Wright writes.....

[Michael Delamar]

Well I think that looks superb.

 

Sometimes a model may not be totally accurate down to certain measurements but the thing is, you can see what it is, it wont be mistaken for anything else.

 

Like the Hornby class 31 for instance, yes its got its faults, but when its on a layout trundling along, is it a Hornby class 31? or just a class 31?

I think the only time that changes is when you have different makes of models of the same class of locos or coaches together and they look vastly different.

 

Edited May 13, 2014 by Michael Delamar

[Horsetan]

....if the RTR stuff gets too pricey, might we see a return to folk building models again? ....

I do hope so. The greater availability of CAD software, and understanding of etching, might also make it attractive for people to have a go at designing their own.

[Accurascale Fran]

I do hope so. The greater availability of CAD software, and understanding of etching, might also make it attractive for people to have a go at designing their own.

 

And a growth of 3D printing as the technology progresses and improves. Mixed with photoetching of grills and whitemetal details it could keep smaller suppliers of detail parts in business and get people who would normally run away from most kits interested and involved. Either way, interesting times ahead.  

[Captain Kernow]

Sometimes a model may not be totally accurate down to certain measurements but the thing is, you can see what it is, it wont be mistaken for anything else.

 

Like the Hornby class 31 for instance, yes its got its faults, but when its on a layout trundling along, is it a Hornby class 31? or just a class 31?

I completely agree with you, Michael. I have something that my mates and I call 'The Captain's Black 5 test' - ie. if it looks like a Black 5, then let's agree that it is a Black 5, get on with enjoying our hobby and try not to carp on and on about some minor misdemeanour on the part of the company or individual that built it!

 

If you can improve on something, eg. replacing some detail of the model with something that looks better or 'more correct', then fine, but I would only personally attempt that if I was happy that the 'improvement' would look as if it had always been there as part of the model. I've seen etched grilles substituted for the moulded plastic originals on diesels, for example, where the 'improvement' actually makes the model look worse, because it hasn't been applied very well, perhaps there are gaps where it isn't seated properly, and/or perhaps the paint isn't a good match. I'm sure you 'get' what I mean!

 

For that reason (and despite owning one of the new Dapol ones), I've never been that worried about the Heljan Western - I mean it looks more like a Western than anything else (Hymek, B12, Dean Single etc.....).

[Tony Wright]

On Tuesday a most enjoyable time was spent in the company of Great Northern and Mallard60022 (do I have to use these names?), the said Gilbert Barnatt and Phil Ramsay. Train after train was run and Mr Barnatt's expertise was to the fore in identifying the consists of the various trains. My most grateful thanks and the most appropriate locos are now rostered to the most appropriate trains.

 

Phil brought along a box of boxes of goodies of things he'd started making, including a DJH A1, A2s, a Millholme A2/3 (silver crosses at the ready!) and a J15. Was I interested? The A1 caught my eye, so I kept it for the time being. It was very well made, but, though the frames were erected, no mechanism/wheels/etc were installed. So, yesterday afternoon, out with the iron, find a set of wheels, make a Comet gearbox, attach a Mashima fat can and away she goes. It runs perfectly and should be finished very quickly. Usually, when I'm asked to 'finish off' someone's work, it's fraught with troubles. Not so here - the cab roof is now on, a short sorted out on the tender, a tweak on the tender frames made, a drawbar made up and just some detail to compete, and the fiddly bits of the motion to attach. At the risk of sounding patronising, well-done my friend. 

 

It's nice to get back to making something I know something about.

 

[Horsetan]

....a Millholme A2/3 (silver crosses at the ready!) ....

Garlic, surely?

[Oldddudders]

I completely agree with you, Michael. I have something that my mates and I call 'The Captain's Black 5 test' - ie. if it looks like a Black 5, then let's agree that it is a Black 5, get on with enjoying our hobby and try not to carp on and on about some minor misdemeanour on the part of the company or individual that built it!

 

If you can improve on something, eg. replacing some detail of the model with something that looks better or 'more correct', then fine, but I would only personally attempt that if I was happy that the 'improvement' would look as if it had always been there as part of the model. I've seen etched grilles substituted for the moulded plastic originals on diesels, for example, where the 'improvement' actually makes the model look worse, because it hasn't been applied very well, perhaps there are gaps where it isn't seated properly, and/or perhaps the paint isn't a good match. I'm sure you 'get' what I mean!

