closets' or on the floor (often on a carpet). If the firm made cars which were separated by 'scale' distances, there'd be outrage from the core of main buyers. We've even got one current 'influencer' who conducts video tests of locos/rolling stock where his track is actually on the floor - poorly-laid at that. Pity the poor RTR manufacturers whose products are 'criticised' by that sort of standard. 

 

My artics employ two different types of conjoined bogie pivot. One is the D&S-style (familiar to you?) where there is a single pivot, and the other is the Mailcoach style, where there are pegs in the middle of each inner headstock which engage into two separate holes in the bogie's top. Neither would work on anything less that Hornby's maximum Set-Track radius, and even round that it was tight; hence the need for 'sci-fi' articulation. Hornby's designer is borrowing some of mine and another's articulated cars (thanks Sandra); not to copy them, but to get an idea how actual model artics can look/perform.  

 

I think it's sometimes forgotten that the likes of 'us' are a tiny proportion of those who indulge in the hobby of railway modelling. Those of 'us' who actually 'make' things, as accurately as we can (yours, particularly). By 'make', I mean building complex locomotives and rolling stock, not to mention trackwork, signals and the like. The vast majority are more than happy to just by RTR/RTP stuff, assemble it to their hearts' content and have great fun; but, only 'fun' if what they buy stays on some dodgy trackwork. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Good morning Tony,

some interesting points as usual. I think that paragraph two hints at why I wouldn't be interested in paragraph one. Hornby and I are involved in different, though parallel hobbies and for different reasons.

I have used the Mail coach style of articulation. However, I haven't compared the two directly in a controlled manner, both work under the conditions they are intended for.  The articulated bogies of my examples that  employ different pivot positions, are quite different in the wheelbase. As a result, a direct comparison of how one compared to the other would be slanted.

Re the last paragraph. I don't think it's a case of forgetting about the majority of railway modelers, I'm not against purchasing RTR products for myself. Unfortunately the manufactures don't provide a lot of products that I would want to buy. When I did indulged in a tip top product last year,  presumably aimed at the vast majority of railway modelers, it made me sad, as it required lots of work to correct it's defects and bring it up to the standard of the illustration in the advert.

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good evening Andrew,

 

I should have pointed out that other building will be necessary to 'accurately' create the trains I mentioned. If nothing else, the twin FOs are a good start, but, even in the (only) eight-car afternoon Talisman, the Thompson catering pair will have to be built.

 

It was interesting running the ex-streamlined cars I'd made on Hornby's test track yesterday. They'd (just) go round the standard 4th radius Hornby set-track curves (around 23" radius), but struggled on the tighter ones. The designer of the Coronation artics is working on a system whereby the joint bogie's couplings will extend on tight radii (different from what's gone before). I'm told the sets will have to traverse 2nd radius curves.

 

This is a situation faced by all the RTR manufacturers; they get nearer and nearer to 'scale' models, yet they have to negotiate train set curves; in some cases laid on the floor!

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

Good evening Tony,

my latest twins have a 4 Millennial or 5/32 of a red faced Boomer between the articulated ends. They ride on center pivot articulated bogie, though the pivot doesn't take the weight. They are designed to negotiate a 3 Boomer or 914.4 Millennial curve. This they do with aplomb. The underframe on the dia. 210 is actually identical to the Twin FO-FO, though the three bogies are of different types. I must take some new pictures of the twin under construction, as the time consuming process of weathering, transfers, varnishing, glazing and adding the door furniture is now complete*.

I have to confess, if I broke into the Hornby secret experimental lab, I wouldn't care too much for a sci-fi bogie, designed for use on the carpet in the linen closet.  What about your made up wagons and mutant Gresley's, would be my battle cry, just before I was I was ejected from the premises.

This is the original completed twin, it only ran at one exhibition, although it was a five day event. It ran without a problem.

* Drying time mainly, though the glazing of compartment door carriages is always a bit of a marathon rather than a sprint. 

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I've just returned from a couple of most-enjoyable days spent at Hornby's headquarters in Margate.

 

I'm assisting the designers (in a very small way) in the preparations for the forthcoming 'Coronation' streamlined train, loaning documents, photographs and models which could be of assistance. 

 

I was delighted to learn that the BR versions of these wonderful streamlined cars are being considered as well; meaning that the likes of the South Yorkshireman, Master Cutler, West Riding and Talisman (among others) can be accurately modelled. 

