Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

Tony,

 

With regard to the A4s shape being difficult to model, it reminds me of a couple of my modelling friends who were avid trainspotters as well.

 

Quite some time ago (1990)! when viewing the recently released video, The Eddie Stanbridge Collection, The Indian Summer of the A4s, for the first time, they were able to distinguish various A4s by recognising the slightly different shapes of the boiler cladding. Before the commentator stated which loco was the next subject, they rattled off which loco was coming into the picture. One loco in particular I remember had slightly lower than usual upper cladding behind the chimney (Tommy Mann had it all memorised Tony) and these lads knew which idiosyncrasies were pertinent to certain locos. Of course by that time the locos had been bashed and knocked about a bit.

 

So when it comes to modelling them perhaps there is possibly no exact shape!

 

Eric

 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Willie Whizz said:

Speaking of tender drives, I’ve recently rediscovered a half-forgotten Hornby A3 “Prince Palatine” powered that way, barely run because the project of the day was stillborn. Does anyone know whether the loco body would fit a modern Hornby A3 chassis, and whether the tender could simply have the old motor removed and run empty - or would it all be more complicated than that?  Thanks. 

I'm fairly sure I've seen on-line examples of the fitting of that kind of loco body to one of the more modern chassis, with suitable cutting, filing and so on, although I can't point you to a specific example. One version of the un-powered tender supplied with the Railroad range of Pacifics rode on a  motorless cast chassis from the tender-driven versions, so there must be a way to strip out the motor - or maybe just leave it it in, power leads disconnected and intermediate gears removed from their spindles. The tender body may still be a bit wide of course...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Eric,

 

I can recall a similar experience when I gave an illustrated talk to the Deltic Preservation Society, in Derby, many years ago. 

 

I've taken hundreds of Deltic photos down the years, but my indolence usually meant that I took no notes at the time I took a picture. Not a problem to identify, if a Deltic were, say, side-on and stationary in a station; but, out in the country, at speed, head-on? No chance, other than to tell (by its name size) whether it were a racehorse or a regiment. 

 

As I showed the pictures, admitting not knowing which Deltic I'd displayed, immediately several voices chirped up informing me which one it was. They knew by the dents in the nose! I left in awe. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 10
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
17 hours ago, Willie Whizz said:

Speaking of tender drives, I’ve recently rediscovered a half-forgotten Hornby A3 “Prince Palatine” powered that way, barely run because the project of the day was stillborn. Does anyone know whether the loco body would fit a modern Hornby A3 chassis, and whether the tender could simply have the old motor removed and run empty - or would it all be more complicated than that?  Thanks. 

Hello Willie, yes, it can be done as I've done it and it isn't too complicated at all - edited the next day to add that yes, I did mis-read your post @Willie Whizz as A4, because there'd been so much talk of A4s lately: apologies for my hastiness in replying, but hopefully this A4 project will still be of interest! 🤭

I was very attached to 1970S (I think) Hornby tender drive Seagull for nostalgic reasons - we had one when I was a boy and I just like seeing it running from time to time - and decided to try an upgrade because I couldn't get it to run remotely decently, so I took the chassis from a Railroad Falcon and fitted it into the Seagull body and, as Graeme King suggests, left the weight parts of the motor disconnected inside the tender as ballast.

The modern chassis fit in the older loco body didn't require a great deal of carving - a little off around the underside of the cab if I recall - but it did require creating two support pillars at the front, inside the nose, where the Railroad Falcon bodyshell has them already moulded in place.

Here's a photo showing the differences between the inside front sections of the two shells, Falcon above, Seagull below - please excuse the poor photographs, they were taken seven or eight years ago with a tiny Olympus digital camera that was probably another seven years old even then:

 

1333024009_Hornby_Seagull_R372-to-Railroad_conversion_2015(1).JPG.49ee6279e1eb1c106d458b5b6ea6eb41.JPG

 

I then filed two sections of suitable diameter plastic rod to sit up inside the front curved section of the shell, resting over the securing holes at the front of the chassis, replicating what you see inside the Railroad nose. I tapped them first, so they could be held onto the front of the chassis from underneath by the securing bolts to test the fit and adjust the height of the upper curved faces of the rods until the bodyshell sat at the right height:

 

365635226_Hornby_Seagull_R372-to-Railroad_conversion_2015(2).JPG.6af24cc205489b87cbcb9becb71e7a7f.JPG

 

