Mac's Crispy Creations

[Crisps]

the first project I'm posting on here, the "refurbishment" of my childhood Bachmann Thomas. I want it to be a mix between the TVS prop and the later RWS illustrations. also I suppose there's some realism and freelance thrown in there too. I first started by gutting the inside of him (removing motor, face, eyemech ect) and then removed all external fittings. I'm still currently in the process of removing paint as I'm writing this as seen in the last 3 photos. while removing the paint I've been rummaging around my parts box and found the running board of a Bachmann Percy which I stole the stepladders from to test-fit. the last photo is him in his current condition. if you have any tips, sugguestions, questions or comments then please feel free to ask! I'm happy to answer them since this is my "big dive" into the modelling world.

Edited May 11, 2022 by Crisps
forgot the last image

[magiclamp]

The extra set of stepladders is a wonderful touch to give him a slight boost of realism, can't wait to see the finished product!

[sir douglas]

apart from the work your doing which i am not critizising, i find it a bit suspicous or a crazy coincidence that that the Magiclamp joined on the exact same day as Crisps, but posted their first and only post here at the same time and was last active at the same time, you might think they are the same person

[Hroth]

Are you going to modify the front buffer height to enable the loco to couple at the front as well as the back?  To my mind, this is one of the more egregrious faults of the Bachman Thomas, and of their "Junior" locomotives derived from it.

[Crisps]

12 hours ago, Hroth said:

Are you going to modify the front buffer height to enable the loco to couple at the front as well as the back?  To my mind, this is one of the more egregrious faults of the Bachman Thomas, and of their "Junior" locomotives derived from it.

possibly? not 100% on that, if I did he would still have some form of slope at the front.

[Hroth]

6 hours ago, Crisps said:

possibly? not 100% on that, if I did he would still have some form of slope at the front.

The height of the rear buffer beam is acceptable, the front buffer beam needs to be repositioned at the same level so you'd end up with a straight footplate from rear to front.

[Crisps]

49 minutes ago, Hroth said:

The height of the rear buffer beam is acceptable, the front buffer beam needs to be repositioned at the same level so you'd end up with a straight footplate from rear to front.

nah I probably won't give him a straight running board, at least not now. maybe in the future I'll buy him a second running board to make into a straight one just so it's an option when displaying/running/using him in videos

[Edwardian]

7 hours ago, Crisps said:

possibly? not 100% on that, if I did he would still have some form of slope at the front.

 

Definitely.

 

Hroth's point seems simple and unassailably correct to me:

 

 

 

Just now, Crisps said:

nah I probably won't give him a straight running board, at least not now. maybe in the future I'll buy him a second running board to make into a straight one just so it's an option when displaying/running/using him in videos

 

So will not function as a loco should and will always look wrong as a result. 

 

The answer is suggested by the picture above, however:

 

(1) You may be able to retain something of a dip in the front frame and preserve that aspect of the illustrations while still making the buffer beam height enough.  That would be more complex, but you might prefer the result; and,

            

(2) If running with HO stock, it might be that the front buffer height is better - I don't run HO stock, so don't know if there is anything in that - in which case the rear buffers should be dropped.  This is how the Hornby model was arranged IIRC, with the frames dipping at both ends.

 

It depends, of course, on what you're aiming for.  I realise you spoke of refurbushing this item, which is essentially a toy, but posting in the Pre-Grouping section implies (to my mind at least) that the intent is some freelance locomotive of reasonably prototypical appearance or, at least, some model of Thomas that is credible as a depiction of a locomotive as it could have existed. 

 

One of the problems of using the Bachmann product as a starting point is the issue Hroth raised. Without addressing it one way or another, you are stuck with a model that makes no sense and cannot really be used as a model railway locomotive. Adding extra detail without curing this essential flaw seems, forgive me, rather like putting lipstick on a pig. It will still look like a pig.

 

I'm quite a fan of Sudrian modelling and there are some very talented proponents here, so there are certainly options to achieve a more prototypical and less illiterate model of Thomas.

 

Anyway, I will await developments with interest.

 

[Crisps]

3 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

Definitely.

 

Hroth's point seems simple and unassailably correct to me:

 

 

 

 

So will not function as a loco should and will always look wrong as a result. 

 

The answer is suggested by the picture above, however:

 

(1) You may be able to retain something of a dip in the front frame and preserve that aspect of the illustrations while still making the buffer beam height enough.  That would be more complex, but you might prefer the result; and,

            

(2) If running with HO stock, it might be that the front buffer height is better - I don't run HO stock, so don't know if there is anything in that - in which case the rear buffers should be dropped.  This is how the Hornby model was arranged IIRC, with the frames dipping at both ends.

 

It depends, of course, on what you're aiming for.  I realise you spoke of refurbushing this item, which is essentially a toy, but posting in the Pre-Grouping section implies (to my mind at least) that the intent is some freelance locomotive of reasonably prototypical appearance or, at least, some model of Thomas that is credible as a depiction of a locomotive as it could have existed. 

 

One of the problems of using the Bachmann product as a starting point is the issue Hroth raised. Without addressing it one way or another, you are stuck with a model that makes no sense and cannot really be used as a model railway locomotive. Adding extra detail without curing this essential flaw seems, forgive me, rather like putting lipstick on a pig. It will still look like a pig.

 

I'm quite a fan of Sudrian modelling and there are some very talented proponents here, so there are certainly options to achieve a more prototypical and less illiterate model of Thomas.

 

Anyway, I will await developments with interest.

 

I've put Thomas next to HO and OO stock in the past, the front buffers only just touch the bottom of other stock. also I didn't even realise I posted this in the "pre-grouping" section. I just saw the "modelling" and chose that, I don't think I can change that now so... whoops. but I might try and raise his buffer beam up while keeping the dip in some way.

thank you for the advice!

[Edwardian]

5 minutes ago, Crisps said:

I've put Thomas next to HO and OO stock in the past, the front buffers only just touch the bottom of other stock. also I didn't even realise I posted this in the "pre-grouping" section. I just saw the "modelling" and chose that, I don't think I can change that now so... whoops. but I might try and raise his buffer beam up while keeping the dip in some way.

thank you for the advice!

 

Well do update if you persevere!

[Hroth]

1 hour ago, Crisps said:

also I didn't even realise I posted this in the "pre-grouping" section. I just saw the "modelling" and chose that

 

Well, the prototype of Thomas is "pre-grouping" and there are discussions here about freelance pre-grouping locos, so you're relatively safe!

Edwardians illustration shows exactly what I was getting at, if you can achieve something of a facebufferbeam lift, then the loco would be more "functional".

 

Good luck with your refurbishments, it'll be nice to see how things turn out!

[Crisps]

41 minutes ago, Hroth said:

 

Well, the prototype of Thomas is "pre-grouping" and there are discussions here about freelance pre-grouping locos, so you're relatively safe!

Edwardians illustration shows exactly what I was getting at, if you can achieve something of a facebufferbeam lift, then the loco would be more "functional".

 

Good luck with your refurbishments, it'll be nice to see how things turn out!

true that Thomas is pre-grouping but I plan on doing more stuff here than just him including some post-grouping locos

 

but thank you! I'll definitely post updates on him

[Crisps]

right finally an update on this blimmin model-

 

drilled out Thomas's portholes and cut out 2 of his cab windows, needs some sanding but im happy with it!