Wright writes.....

[Re6/6]

 

Despite views to the contrary, I'm not against modern RTR locos/stock.........

 

Tony, I dug out a some of photos of weathered modern RTR from the old 'Matford'.

 

 

Ctsy Model Rail and Chris Nevard

 

Ctsy Model Rail and Chris Nevard

[jacko]

I'm not a huge fan of the modern image but the scenic modelling on the second photo down is possibly the best I've seen. I especially like the overgrown siding. Vey realistic. 

 

Graeme

[Atso]

To be honest Tony, the articles you mention (wrt Thompsons) are old and possibly hard to come by. A refreshing step by step guide may have some mileage and be welcomed.

 

I completely agree David. I don't recall when Tony did this review but I'm willing to bet it was some time ago (I do remember it and thinking I'd like to have a go one day - not a Thompson pacific you understand! ). For those who don't have a copy of this original article (perhaps because they weren't modelling at the time), I think it would be helpful for a up to date guide on how to build one of the bigger kits. If it inspires one person to have a go themselves (and succeed), surely it would have been worth writing? 

[5 C]

Hi Andy

 

I have quite a collection of books about Duchesses ready for a 7mm build that will happen in due course. I'm away from them at the moment till early October but am happy to look through all the photos and drawings for single chimney details when I get back home and let you know.

 

Jamie

 

Thanks Jamie that would be really useful.

 

I've been using the Railway Gazette drawings in Rowledge for position and general shape. Although most of the outline drawings are reproduced at 2mm or 4mm:1 foot, the detailed drawings of the chimneys seem to be at a scale of between 5-6 mm:1 foot. The single chimney drawing suggests a lip, but no detail of how far it extends.

 

Jenkinson's "The Power of the Duchesses" has some good shots of the non-streamliners with single chimneys but understandably the detail is difficult to make out. As most of them were converted to double chimney during the early war years, just a couple of years after building, it's little surprise there aren't many pictures of them. Wartime restrictions on railway photography probably didn't help either.

 

Andy

[Chamby]

Tony, I dug out a some of photos of weathered modern RTR from the old 'Matford'.

 

Matford 37a1.jpg

 

Ctsy Model Rail and Chris Nevard

Matford 4817a_b.jpg

 

Ctsy Model Rail and Chris Nevard

nevard_110224_matfrd_5.jpg

 

I think these photo's illustrate how, for most of the RM fraternity, the creative aspect of the hobby has become focused on layout building rather than what runs on them.  Providing a realistic environment for the high quality models available to run in, is what it has mostly become these days, and what fills the pages of all the magazines.  A lot of pleasure can still be had when this is done well, watching the trains go by in a well modelled setting.  Especially if the RTR stuff is detailed with lamps, real coal, weathering and crew etc.

 

As Tony has said, you have to have a real love of self-build to do otherwise, being prepared to spend more time and money to get something that may or may not look as good as what you can simply buy and unbox.  And unless more articles appear showing the way, that won't change.

[Tony Wright]

Tony, I dug out a some of photos of weathered modern RTR from the old 'Matford'.

 

Matford 37a1.jpg

 

Ctsy Model Rail and Chris Nevard

Matford 4817a_b.jpg

 

Ctsy Model Rail and Chris Nevard

nevard_110224_matfrd_5.jpg

Thanks for showing those, John,

 

I think they illustrate what I've been getting at (or tried to get at) very well. That is, there is nothing 'wrong' in using proprietary equipment as long as some 'modelling' has been undertaken on it, especially personal modelling. That latter point has great relevance to me because there's much greater satisfaction in being able to say 'I did that' than in just possessing something which someone else has done for you (the generic 'you', of course). 

 

I'd think one would be daft to attempt to model, say, those Cargo Waggons from scratch (I assume they're RTR-based?). Or any of the diesel locos shown, such is their excellence as starting points. And, in my view, herein lies the big difference between more modern RTR models and those which I choose to recreate, namely steam-outline ECML prototypes. Though the bodywork on the latter RTR examples is generally all right, modern RTR steam-outline chassis leave a lot to be desired, at least in my experience. Anorexic valve gear, in many cases - Hornby's A3s, for instance - all out of proportion, lack of pulling-power and dodgy gear trains all militate against desirable performance and longevity.  