The rod sections were then aradited in place; holding them in place without any movement while the araldite set (I like the 24 hour stuff) was challenging, because of their shape, their position inside the shell and their light weight. You can also see in this shot that I cut sections out of the tops of the rods so that they could sit astride the two moulded bars inside the Seagull nose, which helped locate the rods and saved the trouble of trying to remove those mouldings:

 

894712214_Hornby_Seagull_R372-to-Railroad_conversion_2015(4).JPG.93371a26c47e5b4672a916e6eeedfcad.JPG

 

And here's a cheeky late night action shot to prove how well it ran (and just how bad that camera was!) - it still runs superbly and pleases me every time I see it:

 

1276891669_Hornby_Seagull_R372-to-Railroad_conversion_2015(5)Crop.JPG.2eee6c25ad7fd0d7f92e75eb7d403e60.JPG

 

That being said, I did also keep one other Hornby tender drive - like @rodent279 a 1980s one, 2509 Silver Link - in original condition because it was the first one I got and not knowing any better, I assumed it could be tuned to run really well... Well, it took a lot of time - hours and hours, stripping, cleaning, running in, tweaking pickups etc, but it does actually run incredibly well. It'll do the slowest, quietest whirring crawl you can imagine, but it'll also race along at the fastest speed my layout curves will allow and although it's naturally noisier at high speed, it's not excessively so (and certainly not as noisy as some other older RTRs I have). I think it's just luck - this particular Silver Link probably hadn't had a great deal of use before I got it so there isn't a great deal of wear to the motor and gears, whereas the Seagull's original tender drive couldn't be improved, no matter what I tried!

Edited by Chas Levin
  • Like 12
  • Thanks 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Al,

 

I cannot comment on how well (or not) the Dapol 'Black Label' A4 sold, because I don't know. Like you, I've never seen one on a layout (other than on Little Bytham). I had one to review, five years ago............

 

690693105_DapolBlackLabelA401.jpg.bc423649ad3fb4aba6d11ae89405a310.jpg

 

1020681316_DapolBlackLabelA402.jpg.cd1160444f5fe7c5c117cc142d602a05.jpgI thought it quite impressive; at a price, of course.

 

1054071915_DapolBlackLabelA404.jpg.2b7b080048c982ac971afc1da606f432.jpg

 

The fixed lamps might have discouraged some purchasers.

 

1722958749_DapolBlackLabelA411.jpg.20270173770ac7e7a910da6a432601ab.jpg

 

There was a fair amount 'under the bonnet'.

 

2130553443_DapolBlackLabelA414.jpg.fc6f50858d6a22d0ae64785a25e3f468.jpg

 

Including a smoke unit (which worked on plain DC). 

 

I wonder how many were actually sold, but it's not been perpetuated as far as I know. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony

I borrowed a Dapol Mallard from one of our local BRMA members so I could do a comparison with my Hornby version and write a review for The Clearing House. I'll dig out the review and send it to you for interest.

 

Looking at the side on photo of the silver version above I note that Dapol have got the tender wrong. The rear sheeting around the water filler on the four silver A4s had gaps between it and the curved over sides of the tender. I'm currently modifying my Hornby A4 Silver Fox tender accordingly - of course the Hornby tender didn't have the sheeting to start with.

 

Andrew

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Willie Whizz said:

Speaking of tender drives, I’ve recently rediscovered a half-forgotten Hornby A3 “Prince Palatine” powered that way, barely run because the project of the day was stillborn. Does anyone know whether the loco body would fit a modern Hornby A3 chassis, and whether the tender could simply have the old motor removed and run empty - or would it all be more complicated than that?  Thanks. 

 

11 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

Hello Willie, yes, it can be done as I've done it and it isn't too complicated at all!

I was very attached to 1970S (I think) Hornby tender drive Seagull for nostalgic reasons - we had one when I was a boy and I just like seeing it running from time to time - and decided to try an upgrade because I couldn't get it to run remotely decently, so I took the chassis from a Railroad Falcon and fitted it into the Seagull body and, as Graeme King suggests, left the weight parts of the motor disconnected inside the tender as ballast.

The modern chassis fit in the older loco body didn't require a great deal of carving - a little off around the underside of the cab if I recall - but it did require creating two support pillars at the front, inside the nose, where the Railroad Falcon bodyshell has them already moulded in place.

