Wright writes.....

[jonny777]

 

 

Finally, I have a shot of a Deltic passing through non-stop on an Up express, with the code 1A43. What was that, please?

 

Thanks in anticipation.  

 

 

 

In 1966/67 1A43 was the 1500 SuX Newcastle to Kings Cross. Non-stop through Doncaster at 1700. 

[jwealleans]

No, that’s not it. There’s a very detailed article (Clive Carter?) about the NER vehicles cascaded to the GE in the 1930s.

[Manxcat]

 

Finally, I have a shot of a Deltic passing through non-stop on an Up express, with the code 1A43. What was that, please?

 

Thanks in anticipation.  

 

Tony,

 

A quick check I did today confirms jonny777's information. He just managed to pip me to the posting post. 

 

I discovered a picture of D 9005 The Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire showing the same headcode. (I have not reproduced it here for copyright reasons.)

 

This set me off on a slight tangent because I was intrigued to discover that there seem to be three views as to the correct name for D 9005. One is Wales another Wales's and the third Wales' and I wanted to know which is correct.

 

It took a little time to find a good side on shot of the loco clearly showing the nameplate. It reads The Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire.

 

You learn something new every day!

 

Archie

Edited July 7, 2018 by Manxcat

[ArthurK]

British Railway Journal, some time early 1990s.

 

My memory suggests it was an HMRS journal.but I think that your timescale is about right!

 

Arthur

[Paul Cram]

It was in A HMRS journal

[ArthurK]

If it was HMRS then I have the relevant copies purchased from exhibitions. I will look them out. they will be around somewhere,

 

ArthurK

[Tony Wright]

Thommo's finest!!!.

 

 

fullsizeoutput_170d.jpeg

 

IMG_6817.JPG

 

 

Thommo was shown a couple of weeks ago in unpainted condition.

That's very fine work, Mick,

 

I assume the donor loco was a Bachmann A2? If so, is it not worth raising the rear end (I used brass washers) so that the loco footplate matches the height of the tender's soleplate? 

 

All Bachmann's A1s and A2s suffer from this disparity. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[jwealleans]

British Railway Journal No. 12, Summer 1986, pages 101-105, LNER Coach cascading in the 1930s by Clive Carter. Lists of diagrams and number series which went to the GE from the NE Area.

Edited July 8, 2018 by jwealleans

[Bucoops]

British Railway Journal No. 12, Summer 1986, pages 101-105, LNER Coach cascading in the 1930s by Clive Carter. Lists of diagrams and number series which went to the GE from the NE Area.

 

Great thank you

[Tony Wright]

Returning to the modifications for raising up the rear ends of Bachmann LNER Pacifics to match their tenders, it really is very simple. 

 

 

The brass washer (one each side) is just visible. These raise the rear end beneath the cab to match the tender soleplate. This shot also shows how to arrange the drawbar so that it gives a reasonable gap between loco and tender. 

 

 

The effect, in tight perspective, is well worth it.

 

 

This is my Graeme King conversion (conducted by Graeme) of a Bachmann A2 into an A2/3 (I patch-painted it, numbered/lettered/named/weathered it). Note how the footplate and tender soleplate now match more nearly.

 

 

Especially in tight perspective.

 

 

Of course, my preference is always to kit-build, illustrated here by this DJH A2/3 bombing up Stoke Bank on a very heavy cement block train. 

 

If one wishes to 'muck around' with conversions, that's fine, and some shown on here are visually-excellent. However, the reason for my building kits is axiomatic on LB. Both the Bachmann locos shown here had to be push-started to get their respective 13- and 14- car trains into position for their shots. 60513 needed no such assistance. 

 

 

[Chamby]

Tony, a question if I may, regarding the pulling power of RTR versus kit built loco’s. I find that RTR locomotives can pull anything up to thirty or more modern lightweight RTR coaches on the level, including around 3 foot radius curves. (Provided you don’t have anything too heavy coupled on the rear end in which case the lightweight coaches can derail on the curves). This implies that your kit built rolling stock is significantly heavier, which leaves me wondering what weight of train you are talking about pulling on LB? Have you weighed them, or measured pulling power more precisely than a simple observation? It would be interesting to see some comparative stats about the relative pulling power of your loco’s versus their off-the-shelf equivalents, given how often the subject crops up here.