 

 

Not the attitude that prevails in a few corners elsewhere on RMweb, CK. Michael's remarks about his 31, and your endorsement, are what may separate those who enjoy models for the purpose of running trains, from those who enjoy running the micrometer over them. Neither crowd is "wrong" but I have a feeling I know who is the more relaxed after they've each enjoyed their take on things.

 

As for not-improving things by adding etched parts - guilty as charged! My Electrotren ABJ3 SNCF railcar apparently cried out for an etched air grill above the windscreen, but looks the worse for my struggle to get it to fit.

 

My apologies to Mr W for going further off-topic, but may I just add I find it hard to believe anyone would feel patronised by your comments on their work, given your own track (sorry) record, any more than they would if Larry Goddard gave their paint job the thumbs-up. Forums are a unique place for the ordinary modeller to rub virtual shoulders with competent persons, and any compliments from those people are pure gold to the rest of us.

[John Isherwood]

I completely agree with you, Michael. I have something that my mates and I call 'The Captain's Black 5 test' - ie. if it looks like a Black 5, then let's agree that it is a Black 5, get on with enjoying our hobby and try not to carp on and on about some minor misdemeanour on the part of the company or individual that built it!

 

Hear, hear !!!

 

As some members may be aware, for some forty years and more I have been acquiring an extensive stud of locos, (not to mention rolling stock), for that fateful day when I venture into the loft to build Evercreech Junction in 4mm. scale.

 

A recent review of the stud suggested that my early efforts, mostly detailed Hornby Dublo and Tri-ang Hornby products, were not up to the standard of the later acquisitions. In particular, X04 and tender-powered locos ran like scalded cats and / or drunken donkeys! Sale via Ebay beckoned.

 

However, the locos in question are very much part of my modelling learning curve and therefore have more than a little sentimental value. The detailed bodies are not bad at all, so if the running can be sorted out the locos could be retained.

 

I have invested in Ultrascale gear sets and, (via Ebay) Romford wheels, five-pole X04, Airfix 1001 and Romford Bulldog motors, plus Kemilway chassis kits where these are available. The tender drive Tri-ang Hornby Black Five and the kit-bashed Standard Five, (Tri-ang Hornby Black Five chassis and boiler, plus modified Airfix Standard Mogul kit parts), will have five pole Airfix 1001 motors fitted in the X04 chassis cut-out that Hornby designed into their original Black Five chassis, and didn't use!

 

The original Tri-ang Hornby tender drive 9F will have the loco chassis block milled out to take a High Level Slimliner gearbox and a Mashima motor, plus Romford wheels.

 

I have already rebuilt a Tri-ang L1 that, back in the mists of time, I had converted into a 2P, plus a Tri-ang Hornby 57XX pannier tank. Both of these locos were fitted when originally built with the early Tri-ang brass plate frames with cast mazak spacing blocks. This made it very easy to correct the wheelbase of the 57XX, by moving the front axle back 2mm. and fitting Rod Neep connecting rods, and fitting a Romford Bulldog motor with Ultrascale gears. It already had a five pole XT60 motor that I fitted years ago to remove most of the motor intrusion into the cab. Both locos now run as well as any of the latest Hornby / Bachmann / Heljan releases, if slightly more noisily.

 

Now I know that all of this will seem to be a waste of effort for 'stone-age' models, and that quieter running could be achived by using High Level gearboxes and Mashima motors on all of the rebuilds. However, the aim is to retain the essential origins of the locos, whilst replacing or upgrading certain components with more sophisticated versions of the originals.

 

Most significantly, I have to say that I have derived more pleasure and satisfaction from rebuilding these two locos that I have in years.

 

Buying the latest exquisite RTR offerings and tweaking them cannot in any way compare with taking what is essentially a toy and converting it into a model that can, in most respects, come close to current standards.

 

Anyway - way off-topic, but very relevant to the recent musings concerning the on-going change in the perception of what constitutes railway modelling.

 

I will create a separate thread in due course, and post some photos of the models that I am rebuilding.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited May 15, 2014 by cctransuk

[Mallard60022]

Blimey Tony. That loco looks great. I am so pleased it is going to find a home other than in my loft!! Thanks. I just can't wait to see it finished and running on the 'mini' ECML at Little Bytham. It will be brilliant to see how you give it that 'prototype look' with your knowledge of the actual machine(s). 

You may be pleased to hear that the K1 & J15 have already gone to a good home via RMWeb 'Classifieds' as has the A3 GN Tender.