Here's a photo showing the differences between the inside front sections of the two shells, Falcon above, Seagull below - please excuse the poor photographs, they were taken seven or eight years ago with a tiny Olympus digital camera that was probably another seven years old even then:

 

1333024009_Hornby_Seagull_R372-to-Railroad_conversion_2015(1).JPG.49ee6279e1eb1c106d458b5b6ea6eb41.JPG

 

I then filed two sections of suitable diameter plastic rod to sit up inside the front curved section of the shell, resting over the securing holes at the front of the chassis, replicating what you see inside the Railroad nose. I tapped them first, so they could be held onto the front of the chassis from underneath by the securing bolts to test the fit and adjust the height of the upper curved faces of the rods until the bodyshell sat at the right height:

 

365635226_Hornby_Seagull_R372-to-Railroad_conversion_2015(2).JPG.6af24cc205489b87cbcb9becb71e7a7f.JPG

 

The rod sections were then aradited in place; holding them in place without any movement while the araldite set (I like the 24 hour stuff) was challenging, because of their shape, their position inside the shell and their light weight. You can also see in this shot that I cut sections out of the tops of the rods so that they could sit astride the two moulded bars inside the Seagull nose, which helped locate the rods and saved the trouble of trying to remove those mouldings:

 

894712214_Hornby_Seagull_R372-to-Railroad_conversion_2015(4).JPG.93371a26c47e5b4672a916e6eeedfcad.JPG

 

And here's a cheeky late night action shot to prove how well it ran (and just how bad that camera was!) - it still runs superbly and pleases me every time I see it:

 

1276891669_Hornby_Seagull_R372-to-Railroad_conversion_2015(5)Crop.JPG.2eee6c25ad7fd0d7f92e75eb7d403e60.JPG

 

That being said, I did also keep one other Hornby tender drive - like @rodent279 a 1980s one, 2509 Silver Link - in original condition because it was the first one I got and not knowing any better, I assumed it could be tuned to run really well... Well, it took a lot of time - hours and hours, stripping, cleaning, running in, tweaking pickups etc, but it does actually run incredibly well. It'll do the slowest, quietest whirring crawl you can imagine, but it'll also race along at the fastest speed my layout curves will allow and although it's naturally noisier at high speed, it's not excessively so (and certainly not as noisy as some other older RTRs I have). I think it's just luck - this particular Silver Link probably hadn't had a great deal of use before I got it so there isn't a great deal of wear to the motor and gears, whereas the Seagull's original tender drive couldn't be improved, no matter what I tried!

 

If dealing with the A1/A3 body which of course is not "open bottomed" like the A4, there is likely to be some more carving to do - but a lot of that may involve only the bottom moulding for the base of the boiler and central parts of the running plate, a separate item on several body shells that I have seen / handled. One project in my long queue involves the fitting of an altered Margate tender-drive A1/A3 body to a Chinese motorised "super-detail" chassis of the first type, so one way or another it IS going to work - I shall give it no alternative!

 

I believe I've also seen the Triang-Hornby Flying Scotsman body fitted to the Chinese chassis...

Edited by gr.king
added info
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Not necessarily relevant to A3's but I once purchased a Hornby Railroad County chassis to go under a "got-at" Dapol model. It did fit, eventually, after a load of hack-sawing and filing, but It would probably have been just as quick (and better) to work over a complete Railroad loco. 

 

Specific to A3s, AIUI, the Railroad ones are (or were, to begin with) basically loco-powered versions of the old tender-drive models, and I doubt Hornby will have messed about moving the body fixings for the sake of it. 

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 19/08/2022 at 16:56, Willie Whizz said:

Speaking of tender drives, I’ve recently rediscovered a half-forgotten Hornby A3 “Prince Palatine” powered that way, barely run because the project of the day was stillborn. Does anyone know whether the loco body would fit a modern Hornby A3 chassis, and whether the tender could simply have the old motor removed and run empty - or would it all be more complicated than that?  Thanks. 

Just to clarify this matter, or to bore everybody to death, I've checked some bodyshells and reminded myself of a couple of important details regarding the Hornby tender-drive, LNER, not-streamlined Pacific models:

Initially these models were produced with a round dome and a flush surface to the smokebox (as an A1). The top and sides of the boiler were all part of the main body moulding. The cab side windows had square lower corners and the cab roof had no representation of sliding vents. The rear edge of the cab had the large cut-outs of the original A1 design. A separately moulded piece of plastic provided the (loose) bottom of the boiler and filled in the cut-out in the chassis that had presumably been provided to accommodate an X04 motor before plans changed. A part No was moulded on the underside of the cab floor.

