Wright writes.....

[Markeg]

Hi Tony,

 

I have been considering a "Wright bodge" using a Hornby 1st Sleeper (red and cream) to convert it to a Composite to add to my set.  Both Comet and MJT produce the same Composite sides Diagram D6/D130.

My question is which is the best?  In my discussions with a well known builder of coaches, he has suggested MJT (Mike Trice) from Dart castings.  I am leaning that way, but another opinion is valued.  I have put my question to Gilbert of Peterborough fame. Some others have been helpful.  Any help is appreciated.  Fortunately I am not in a hurry to do this as I need to finish off some of the Kirk kits I have.  These are in pre-war teak though.

 

Thanks

Mark

[micklner]

A2/3 Edward Thompson on the go . A Resin and Etched conversion  mentioned earlier using a Bachmann A2 and Graeme King's resin/etched add on parts, and a modified Etched Cab from David West. Nothing screwed down in photo.

 

Edited May 31, 2018 by micklner

[Lecorbusier]

I've just spent part of the last two days adding more point rodding on Little Bytham. This is definitely a job done a bit at a time!

 

More point rodding 01.jpg

 

There's still at least another foot to add to this run. Despite my best attempts, it's still come out a bit wiggly (prototypical?). I thought I'd jigged it up straight (using MSE components and solder), but there you go - it's much more visible in the pictures. 

 

The K3 on the parcels train is a Bachmann/SE Finecast/London Road hybrid, which I wrote about in BRM a few years ago. 

 

More point rodding 02.jpg

 

A shorter run was completed at the south end (again, a bit wiggly). It's a pity the Wills plastic stuff is way over-scale, because it would have made the job so much easier. Still, point rodding is one of those details which have to be added (though there are still 'miles' to go). Note the runs from the 'box westwards, visible in the first picture, going under the fast lines and Down slow - really well worth doing, if very time-consuming.

 

It looked like I missed a great show at Stoke Manderville over the weekend. I was invited (to be a judge), but I've been so busy recently, I took a 'weekend off', offering my apologies for absence. I hope it was the success it deserved to be. Without doubt, Railex is one of the best shows in the calendar. Perhaps I should have gone. 

Tony,

 

As you have fortuitously introduced the topic of point rodding, I thought I might share some of my own experimentation.

 

As you know I am having a bash with the Proto Cab system obviating the need for power to the tracks. I therefore thought it might be a fun challenge to see if I could actuate the points and signals mechanically as on the real thing thus doing away with below board wiring entirely. Well one thing led to another and I have ended up experimenting to see if i can set the way using the actual rodding.

 

My thinking was that if I could get the cradle to restrain the lateral movement of the rod (flex) then as the action is by means of a lever and the cranks it will always be linear and hopefully should be man enough for the job. To achieve this the design of the cradle is key. I was also looking for some midland style cradles circa 1902.

 

I approached Alan Butler at Modelu and bought in some of his LMS cradles. Although printed to scale these proved too small to use and to my eye looked overly delicate when installed... something about being unbelievable to the eye knowing their function. He was interested in producing some Midland cradles and agreed to work with me developing a cradle which we could tweak as far as scale was concerned such that it might also work for me.

 

I asked him to print the cradles out at 5.5mm scale and ensure that the pulley wheel gap was wide enough to accommodate a 0.7mm capillary tube (internal diam 0.5mm). I decided to use 0.45mm nickel silver for the rodding. The cranks are Ambis etches. My plan was to bond small sections of the capillary tube into the cradles through which the rod could easily slide but which would prevent flexure when located at the correct centres.

 

I have now had this small portion of rodding installed as a trial for 3 months now with no failures to date. No idea how long it will last or how robust it will prove ... but so far so good.

(edited to change 'stool' to cradle as I am advised that the stool is just the base)

 

Edited June 1, 2018 by Lecorbusier

[micknich2003]

Over the years, there have been more then one article in MRJ featuring working 4mm scale rodding runs. I don't have the dates to hand, there is an on line index.