I'm going to blow Mr W's trumpet here. It was his book of yesteryear, on building loco's and the DVD set from Warners that 'inspired' me to get hold of some 'lumps' and do something with them. With this DJH kit that wasn't that difficult. The Millholme 'thing' was/is a different matter  .

It will be going on that auction site soon and I will copy the pics of it to here for your amusement if I C.B.A. Someone might just think it to be a 'project' worth tackling.

As John intimates, I probably, at the time, got a huge amount of satisfaction from making the Millholme bits go together to look a little bit like an A2/3; however, pleasure? I'm not really sure about that part

Phil

P.S. Forgot to say how enjoyable it was 'driving' on the ECML too. I only caused two "Please explain" situations and probably upset 'Control' by driving in an appropriate way for the conditions, (thunder/rain/ bright sun directly in the face- sometimes all at the same time). Great fun.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Mallard60022

[Barry O]

Back from a very nice day with Tony  (and his other half!) having a drive with some Leeds MRS companions. 

 

The A1 above earned its keep and we managed to create havoc  have a very  enjoyable running session!

 

Thanks Tony.. we will be back if we didn't create too bad an impression.

[Captain Kernow]

Not the attitude that prevails in a few corners elsewhere on RMweb, CK.  

 

Yes, I know!  

 

Many of us have our pet 'issues', I know I do, but I do find that I tire more easily these days of those 'fundamentalists' who seem to try to tell us that 'this new way of springing locos is really the only way to go' **....  I'm sure they have a point, but let's not forget that there is usually more than one way to enjoy this hobby.

 

Talking of enjoying the hobby, it is a real pleasure to see folk enjoying the construction of good loco kits. I once did quite a lot of this for someone else, and I enjoyed it so much, that I forgot to build locos for myself, resulting in hardly any motive power when 'Engine Wood' was first built!

 

I recall building a DJH A2 for someone many years ago, like most of their kits, they were usually a pleasure to get out of the box and put together.

 

And despite all the recent advances in 'modern methods', I've yet to see 4mm scale Walschaerts valve gear better than those Kemilway etches for the 82XXX and 76XXX standards, produced all those years ago!

 

This thread is a real pleasure to follow, so many thanks to Tony and other contributors.

 

 

**  Edit - that was just an example, it might have been the latest way to do weathering, or how to reproduce brickwork, or how to paint a box van...

Edited May 16, 2014 by Captain Kernow

[Tony Wright]

Back from a very nice day with Tony  (and his other half!) having a drive with some Leeds MRS companions. 

 

The A1 above earned its keep and we managed to create havoc  have a very  enjoyable running session!

 

Thanks Tony.. we will be back if we didn't create too bad an impression.

Many thanks Barry and chums - the day was very enjoyable indeed.

 

I don't think it was any visitors who managed to 'create havoc' - any problems were caused by my inability to do two things (or even one thing!) at once - talk (waffle) and set roads properly. Still, with just one derailment in several hours of running (investigated and inexplicable) and one loco failure (muck in the commutator - cleaned and away she went), then I think I can say the layout 'works' as it should. Once a proper sequence is established, then I think operation will be as good as it can get, given that I only have a fraction of the trains needed to fully represent the 1958 summer workings. Still, at least it's a start.

 

Turning to other things, I'm glad I've been able (in some way) to stimulate other folk into having a go at making things for themselves. Many thanks to all those who've commented on this thread. At least I'm able once more to make things - a 'virgin' Jamieson V2 has just blinked at the light after years of dusty abandonment, and a D&S GE Restaurant Car has recently felt the warmth of the soldering iron. Thanks to Mr Duck, an LNER Dia.7 Bogie CCT will also be started soon. I'll report on progress as things develop.  

[John Isherwood]

And despite all the recent advances in 'modern methods', I've yet to see 4mm scale Walschaerts valve gear better than those Kemilway etches for the 82XXX and 76XXX standards, produced all those years ago!

 

Spot on - and I've a 82XXX kit, a West Country chassis, and two 76XXX chassis to build. If I can't make a decent job of these using my new resistance soldering kit I'll have to think about packing in railway modelling altogether!!

 

Incidently, I recently ordered from Mainly Trains two LMS eight coupled loco brakegear etches, http://www.mainlytrains.co.uk/acatalog/by-kemilway.html, and was amazed to see that these are Kemilway products!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Horsetan]

Spot on - and I've a 82XXX kit.....

The chassis is very good, but some of the body castings less so - the smokebox top half casting didn't come out very well, as the offside looks square rather than round....! I've got two, and both have this flaw.