Later, the moulding was changed. The under side of the boiler and the chassis fill-in became a fixed part of the body, but with a witness-line showing that this was originally a separate piece. The upper half of a quite long part of the boiler became a separately moulded piece, with the A3 type elongated dome set further back than the round original. The joint between the main body moulding and the separate upper boiler piece was supposedly hidden by the horizontal handrails and ejector pipe, but I've never seen an example that lined up accurately enough to be invisible. The smokebox had the A3 type raised superheater header covers. A chunky representation of the sliding vents appeared on the central panel at the front of the cab roof and the cab side windows gained (incorrect?) radiused lower corners. The cut out in the rear edge of the cab was the smaller type introduced by the LNER after the mid 1930s. I believe there was no part number under the cab floor.

The earlier type of shell, with loose boiler bottom will presumably be an easier subject for "surgical fitting" to a motorised chassis.

 

Given the existence of the un-used motor cut-out in the chassis block, I'm sure that more than one person has exploited that to fit a motor and gears, or motor and gearbox, and I believe I've seen an example fitted with the valve-gear set as used on the loco-driven Chinese super-detail model, so there is more than one way to do-away with the tender drive...

Edited by gr.king
added info
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

With regards to the Airfix tender drives. I have a couple of 4F's and the thing that annoys me more than anything else is the plastic drive wheels. So I decided to try an experiment. I order a set of modern Hornby loco drive 4F tender wheels. I took the Airfix axles out and forced the plastic wheels off the axle. I then got a coarse file and spend many minutes filing the Airfix wheels back to just the gearwheel. The plastic is a very hard one, and I had the file on the table and was moving the wheel back and forth. Milling would have been easier, but  don't have a mill...

Anyway, having released the gear wheel I then took one wheel off the Hornby axle and then pushed on the Airfix gear and then the Hornby wheel again. Trying in the Airfix drive to make sure everything is lined up, I then dropped a few drops of locktight around the gear hub. 

I was surprised how well it works, one side you can now see through the spokes, and on the other the gear wheel doesn't look so obvious.

 

Andy G

  • Like 5
  • Informative/Useful 3
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, sandra said:

Hello Tony,

 

It was nice to talk to you yesterday at Loughborough and your comments regarding the construction of a scratch-built chassis were instructive.

 

I’ve now had the chance to run the new B17 on the boat train at Retford and here she is just about to cross the flat crossing.9119517D-C756-4AAB-B529-F0D00C905101.jpeg.44bee5d71f2fd88226826832c8d7396f.jpegThe locomotive had no problem managing the train and simply romped round with this heavy eleven coach train. The difficulty is compounded by the fact that to reach the scenic part of the railway the loco has pull the train round a curve on quite a steep gradient.

 

All I have to do now is to add a few details and then paint and line the loco. I do again wish to thank you for very kindly building this loco for Retford.

 

Sandra

Good morning Sandra,

 

It was good to chat to you as well.

 

I'm delighted your new B17 has not disgraced itself (your lack of a phone call on Saturday evening was most-reassuring).

 

It's the least I can do with regard to helping out on Retford (and, I haven't forgotten those telegraph poles!). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 19/08/2022 at 23:57, Woodcock29 said:

Tony

I borrowed a Dapol Mallard from one of our local BRMA members so I could do a comparison with my Hornby version and write a review for The Clearing House. I'll dig out the review and send it to you for interest.

 

Looking at the side on photo of the silver version above I note that Dapol have got the tender wrong. The rear sheeting around the water filler on the four silver A4s had gaps between it and the curved over sides of the tender. I'm currently modifying my Hornby A4 Silver Fox tender accordingly - of course the Hornby tender didn't have the sheeting to start with.

 

Andrew

Thanks Andrew,

 

I first came across the Dapol Black Label A4 at one Warley Show where members of the press were shown a pre-production sample. When questions were requested, I asked why SILVER FOX (in original silver livery) was towing a 1928 corridor tender. I was told (very nicely) that 'much research had been undertaken'. I politely carried on, stating that its tender should be a streamlined corridor type, with no beading and radiused rear end. Whether anything came of my observations, I don't know.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, sandra said:

Hello Tony,

 

It was nice to talk to you yesterday at Loughborough and your comments regarding the construction of a scratch-built chassis were instructive.