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

 

As you have fortuitously introduced the topic of point rodding, I thought I might share some of my own experimentation.

 

As you know I am having a bash with the Proto Cab system obviating the need for power to the tracks. I therefore thought it might be a fun challenge to see if I could actuate the points and signals mechanically as on the real thing thus doing away with below board wiring entirely. Well one thing led to another and I have ended up experimenting to see if i can set the way using the actual rodding.

 

My thinking was that if I could get the stools to restrain the lateral movement of the rod (flex) then as the action is by means of a lever and the cranks it will always be linear and hopefully should be man enough for the job. To achieve this the design of the stools is key. I was also looking for some midland style stools circa 1902.

 

I approached Alan Butler at Modelu and bought in some of his LMS stools. Although printed to scale these proved too small to use and to my eye looked overly delicate when installed... something about being unbelievable to the eye knowing their function. He was interested in producing some Midland Stools and agreed to work with me developing a stool which we could tweak as far as scale was concerned such that it might also work for me.

 

I asked him to print the stools out at 5.5mm scale and ensure that the pulley wheel gap was wide enough to accommodate a 0.7mm capillary tube (internal diam 0.5mm). I decided to use 0.45mm nickel silver for the rodding. The cranks are Ambis etches. My plan was to bond small sections of the capillary tube into the stools through which the rod could easily slide but which would prevent flexure when located at the correct centres.

 

I have now had this small portion of rodding installed as a trial for 3 months now with no failures to date. No idea how long it will last or how robust it will prove ... but so far so good.

 

point rodding - 1 (1).jpgpoint rodding - 7.jpgpoint rodding - 6.jpg

This looks wonderful work, Tim,

 

Mine is only dummy, and soldered solidly together. 

 

I wonder if it would be possible to physically make Bytham's rodding work (not that I'd ever bother). From the 'box to the furthest point (literally) is about nine feet (what's that to scale?) going through three sets of right angle cranks. I'm sure that, if done to scale, there'd be far too much flexing for it to operate. Interesting, though?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

A2/3 Edward Thompson on the go . A Resin and Etched conversion  mentioned earlier using a Bachmann A2 and Graeme King's resin/etched add on parts, and a modified Etched Cab from David West. Nothing screwed down in photo.

 

fullsizeoutput_147f.jpeg

Nice work Mick,

 

I assume you're not going to leave the union link at that angle?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Good morning Tony.

 

I have an awful lot of the Wills Coarse Stone sheets to paint. The example on Little Bytham, the retaining wall that features in the lower right corner of the three pictures above, is about as realistic a stone effect as I've seen achieved with it. Can I ask what materials and techniques you used to get that effect? I would like, if I may, to steal it shamelessly...

 

Regards,

Gavin

Good afternoon Gavin,

 

Please, steal away.

 

The retaining wall is Wills random stone, cut to the appropriate size. If ever anyone questions its accuracy, elder son Tom and I measured it, getting the correct angle of batter as well.

 

I used artists' acrylics in thin washes to get the effect. It's local limestone, which is quite friable, so odd (fresh) white bits appear from time to time (not that you'd see them today because the real 'wall is obliterated beneath creepers). I use a cotton bud to take the wash off the stones, letting it stay in the courses. One has to work quickly, because the acrylic dries so fast. 

 

I'll take some close-up pictures later.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Temporarily 'freed' from the constraints of making point rodding, I started building another loco yesterday evening.

 

It's the second of the SE Finecast (Nu-Cast partners) J6s I acquired.

 

This was the first, now sold to a friend (this has appeared before).

 

 

It tows the tender provided, an unequal wheelbase type. This sort was relatively rare behind J6s.

 

 

This is the progress so far on the second one. I had contemplated making one of the earlier 521 Series (Ivatt) J6s (with detail differences). This can be done from the kit, but only with a fair bit of modification. In the end, I opted for the far more numerous 536 Series (Gresley) J6s, but opted for fitting an equal wheelbase GN tender from London Road Models. 