[Arthur]

That answers a question, Ivan. I was wondering what body the 82XXX chassis was intended for (their BoB and 76XXX being intended for Kitmaster/Airfix bodies), so, it was a full kit.

[Horsetan]

....I recently ordered from Mainly Trains two LMS eight coupled loco brakegear etches, http://www.mainlytrains.co.uk/acatalog/by-kemilway.html, and was amazed to see that these are Kemilway products!...

Mainly Trains have always had some Kemilway stuff in stock for a good number of years - usually leftovers like the LMS brakegear. The last big influx was a few years ago when Kemilway themselves - having failed to get rid of some newly-discovered "old" 4mm etches - turned the remains over to Mainly Trains to sell. Those etches appeared suddenly on the MT lists as "clearance", with "KY" reference numbers, and didn't stay on the shelves very long:

 

- 76xxx chassis

- Large Prairie chassis

- Large Prairie frames only

- Churchward 47xx chassis

- 47xx frames only

- LMS 4F chassis (including tender)

- various small etches, e.g. GW pony truck, GW crossheads, hornblock and spring detail

 

The 76xxx and 47xx chassis sold out very quickly. None of them had any instructions included, I think.

 

Interesting to see that some of these late NOS (New "Old Stock") have been filtering back onto eBay in the last year or so.

 

That answers a question, Ivan. I was wondering what body the 82XXX chassis was intended for (their BoB and 76XXX being intended for Kitmaster/Airfix bodies), so it was a full kit.

The Kemilway body is a curate's egg and needs quite a bit of cleaning up / filing. As I wrote above, I ended up with two eBay kits because I intended to portray the "new build" one, 82045.

 

The first kit I bought (twenty-eight quid) had the square smokebox problem, so I thought maybe I'd just been unlucky and picked a duff "end of production" sample. This week, and thirty-one quid later, I acquired another kit. This proved to be equally bad in the smokebox department, and a fair bit of flash on the castings as well! I'll have to put both samples together and use the best castings from them. The rest can go back on eBay.

 

To get the best out of the thing, I think it would probably be better to put the Kemilway "82" chassis - which, BTW, looks a challenge if you want to modify it to take CSB suspension - underneath either a DJH, PDK/Crownline or Bachmann body - they are much more up-to-date and more cleanly produced. Add the brass BR Std. detail castings from Comet or AGW and I think you'd have something good.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Horsetan

[Mallard60022]

 The rest can go back on eBay.

 

Please warn us.......

P

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...Sometimes a model may not be totally accurate down to certain measurements but the thing is, you can see what it is, it wont be mistaken for anything else.

 

Like the Hornby class 31 for instance, yes its got its faults, but when its on a layout trundling along, is it a Hornby class 31? or just a class 31?...

The thing it doesn't look completely like near head on is a Brush type 2. Because the cab side windows are not properly inset it has a strange Derby/BRCW hybrid look about it. As it has to run alongside what became classes 24 and 26, failing to look distinctively different bothers me very much. (Heljan's 47 similarly offended when that came out: great chassis, looks all wrong. The Brush 4 was neat, trim and elegant, clearly styled; alongside the bulky and lumpen EE and Derby type 4s. The Heljan model just didn't get that look, or get purchased as a result, despite its other undoubted virtues.)

 

 Folks moan about various shape issues on diesels, but for my money Hornby's Brush 2 is the worst rendered diesel model on the market due to this fault. Shame when much else about it is so good, the mechanism especially. I have not yet managed to work out a way to get the cabside windows properly inset, without irrepairable damage to the otherwise decent body. So these are set aside, and old Airfix bodies that were 'worked on' in the past have been made to fit for the time being.

[John Isherwood]

The thing it doesn't look completely like near head on is a Brush type 2. Because the cab side windows are not properly inset it has a strange Derby/BRCW hybrid look about it

 

.... the point being made above is that, to most of us, it's very much a Brush Type 2.

 

At the head of a train running on a layout, (as opposed to standing on a test track and viewed from a couple of feet or less with the eye at bufferbeam height), it is indubitably a Brush Type 2.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[ROY@34F]

Tony , Re. Post 1234 , the A1 photo . Is the front footplate correct ? , or rather the back of it, where the middle cylinder valve cover is . It looks to be curved at the base . Sorry to nit-pick on a nicely built kit , but I thought it just looks a bit wonky .

 

Regards , Roy .

[Barry O]

A couple of shots...

 

for some reason my camera decided to "go wonky" so I managed very few shots yesterday..