 

To finish; it looks like you've exploited the time saved by not having to make locos and stock to create that wonderful scenic work. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

I completely agree David. I don't recall when Tony did this review but I'm willing to bet it was some time ago (I do remember it and thinking I'd like to have a go one day - not a Thompson pacific you understand! ). For those who don't have a copy of this original article (perhaps because they weren't modelling at the time), I think it would be helpful for a up to date guide on how to build one of the bigger kits. If it inspires one person to have a go themselves (and succeed), surely it would have been worth writing? 

Thanks Steve,

 

How long has the DJH A2/2 kit (and A2/3 kit) been available, I wonder? Getting on for 20 years? I know my review(s) appeared in BRM not long after the kit(s) came out. Prior to that, I'd explained how I built the 'prototype' kit (using DJH parts from their other kits) in the late-lamented Modelling Railways Illustrated. I'd pestered DJH for ages with a view to producing a Thommo Pacific, until they finally sent the parts required from their A1, A2 and A3 kits. The rest, as is said, is history. 

 

Would another build article be of relevance? Having already built two this year (and an A2/3) and well on the way with a third, I'll consider submitting one (I always take pictures of my builds as they proceed). We'll see if it's then accepted.

 

The Thompson Pacific types, though derided by many enthusiasts/observers, were very much a part of the latter-day ECML steam-scene. My crumbling Ian Allan Combined Volume (of over 60 years ago, now) has many underlined in it, so I have to build models of them. 'Build' here is the operative word, because the type is the last of the big, 'green' locos not available RTR in OO. 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited September 18, 2018 by Tony Wright

[Lecorbusier]

I think these photo's illustrate how, for most of the RM fraternity, the creative aspect of the hobby has become focused on layout building rather than what runs on them.  Providing a realistic environment for the high quality models available to run in, is what it has mostly become these days, and what fills the pages of all the magazines.  A lot of pleasure can still be had when this is done well, watching the trains go by in a well modelled setting.  Especially if the RTR stuff is detailed with lamps, real coal, weathering and crew etc.

 

As Tony has said, you have to have a real love of self-build to do otherwise, being prepared to spend more time and money to get something that may or may not look as good as what you can simply buy and unbox.  And unless more articles appear showing the way, that won't change.

At the risk of repeating myself ... all of this is of course contingent on the railway and the period you wish to model. Pre grouping has extremely limited availability through RTR ... both loco's and stock. Kit building and where this fails scratch building are therefore the order of the day.

 

So you are right .... there is still much need for ' more articles to show the way'. Perhaps of basic scratch building (as a table top exercise rather than master craftsmanship) might also find an audience.

 

This thread was gold dust for me as it de-mystified the whole process and encourages people to have a go...

 

https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=666

 

It comes in parts 1, 2 & 3.

[Mike 84C]

I think these photo's illustrate how, for most of the RM fraternity, the creative aspect of the hobby has become focused on layout building rather than what runs on them.  Providing a realistic environment for the high quality models available to run in, is what it has mostly become these days, and what fills the pages of all the magazines.  A lot of pleasure can still be had when this is done well, watching the trains go by in a well modelled setting.  Especially if the RTR stuff is detailed with lamps, real coal, weathering and crew etc.

 

As Tony has said, you have to have a real love of self-build to do otherwise, being prepared to spend more time and money to get something that may or may not look as good as what you can simply buy and unbox.  And unless more articles appear showing the way, that won't change.

I used to be  a very interested modeller of American railways and if I browse my old Model Railroader mags of 10/15 yrs ago I believe the same trend happened. Very scenic layouts with highly detailed ready to run stock and lots of weathering. There are differences but the trend is there. And of course there are a minority of modellers who will happily cut a Bachmann loco up and add parts to make something a bit different.

[Tony Wright]

Just out of possible interest, here are three shots of the 'prototype' DJH A2/2 kit in operation on LB. 

 

 

 

 

 

It consists of a DJH A1 smokebox/boiler/firebox,smokebox door, double chimney, dome, snifting valve, safety valves, whistle, cab front, cab roof, rear footplate, sandboxes, buffer beam, drag beam, front steps, Cartazzi frames, outside steam pipes, bogie, pony and cylinders; DJH A2 valve gear and motion (modified); DJH A3 cabsides and complete tender. I scratch-built the frames, front footplate, central footplate, deflectors and the steam pipes below the front end. The whole lot was then sent to DJH for inspection, and, a year later, out came the production kit. I built this, wrote the instructions and wrote the class history. 

 

Ian Rathbone painted this model.  

Edited September 18, 2018 by Tony Wright

[glo41f]

Lovely work but it will not change my view that it and its mates are still awful looking locos!

 

Martin

[Corbs]

I've never been able to put my finger on why, but I love the look of the A2/2 locos.