 

My choice of DJH motor/gearbox will necessitate removing some of the bottom of the boiler, but these 'boxes are beautiful runners and, when painted black, on a layout, it won't be too obtrusive.  

 

 

[Tony Wright]

 

Hi Tony,

 

I have been considering a "Wright bodge" using a Hornby 1st Sleeper (red and cream) to convert it to a Composite to add to my set.  Both Comet and MJT produce the same Composite sides Diagram D6/D130.

My question is which is the best?  In my discussions with a well known builder of coaches, he has suggested MJT (Mike Trice) from Dart castings.  I am leaning that way, but another opinion is valued.  I have put my question to Gilbert of Peterborough fame. Some others have been helpful.  Any help is appreciated.  Fortunately I am not in a hurry to do this as I need to finish off some of the Kirk kits I have.  These are in pre-war teak though.

 

Thanks

Mark

 

Mark,

 

I'd go with the MJT version because I think it's slightly easier to build, and you get a nice big lip at the cornice to fix the roof to.

 

Gilbert's builders of carriages should be able to help you as well.

 

I hope this helps. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Lecorbusier]

Over the years, there have been more then one article in MRJ featuring working 4mm scale rodding runs. I don't have the dates to hand, there is an on line index.

 

Hi Mick,

 

I must trawl back through the index. All the working rodding runs I have come across to date work in so much as they move with the switches, but the actuation is achieved either via a motor or as in the case of Howard Bolton's Minories via much larger and more robust rods set beneath the boards and it is these which power the above board runs. If there is a layout(s) where the rodding is fully functional as a stand alone system at 4mm, it would be fantastic to read up on ... if only to prove that it can work without continual failures.

 

Regards

 

Tim

Edited May 31, 2018 by Lecorbusier

[micklner]

Nice work Mick,

 

I assume you're not going to leave the union link at that angle?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Tony,

 

As said in post nothing is screwed down , Cylinders are loose on the chassis , they  not fixed until the body sandwich's them all together when screwed down.At this point the Valve Gear et al is all ok.

 

Re the J6 photo have you ever tried High Level Gear boxes, as they are invisible when fitted , and very good runners ? 

Edited May 31, 2018 by micklner

[gr.king]

A2/3 Edward Thompson on the go . A Resin and Etched conversion  mentioned earlier using a Bachmann A2 and Graeme King's resin/etched add on parts, and a modified Etched Cab from David West. Nothing screwed down in photo.

 

fullsizeoutput_147f.jpeg

 

Hi Mick,

 

What mods have you made to that cab please?

[richard i]

High level gearboxes are great. Even a simpleton like me can build them.

Richard

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

 

As said in post nothing is screwed down , Cylinders are loose on the chassis , they  not fixed until the body sandwich's them all together when screwed down.At this point the Valve Gear et al is all ok.

 

Re the J6 photo have you ever tried High Level Gear boxes, as they are invisible when fitted , and very good runners ? 

Thanks Mick,

 

I have tried High Level Gearboxes and I agree; they are beautiful runners, and discreet. 

 

However, the DJH 'boxes come ready made-up and are really quiet, powerful and reliable. High Level 'boxes are as well, but they have to be made. I've seen one or two that have not been made correctly (not by me, I hasten to add). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[micklner]

Thanks Mick,

 

I have tried High Level Gearboxes and I agree; they are beautiful runners, and discreet. 

 

However, the DJH 'boxes come ready made-up and are really quiet, powerful and reliable. High Level 'boxes are as well, but they have to be made. I've seen one or two that have not been made correctly (not by me, I hasten to add). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

No idea of a DJH box price at a guess £30 plus ?. HL boxes are half that price if I am correct , they build in 30 minutes or less and far more versatile in shapes and gear ratios.  

 

 

 IMHO of course !! Thanks.