 

Phil

[t-b-g]

Studies in loco haulage have been done on a fairly scientific basis and I can recall at least one article where a pulley over the edge of a bench and a weight attached with a thread.

 

When all is said and done, all that matters is that your loco haul your trains on your layout. If you want to take your RTR loco to visit a layout which has heavy carriages in long formations, you shouldn't get your hopes up that it will move them.

 

The number of layouts with 12 to 15 carriage trains which are not all plastic, lightweight RTR is tiny, so it isn't a problem for most people.

 

On Buckingham, the trains are much shorter, with a maximum of 5 bogie carriages. However, they are heavy and have inside bearings with lots of friction. Locos which can only just manage such trains on the layout have romped away with the heavy full length trains on Retford, with their pin point bearings. So there is more to it than just weight. Rolling resistance plays a big part too, as do other factors like the tightness of curves.

 

Edited for stupid autocorrect!

Edited July 8, 2018 by t-b-g

[davefrk]

I've been saying for a while that free running stock helps a great deal.

A poor shot of a Bachmann Jubilee on 19 Bachmann coaches, the Jubilee model is notorious for poor haulage but with all the coaches fitted with brass pinpoint bearings it's not a problem, IIRC 26 is the record for this loco yet some have mentioned 6 is the limit with their model.

 

 

It's the same with wagons 117 behind one Brit.

 

Dave Franks.

Edited July 8, 2018 by davefrk

[Headstock]

Offhand, I can't think of any accurate fifteen carriage formations that can be formed of RTR carriages. Surely the point of LB is not just the weight and size of the formations, it is it's accuracy to prototype. Does this not by default require heavier trains?

[Bucoops]

I don't have evidence but I suspect that heavy, metal coaches also SOUND better than plastic?

[John Isherwood]

Offhand, I can't think of any accurate fifteen carriage formations that can be formed of RTR carriages. Surely the point of LB is not just the weight and size of the formations, it is it's accuracy to prototype. Does this not by default require heavier trains?

 

With traditional coach kit building, maybe.

 

However, if the approach of RTR donor coaches with etched sides is adopted, there need not be a significant increase in loading over unmodified RTR coaches fitted with pin-point bearings.

 

If the roof profile offends, there is surely an opening for 3D printing / resin cast, if replacement aluminium extrusions carry too much of a weight penalty; (which I doubt).

 

Similarly, cast whitemetal bogies are surely old hat in this day-and-age; lighter 3D printed / resin cast ones should be a doddle for those practised in those arts.

 

The bottom line, though, is not the weight of the coaches but the frictional resistance which they apply - a free-running kit-built coach can easily present less drag that a poorly set-up RTR coach.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited July 8, 2018 by cctransuk

[micklner]

Whitemetal Bogies correctly built ,give low down weight and better balance.

[Headstock]

With traditional coach kit building, maybe.

 

However, if the approach of RTR donor coaches with etched sides is adopted, there need not be a significant increase in loading over unmodified RTR coaches fitted with pin-point bearings.

 

If the roof profile offends, there is surely an opening for 3D printing / resin cast, if replacement aluminium extrusions carry too much of a weight penalty; (which I doubt).

 

Similarly, cast whitemetal bogies are surely old hat in this day-and-age; lighter 3D printed / resin cast ones should be a doddle for those practised in those arts.

 

The bottom line, though, is not the weight of the coaches but the frictional resistance which they apply - a free-running kit-built coach can easily present less drag that a poorly set-up RTR coach.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

I don't disagree with anything you say, However, I was referring specifically to LB. I doubt it Tony would embark on designing resin bogies etc just to accommodate visiting RTR locomotives. What is of more interest to myself is the formation of the fifteen carriages that may pass by my viewing point. I want to be wowed by a recreation of the midday scot circa 1953, not sent to sleep by a generic line up of Bachmann MK 1's. With apologies to the video above, an impressive demonstration of the importance of minimizing rolling resistance.