[PMP]

. (Snip)

I'd think one would be daft to attempt to model, say, those Cargo Waggons from scratch (I assume they're RTR-based?). Or any of the diesel locos shown, such is their excellence as starting points. And, in my view, herein lies the big difference between more modern RTR models and those which I choose to recreate, namely steam-outline ECML prototypes. (Snip)

 

To finish; it looks like you've exploited the time saved by not having to make locos and stock to create that wonderful scenic work.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

Regarding suitability of RTR it does very much depend on what you’re modelling, for me with few exceptions the RTR offerings are the starting point, even diesels. For Diesel and electric traction there are very few kits available, so adapting RTR is the logical step to a better model. Likewise even the ubiquitous 57xx pannier families have been poorly served by kits bearing in mind the suitability of them for GWR/WR layouts. I always felt they’d be a natural target for Finney/Mitchell when they were in their prime twenty five years or so back, but it was not to be. The Bachmann panniers are logical candidates for a makeover, and importantly they are well engineered in the chassis department for those remaining in OO. From my perspective there’s little point in finding a K’s kit to significantly re-work to get that prototype. I suspect that the 16xx and 94xx SE finecast kits will reduce to a sales trickle over the next couple of years due to pending RTR releases, which are likely to be very good, straight out of the box. I can foresee a day where I might literally just place a locomotive straight from a box onto one of my exhibition layouts with no modifications. It’s not happened yet though!

 

RTR will in my opinion give modellers the chance to develop their skills, as we see older models replaced by higher spec versions, there will be those who modify their older models to fit in with the new releases. I’ve been working on Bachmann class 24 and 25’s recently, that family of locos has recently been ‘targeted’ by three 4mm scale manufacturers. My makeovers using both scratch building and after market products will hopefully allow mine to sit alongside contemporary releases without jarring visually or operationally, I’m still happy with D.C. as my primary control source. So I don’t think RTR will or has killed the skills development of modellers, it has undoubtedly changed it though, and will continue to do so.

Here’s a couple of RTR makeovers underway, a Bachmann class 25 with highly modified chassis, to give ‘air’ and daylight through the original solid moulding, and panniers with top feed removal underway. I’ve just thought most of my heavy makeover work is biased on Bachmann products, that reflects that they produce what I’m into rather than a lack of quality on their part

 

 

edit: spellin an stuff

Edited September 18, 2018 by PMP

[jamie92208]

Thanks Jamie that would be really useful.

 

I've been using the Railway Gazette drawings in Rowledge for position and general shape. Although most of the outline drawings are reproduced at 2mm or 4mm:1 foot, the detailed drawings of the chimneys seem to be at a scale of between 5-6 mm:1 foot. The single chimney drawing suggests a lip, but no detail of how far it extends.

 

Jenkinson's "The Power of the Duchesses" has some good shots of the non-streamliners with single chimneys but understandably the detail is difficult to make out. As most of them were converted to double chimney during the early war years, just a couple of years after building, it's little surprise there aren't many pictures of them. Wartime restrictions on railway photography probably didn't help either.

 

Andy

 

No problem Andy.   The main sources are the RCTS book and the two Wild Swan loco profile books,   I'm back home 3rd October so if you OM me with your email address I'll send you what I can.   I spent rather more money than I should have last year on a Finney7 kit and hopefully will start that next year. It's a bucket list thing. I did start a thread about it somewhere but haven't  added anything for some time.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/123431-finney-7-princesscoronation-46238-city-of-carlisle/page-1&do=findComment&comment=2744346

 

Jamie

 

Jamie

Edited September 18, 2018 by jamie92208

[Atso]

How long has the DJH A2/2 kit (and A2/3 kit) been available, I wonder? Getting on for 20 years? I know my review(s) appeared in BRM not long after the kit(s) came out. Prior to that, I'd explained how I built the 'prototype' kit (using DJH parts from their other kits) in the late-lamented Modelling Railways Illustrated. I'd pestered DJH for ages with a view to producing a Thommo Pacific, until they finally sent the parts required from their A1, A2 and A3 kits. The rest, as is said, is history. 

 

Would another build article be of relevance? Having already built two this year (and an A2/3) and well on the way with a third, I'll consider submitting one (I always take pictures of my builds as they proceed). We'll see if it's then accepted.

 

The Thompson Pacific types, though derided by many enthusiasts/observers, were very much a part of the latter-day ECML steam-scene. My crumbling Ian Allan Combined Volume (of over 60 years ago, now) has many underlined in it, so I have to build models of them. 'Build' here is the operative word, because the type is the last of the big, 'green' locos not available RTR in OO. 