 

The amount of diligent research being undertaken is incredible. This train is going to be a stunner!

 

And, there's one of the actual Observation Cars next door - re-re-built back into its original beaver-tail condition and painted in two-tone blue with all its adornments. 

Good evening Tony,

the presence of a RTR twin FO-FO in BR condition, does not mean that the South Yorkshireman or Master Cutler can be accurately modelled, unless hobbyists are prepared to build some other  carriages to run with the twin. In the case of the South Yorkshireman, the twin FO-FO only ran in the formation for a couple of months before being transferred to the Master Cutler.  It remained in the Master Cutler service until the name only was transferred  to a not very successful ECML service.

11 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

Now that has completely done me, well done my good sir. I’m near wetting myself. 

Morning Jesse,

there's probably a caption in that but I won't push my luck.

14 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Doesn't this thread cover so many things? 

 

I get a class designation wrong (in the truest sense) and it's another page...........

 

Without wishing to stir up any further debate, may I list what Cestrian trainspotters called various classes, please?

 

All ex-GWR types seemed to go by their designated class name. As did ex-SR types, though none was seen locally (though someone once described a C1 as a 'Bucket'). 

 

Ex-LMS ones seemed to get the most nicknames.

 

4Fs - 'Coffee Pots'.

 

Stanier Black Fives - 'Mickeys'.

 

Patriots - 'Pats'.

 

Jubilees - 'Jubs'.

 

Royal Scots - 'Scots'

 

Princess Royals - 'Prinnies'.

 

Princess Coronations - 'Semis'.

 

Ivatt 2MTs - 'Mickey Mice'.

 

Fowler 0-8-0s - 'Austin Sevens'.

 

3F shunting tanks - 'Jinties'.

 

Stanier 8Fs - '48ers'.

 

Our native 2F, 58171 - 'Sputnik' (for obvious, contemporary reasons).

 

 Ex-LNER classes tended to be as officially designated, apart from the A4s - 'Streaks'. I never heard an L1 described as a 'Cement Mixer'.  

 

The Standard Classes seemed to have escaped nicknames, apart from the 2-8-0s, which were 'Dub-Dees'. I never heard a 9F described as a 'Spaceship'.

 

Diesels? 

 

All the BR Suzler Type 4s were 'Peaks'. 

 

All the EE Type 4s were 'Big Ds'. 

 

BR/Sulzer Type 2s were 'Bulls'.

 

EE Type 5s - obviously, 'Deltics'. 

 

DMUs (every type) were 'Bug Units'. 

 

That's about it. I'm sure some of the nicknames were quite parochial. 

Good afternoon Tony,

both the terms Cement mixer and Space ship came from the London extension. The GC had a long tradition of bestowing locomotives with nicknames, from Jersey Lillie to Pom Pom, Tiny's and those NER bloodspitter things.

3 hours ago, micklner said:

Tony,

         A first time I have ever read the above kind of quote as a comment for how a model is built/completed.

        I have never heard of anyone who models by the clock before , perhaps proffesional builders may do so,  when building for customers.

       I see no other reason, why anyone would time themselves on modelling . Modelling is supposed to be a pleasure (sometimes, not always thats for sure!) what is the point of rushing something ,and/or not making somthing to a standard that you should be proud off (good or bad) ?. Patience with modelling is a much required part of any modelling.

       There have been on many times of criticisms by yourself of other peoples models on this thread , I have no problem when the faults whatever they are are mentioned when justified.

      Sadly the recents comment/excuse of  yours "its going too fast too see the faults " is very sadly not a way of encouraging a standard of modelling to anyone new to this hobby , or for any other kind of modelling as the method to use to build models. IMHO.

 

        My latest effort , no idea how many hours ,but it was built over at least a month or more, time doews not matter , not to me anyway. Yes it was a pain at times, especially when soldering! , but I enjoyed the challenge, and I am very please with the end result. Built, painted etc by me.

 

 

 

Mick

 

Good afternoon Mick,

nice to see a painted teak NER carriage. One of my Fathers recollections, that he would retell from when he was a little lad, was seeing NER carriages in painted teak. They looked completely convincing and very smart apparently. They were often much nicer than the real teak carriages, especially the ex GNR old bangers.

3 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

I'm only having one of each so swapping won't be a problem.