[John Isherwood]

Thanks Mick,

 

I have tried High Level Gearboxes and I agree; they are beautiful runners, and discreet. 

 

However, the DJH 'boxes come ready made-up and are really quiet, powerful and reliable. High Level 'boxes are as well, but they have to be made. I've seen one or two that have not been made correctly (not by me, I hasten to add). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Tony,

 

If you can build Walchaerts valvegear, a HL gearbox will be a breeze. Just follow the instructions the first time - after that, it's instinctive.

 

Since you are the arch-advocate of 'having a go', I will (respectfully) issue a challenge to do just that; (surely you don't want to be reliant on RTR gearboxes)? 

 

.... and, practicing what I preach, I am about to install three HL gearboxes, in three Comet / Markits chassis, to go in three ancient Airfix 4Fs. With Mashima or Mitsumi motors plus flywheels, I fully expect the performance to be exemplary.

 

Next will come two Airfix 2Ps to the same formula; that's how confident I am in HL gearboxes.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited May 31, 2018 by cctransuk

[Tony Wright]

Tony,

 

If you can build Walchaerts valvegear, a HL gearbox will be a breeze. Just follow the instructions the first time - after that, it's instinctive.

 

Since you are the arch-advocate of 'having a go', I will (respectfully) issue a challenge to do just that; (surely you don't want to be reliant on RTR gearboxes)? 

 

.... and, practicing what I preach, I am about to install three HL gearboxes, in three Comet / Markits chassis, to go in three ancient Airfix 4Fs. With Mashima or Mitsumi motors plus flywheels, I fully expect the performance to be exemplary.

 

Next will come two Airfix 2Ps to the same formula; that's how confident I am in HL gearboxes.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

John,

 

As intimated, I have built (three) High Level gearboxes and found them a doddle, with exemplary performance. 

 

However, I'm hard-up against time imperatives, and I don't see using a made-up gearbox as being the same thing as being RTR-reliant. No more reliant than using ready-made motors, wheels, bearings, chimneys, domes...............? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

As promised, shots of the retaining wall previously-mentioned. 

 

 

As an aside, the 4F in this picture has a DJH gearbox, fitted into a SE Finecast kit. Firstly, can anyone see the mechanism? Secondly, it's definitely not RTR.

 

 

A more overall shot, with the wall just visible (the real thing is wholly invisible, and un-maintained today). This time, the 4F is modified RTR. 

 

Weathering those wooden cottages has made them much more realistic. Thanks for the hint, Tom.

 

I'm really looking forward to making-up the correct girder bridge.  

Edited May 31, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Mallard60022]

John,

 

As intimated, I have built (three) High Level gearboxes and found them a doddle, with exemplary performance. 

 

However, I'm hard-up against time imperatives, and I don't see using a made-up gearbox as being the same thing as being RTR-reliant. No more reliant than using ready-made motors, wheels, bearings, chimneys, domes...............? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony, do DJH still do their motor/ gearbox RTR sets? I used a couple of those some years back after your advice and they are super products and were very competitive price wise.

Phil

[Tony Wright]

No idea of a DJH box price at a guess £30 plus ?. HL boxes are half that price if I am correct , they build in 30 minutes or less and far more versatile in shapes and gear ratios.  

 

 

 IMHO of course !! Thanks.

The made-up DJH gearboxes are around the £50.00 mark. Expensive? Not for the performance achieved.

 

Surely the prices of the High Level 'boxes don't include that of the motor? 

[Tony Wright]

Tony, do DJH still do their motor/ gearbox RTR sets? I used a couple of those some years back after your advice and they are super products and were very competitive price wise.

Phil

Phil,

 

They do, and that's one I've installed. They take minutes to fit - the most time-consuming bit being the fitting of the grub-screw into the gearwheel boss. 

 

They're in most of my big (and small) locos (including the A1 you built the body for), have superlative performance and are much quieter than Portescaps. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[St Enodoc]

Over the years, there have been more then one article in MRJ featuring working 4mm scale rodding runs. I don't have the dates to hand, there is an on line index.