[t-b-g]

I can just imagine Tony W scrapping all his carriages and replacing them with lightweight ones just so that he can then scrap all his hand made locos and replace them with RTR ones.

[John Isherwood]

Whitemetal Bogies correctly built ,give low down weight and better balance.

 

They do indeed - and I have many of them; and they can be made to run with as little rolling resistance as lighterweight plastic or resin bogies.

 

I don't disagree with anything you say, However, I was referring specifically to LB. I doubt it Tony would embark on designing resin bogies etc just to accommodate visiting RTR locomotives. What is of more interest to myself is the formation of the fifteen carriages that may pass by my viewing point. I want to be wowed by a recreation of the midday scot circa 1953, not sent to sleep by a generic line up of Bachmann MK 1's. With apologies to the video above, an impressive demonstration of the importance of minimizing rolling resistance.

 

I was not commenting specifically on LB - rather against the general impression given that scale length authentic trains somehow have to be heavy, and therefore require kit or scratchbuilt locos.

 

I was suggesting that any coach for which etched sides are available; (or any coach for which you are prepared to scratchbuild brass or plastic card sides); can be made to run sufficiently well that an RTR loco should be able to handle scale length trains.

 

Some believe that this would be purely a process of reducing weight, and that was the basis of my suggestions. Personally, I believe that the principal factor is reducing rolling resistance, and this need not involve obsessive concentration on weight reduction.

 

In summation, I do believe that those who choose to rely on RTR locos should still be able to operate authentic scale length trains, given ordinary modelling experience and careful application.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited July 8, 2018 by cctransuk

[John Isherwood]

I can just imagine Tony W scrapping all his carriages and replacing them with lightweight ones just so that he can then scrap all his hand made locos and replace them with RTR ones.

 

Now you don't really believe that was what I was advocating - and if you do, what made you think that?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Compound2632]

They do indeed - and I have many of them; and they can be made to run with as little rolling resistance as lighterweight plastic or resin bogies.

 

Quite so. It's not weight but rolling resistance that matters here - at least on the level. O.S. Nock makes the point somewhere* that those who knock nineteenth-century speed records with the comment that they were made with featherweight loads overlook the fact that the rolling resistance (and air resistance at speed) were much greater than for modern stock. 

 

*Probably numerous somewheres.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Compound2632

[t-b-g]

Now you don't really believe that was what I was advocating - and if you do, what made you think that?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Not for a minute! I was just feeling playful!

[Headstock]

They do indeed - and I have many of them; and they can be made to run with as little rolling resistance as lighterweight plastic or resin bogies.

 

 

I was not commenting specifically to LB - rather against the general impression given that scale length authentic trains somehow have to be heavy, and therefore require kit or scratchbuilt locos.

 

I was suggesting how any coach for which etched sides are available; (or any coach for which you are prepared to scratchbuild brass or plastic card sides); can be made to run sufficiently well that an RTR loco should be able to handle scale length trains.

 

Some believe that this would be purely a process of reducing weight, and that was the basis of my suggestions. Personally, I believe that the principal factor is reducing rolling resistance, and this need not involve obsessive concentration on weight reduction.

 

In summation, I do believe that those who choose to rely on RTR locos should still be able to operate authentic scale length trains, given ordinary modelling experience and careful application.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

Thanks John,

 

scale length is the easy bit, its the authentic part where things tend to go doolally.

[Steamport Southport]

Offhand, I can't think of any accurate fifteen carriage formations that can be formed of RTR carriages. Surely the point of LB is not just the weight and size of the formations, it is it's accuracy to prototype. Does this not by default require heavier trains?

 

 

There's probably a few on the Southern with the upcoming Restaurant Cars.

 

You could also make a decent representation of the Pullman expresses. I think at one point Hornby have made nearly every Pullman car that was in the Devon Belle including the Observation Cars.

 

 

 

 

Jason