 

I’ve now had the chance to run the new B17 on the boat train at Retford and here she is just about to cross the flat crossing.9119517D-C756-4AAB-B529-F0D00C905101.jpeg.44bee5d71f2fd88226826832c8d7396f.jpegThe locomotive had no problem managing the train and simply romped round with this heavy eleven coach train. The difficulty is compounded by the fact that to reach the scenic part of the railway the loco has pull the train round a curve on quite a steep gradient.

 

All I have to do now is to add a few details and then paint and line the loco. I do again wish to thank you for very kindly building this loco for Retford.

 

Sandra

Even though the B17 has still to be painted, the station & platforms finished & there is a hole in the baseboards on the right, this photos reminds me of the prototype more than any other I can remember. I can guess why, but perhaps an expert could list what the features are that make it so "realistic" as a guide for others such as me to copy?

 

William

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

A question born out of ignorance, I'm afraid.

 

Do you attempt to achieve scale weight on the locomotives? So an A4 in OO should weigh 0.52 lb (scaled on 1/76 ^3). And the same for coaches.

 

I ask because LB is succeeding in having OO locomotives pull the correct number of coaches for its era at scale speed.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably mentioned before but back around 1972 after a house moved I changed from TT to OO. Tri-ang Hornby (or was it Hornby back then) had just brought out their Evening Star 9F 2-10-0, It was a "silver seal" tender drive. I later bought a silver seal Black Five. These first Tri-ang tender drive locos ran superbly, and still do today, I still run them today, nearly as powerful as a recent Bachmann 9F (but nowhere near it as to detail).

 

The secret of these early tender drives lay in the fact that all tender driven wheels (on both sides) had traction tyres, and all loco drivers had pick ups, the loco being permanently coupled and double wired to the tender. Super smooth, quiet and powerful. The later tender drives with traction tyres on one side only (and I have a few) are nowhere near as good, a very retrograde step by Hornby in my opinion.

 

Both mine still run on the original traction tyres also.

 

But yes, I agree loco drives are the way to go.

 

Brit15

  • Like 5
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 minutes ago, DenysW said:

A question born out of ignorance, I'm afraid.

 

Do you attempt to achieve scale weight on the locomotives? So an A4 in OO should weigh 0.52 lb (scaled on 1/76 ^3). And the same for coaches.

 

I ask because LB is succeeding in having OO locomotives pull the correct number of coaches for its era at scale speed.

 

Remember that the engines don't have scale power (I should think rather more than) and the rolling stock doesn't have scale rolling resistance (not sure which way that goes but it presumably depends mostly on surface area - of bearings as well as exterior surfaces) ...

  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, DenysW said:

A question born out of ignorance, I'm afraid.

 

Do you attempt to achieve scale weight on the locomotives? So an A4 in OO should weigh 0.52 lb (scaled on 1/76 ^3). And the same for coaches.

 

I ask because LB is succeeding in having OO locomotives pull the correct number of coaches for its era at scale speed.

 

32 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

It's all very well scaling weight but friction and rolling resistance don't scale in the same way so in practice your .52lb loco wouldn't pull very much.

About 60 years ago, in Model Railway News, Jack Newton explained why he aimed for a weight of 1 oz per 3 full-sized tons of adhesive weight. I've tried to do the same but it's hard to get that much weight into a lot of locos, so I try to get at least 1 oz per 5 tons if possible.

 

As long as the wheels still slip when the loco is standing still then all will be well.

 

Adding to what Mike says, full-sized (main line) locos don't have to go round sharp curves like ours either.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
34 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

It's all very well scaling weight but friction and rolling resistance don't scale in the same way so in practice your .52lb loco wouldn't pull very much.

Exactly - give a typically free-rolling RTR coach a push and let it go.  Even if it's doing a scale 50mph, it will likely stop faster than a real emergency brake application.  On level track, a real coach would roll for miles.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I got scale power to be 3.5W (assuming an A4 would achieve 2000 hp draw-bar, and again dividing by 76 ^3), then started thinking about how rolling resistance certainly wouldn't scale on anything predictable, so gave up.

 

I've seen a rule-of-thumb attributed to George Stephenson that 75% of the power  required for a 1:100 up-gradient is used in lifting the weight of the train against gravity. I suspect this isn't true at scale, but is does show why he really liked 1:330 (16'/mile) for the locomotives of his time.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...