Ray Hammond did it nearly 50 years ago on his Embridge layouts. That was the first application I came across in 4 mm scale although I'm sure that there would have been earlier examples in 0 and larger.

[micknich2003]

Tony, nine scale feet is approx 228yards, well in side the prototype 350yard limit for mechanicly worked points.

[John Isherwood]

John,

 

As intimated, I have built (three) High Level gearboxes and found them a doddle, with exemplary performance. 

 

However, I'm hard-up against time imperatives, and I don't see using a made-up gearbox as being the same thing as being RTR-reliant. No more reliant than using ready-made motors, wheels, bearings, chimneys, domes...............? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I do sympathise with the time constraint aspect, but HL gearbox assembly really does take minutes after you've done a couple.

 

What I like best, though, is the flexibility that the broad range provides - below are a few solutions to widely different chassis designs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Tony Wright]

I do sympathise with the time constraint aspect, but HL gearbox assembly really does take minutes after you've done a couple.

 

What I like best, though, is the flexibility that the broad range provides - below are a few solutions to widely different chassis designs.

 

CHASSIS DESIGN - MASHIMA + HIGH LEVEL.JPG

 

CHASSIS DESIGN - MASHIMA + HIGH LEVEL.JPG

 

CHASSIS - MASHIMA + HIGH LEVEL REVISED.JPG

 

CHASSIS DESIGN - MASHIMA + HIGH LEVEL.JPG

 

CHASSIS - MASHIMA + HIGH LEVEL.JPG

 

CHASSIS - MITSUMI + HIGH LEVEL.JPG

 

CHASSIS - MITSUMI + HIGH LEVEL.JPG

 

CHASSIS DESIGN.JPG

 

CHASSIS - MASHIMA + HIGH LEVEL.JPG

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Good morning John,

 

Many thanks for illustrating those gearbox solutions.

 

The only thing I'd question is the drive being on the rear outer axles of the six-coupled and eight-coupled locos. I know this hides the gearbox, but (though I'm no engineer), if I can, I always drive off the middle or one of the inner axles. I find the chassis are much better 'balanced' that way, need far less tweaking with regard to the holes in the coupling rods (which I always make rigid) and they just run smoother. Occasionally, where a combination is sweeter one way (still sweet both ways, but one way - reverse- is just quieter), I'll turn the 'box round, necessitating (on a Pacific, say) driving off the rear axle. If I can, though, I avoid this situation.

 

I suppose it's dependent on how one views individual locos. Where one might, say, only have half a dozen (small) locos, moving very slowly on a layout, viewed at close-quarters, hiding drives completely is paramount. In my case, the opposite is true (though the 'barn' inside a Pacific's body hides any drive) and I live with the occasional (smaller) loco having its drive (just) visible. 

 

My experience with motor/gearboxes goes about thus............ In no particular order.

 

Single gear/worm (Romford): easy to set-up but tend to be noisy.

Branchlines: occasionally a fiddle to erect, usually OK but sometimes noisy.

High Level: excellent all round (though I don't like those where the final gear is fixed to the driven axle by adhesive), easy to build and very quiet. 

Comet: opening out the holes for fixing the motor takes care, as does opening out the bearing holes. Occasionally they can be noisy (hence my decision to turn some round). More recent 'boxes using a Canon motor are easier to put together and are very quiet. 

Markits: same comments as for Comet. 

Portescap: a doddle to fit but always noisy. Different noise from the others - more of a whine.

Backwoods Miniatures: excellent in smaller  prototypes.

Porter's Cap: only used one, but it's performed all right.

DJH. Apart from Portescaps, the only type available ready-made (?). Always excellent, though (very) occasionally one will be quieter one way than the other (just a small difference). 

 

Have I missed any out? 

 

As to how many of each type I've built I cannot recall, though safe to say dozens of Comet 'boxes and scores of DJH ones. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.