 

so.. do you know where it is?

 

 

we had a splendid time taking times to drive the trains on the layout..

 

Tony was setting up the trains. Mike Edge and Rupert Brown were driving at the time..

 

Then a bit of a conflab about what points to set and when..

 

 

From the left   Dr John, Rupert, Tony and Mike Edge.... Nicktoix and I were keeping out of the way as we had had a drive earlier.

 

Great layout, lovely stock and a very good day all round!

[salmonpastures]

Hear, hear !!!

 

However, the locos in question are very much part of my modelling learning curve and therefore have more than a little sentimental value. The detailed bodies are not bad at all, so if the running can be sorted out the locos could be retained.

 

John Isherwood.

Couldn't agree more John,

I recently glimpsed my Bec J52 still on its original Triang Jinty chassis and convinced myself it was well overdue for a rebuild,, and it was,,, it used to be the pride of the line for slow running but recently it had become a bit of a liability.

I even had a J52 etched chassis, motor and gearbox lined up as replacements.

 

I nitromorsed the body  which enabled me to look at my early 70's soldered joints which brought an enormous smile to my face,,, crickey it was rough!! but it was in one piece. 

 

I then went through the "planning charade" and offered the etched chassis up against the wrongly spaced lumpy Jinty offering,,,, and I just couldn't do it.

 

That tank has given excellent service on track nights and at exhibitions since 1972 and it suddenly dawned on me it had become a member of the family!!!

Crazy but true.

 

I remember building it in my RAF married quarter and in those days I had hair,,,so in an attempt to give the old stager as happy a retirement as I am about to move into I replaced the Romford Drivers,,, improved the coupling rods profile, cleaned the X04 replacement 5 pole armature and fitted new brushes and a neo-magnet.

After running in for a couple of hours the smile on my face was even bigger,, it was almost back to it's old reliable self. 

 

I can remember when Triang released the original Brush type 2 and in those days we really thought we had reached paradise. [ heavens I sound just like the old man!!]

I have the latest offering from Hornby of the same loco but luckily I haven't felt the urge to run a micrometer over it as in my opinion it looks just like the things that used to trundle through either Sheffield Vic or Midland in about 1964,,, for me it's wonderful.

 

If people recognise my models for what it is supposed to be then I am happy and almost there,,, if I can improve on it as against modifying it for the sake of it then I am even closer.

Thankfully we are all different and therefore standards will vary but if you get enjoyment out of working to your own standards, whilst constantly trying to improve where possible ,  then surely that's what the hobby is all about,,, well it is for me and I'm in it to have some fun.

 

Where would we be without forums,,, I know my standards have risen drastically since I got involved about 6 years ago.

 

One last tongue in cheek comment,,, for all those that think the end of the world is nigh because Chinese workers want either a pay rise or a share of the profits then I say bring it on,,,, we can all start modelling again and getting some fun out of it as against opening boxes and carping on about the fact that the noddy ninge wheel is 0.003 nano millimetres higher than the big ears cam!! 

 

SAD

[Mallard60022]

thankfully we are all different and therefore standards will vary but if you get enjoyment out of working to your own standards, whilst constantly trying to improve where possible ,  then surely that's what the hobby is all about,,, well it is for me and I'm in it to have some fun.

 

Well said that 'sad' lad. 

P

[Tony Wright]

Tony , Re. Post 1234 , the A1 photo . Is the front footplate correct ? , or rather the back of it, where the middle cylinder valve cover is . It looks to be curved at the base . Sorry to nit-pick on a nicely built kit , but I thought it just looks a bit wonky .

 

Regards , Roy .

Roy,

        It's not the base of the casting that's 'at fault', it's the buffer beam that isn't quite parallel to it. It is now - it's amazing what can be done with a soldering iron and asbestos fingers!

[Jol Wilkinson]

I do hope so. The greater availability of CAD software, and understanding of etching, might also make it attractive for people to have a go at designing their own.

Ivan,

 

for some people that should read "the ready availability of cheap unsuitable software and a misunderstanding of etching".

 

At the same time, many people think that 3D printing is the cure for all ills, but I don't believe it hasn't yet reaches a quality/cost balance to make it the correct approach for many items although there is no doubt it will continue to develope rapidly. In the same way that early etched designs often tried to use the technique to create parts that were more suited to casting, I believe that 3D should be seen as another manufacturing process that can be exploited in conjunction with others to create the best final result.

 

Jol

Edited May 19, 2014 by LNWRmodeller