 

This kind of assembly error is nothing new; Bachmann wagons/vans have been prone to it ever since they discontinued their one-piece underframe mouldings, though they seem to do it much less often these days.

 

I had only encountered it on 10' wb underframes until yesterday, when I spotted a couple of my (numerous) 16-tonners were so afflicted. The simplest cure was to take the brake shoe/pushrod moulding out of the chassis and turn it round, rather than messing with the levers. Fortunately, I've had plenty of practice, and my "patients" weren't too firmly glued together, so the pair were out of surgery in just over an hour. Interestingly, one had come from a 3-pack, in which the other two were correctly assembled....

 

John 

I already have a GER van or two, a third would be an extravagance, so if I become so inclined, I could just about get away with a single Nana van. I haven't got a lot of RTR wagons, a few 1923 RCH minerals, some LNER steel opens and vans and a couple of Guards van conversions. All have been quite good.

34 minutes ago, rowanj said:

So, to lower the tone of the discussion on wagon details, here is a wagon I have been working on. I think it was a Parkside BR Open wagon. I built it years ago, when most of my kits just fell off the track (some still do), and so I fitted the body to a Wrenn chassis. A few days ago I came across it, and dug out my pile of leftover sprues from more recent builds and had enough parts to assemble an underframe. I have no idea if it is authentic, and frankly don't particularly care. I had also watched a video using paper towels to build basic tarpaulins, so had a go at that too. 

All in all, the most fun I've had in a while. It runs well, and, in this rake, is no more inaccurate than most of the other stuff, though I accept that will not satisfy other folk. ( My friend Andrew will hate this post).

 

Finally, I come neither to praise nor bury Tony (W), but simply to wonder who else has encouraged as many folk over the last few years to have a go, and enjoy the hobby in the process, without the fear of failure as a deterrent.

 

 

I'm full of hate for your evil wagon*. For sheeting, I use super market till receipts and O gauge Helvetica transfers  for the numbers etc.

*Honest.

13 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

This gets weirder and weirder. Your GE liveried one has a Morton cam on both sides; your NE liveried one has a plain lever on both sides. In either case, pushing down on the brake lever on either side will rotate the cross-shaft in opposite directions, so from one side you would be applying the brake and from the other, taking it off!

 

But at least you've got all the pieces there to make two realistic versions. 

 

Take the GE version. On the near side in your side-on photo, the push rod for the brake block goes above the cross-shaft - in reality it's attached to the cross-shaft by a short lever arm or tumbler. So, to push the brake on, the cross-shaft needs to rotate anti-clockwise. This would also push the brake on the far side on, since its push-rod is mounted below the cross-shaft. If you were to push down the brake lever on the side we're looking at, turning it clockwise, the catch at the pivot would engage with the cam, turning it anti-clockwise - which is what we want. But pushing down the lever on the far side would have the opposite effect - so on that side we should have the plain lever. From the side we're looking at, pushing down the lever on the far side is an anticlockwise rotation, so it will correctly turn the cross-shaft anticlockwise.

 

On the NE version, with its clasp brakes, the arrangement of the rodding has been simplified so it's less obvious but the usual arrangement is to pull on the rods attached to the cross-shaft tumbler, to apply the brake - they're pull-rods rather than push-rods. So, in your side-on photo, to pull we again need an anti-clockwise rotation, so the plain lever on the nearside is wrong; that should be the lever with the cam.

 

I imagine that incomplete instructions were given to the assembly-line staff and possibly brake levers have been applied at random. There are four possible permutations, only one of which is right, so perhaps you've got a one-in-four chance of getting a correctly-assembled one.

I'm thinking it is rather a shame about the clutch situation, though easily corrected, even if you don't have a second van. The modeling of the AVB on the Banana van goes further than any previous representation in RTR. I could find a place for the Oxford model amongst a raft of my own kit built Banana vans, they represent empties returning to Southampton docks.

4 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Bear in mind that the BR version of 8-shoe clasp ABV differed from those used by both the LMS and LNER, and didn't appear until c1957, whilst construction of vans based on pre-nationalisation designs had ceased five or six years earlier.

 

Models of BR-built vans based on Airfix/Dapol bodies or any using the Ratio kit adapted to represent a LMS van built with AVB, should therefore have the LMS pattern. 

 

John

Morning John,

yes, that's why I asked the question. It turned out that BR clasp brake gear wasn't being used to describe BR clasp brake gear, rather the LMS system on BR builds.