Regards,

 

I cannot remember when you wrote the article, only that it must have been in the 1990's. The article that always stuck in my mind though was published in the Railway Modeller and covered the conversion of a Peppercorn A2 into an A1. Now, that is a project that must be unnecessary now as there must be a kit available (as well as the two rtr versions I can think of in 00). I remember as a child reading and re-reading that article and being enthralled about how such a crazy idea could, not only work, but look so good. As it turned out my own modelling interests developed into the pre-war LNER and the I ended up turning to N Gauge due to a lack of space.

 

Turning back to crazy ideas for a moment, I thought I'd try my hand at something similar to Graeme King in terms of crazy chassis conversions. I've been on the look out for a suitable chassis to use for an A5 but I've been unable to find anything that would get close to the correct 6'6 by 6'6 coupled wheelbase. While rummaging around a few weeks back, I came across some old Graham Farish chassis blocks (the generic kind with the 7'9 by 7'9 wheelbase). Given that I'd never use them for anything else and not have a great deal to lose, I cut one up and removed the excess material before reassembling it using epoxy and adding strengthening frames using 0.25mm nickel silver sheet (as per Graeme's Bachmann A1 to A2 conversion a few years ago). I did the same with the coupling rods and found some 3MT wheels (too small but matches the wheels I've had to use for my K3s) and that's how things remained until this week.

 

I finally got around to fitting a 40 tooth MOD 0.2 gear to the driven axle, made up a keeper plate out of copper clad board, fitted some pickups and glued an 8mm motor to the chassis. Amazingly the chassis ran and after a bit of fettling, it now runs quite well - the track is Kato and only in use for my 'temporary' test loop.

 

 

I wouldn't have ever tried such an extreme method to get the wheelbase I required if it wasn't for those old articles and threads like this one.

[Theakerr]

Deleted post.  After thinking about it why post a negative?

Edited September 18, 2018 by Theakerr

[Manxcat]

Tony,

 

You have previously mentioned that you sign your loco builds. Do you actually put a signature somewhere out of sight, or just initial them, or make a distinctive mark somewhere? 

 

It seems from what you have said that someone buying a second hand kit built loco without knowing that you made it could discover that it was your work, by means of your signature.

 

Archie

[John Isherwood]

Tony,

 

You have previously mentioned that you sign your loco builds. Do you actually put a signature somewhere out of sight, or just initial them, or make a distinctive mark somewhere? 

 

It seems from what you have said that someone buying a second hand kit built loco without knowing that you made it could discover that it was your work, by means of your signature.

 

Archie

 

..... or an unscrupulous seller might think that forgery would up the apparent appeal of a mediocre model?

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Barry Ten]

I used to be  a very interested modeller of American railways and if I browse my old Model Railroader mags of 10/15 yrs ago I believe the same trend happened. Very scenic layouts with highly detailed ready to run stock and lots of weathering. There are differences but the trend is there. And of course there are a minority of modellers who will happily cut a Bachmann loco up and add parts to make something a bit different.

 

I wonder if there's an analogy developing between high-end military modelling, where modellers will create beautifully authentic individual creations, akin to kit, scratchbuilt or heavily reworked RTR, and wargaming, where it's more about creating an overall panorama in which the models can be set in context, "operated" according realistic rules and so on, but the individual tanks and so on aren't the main focus, and are made from quick-build kits of even "RTR".

 

I get my monthly dose of American modelling via Model Railroader, and I don't find it any less stimulating compared to the UK magazines, but it's very much the case that the focus is somewhat different. But they do buck the trend now and then with some loco or rolling stock project, some of them quite involved. I can't ever remember seeing an etched chassis being put together, though.

 

Al

[Lecorbusier]

I wonder if there's an analogy developing between high-end military modelling, where modellers will create beautifully authentic individual creations, akin to kit, scratchbuilt or heavily reworked RTR, and wargaming, where it's more about creating an overall panorama in which the models can be set in context, "operated" according realistic rules and so on, but the individual tanks and so on aren't the main focus, and are made from quick-build kits of even "RTR".

Nice analogy .... but not convinced. You see alongside the beautiful authentic modelling, I think we also like playing trains .... and what's more I suspect that we feel such operating is more realistic than the less obsessed RTR straight from the box crowd?

Edited September 18, 2018 by Lecorbusier

[Headstock]

Have a look at the likes of Carlisle or Copenhagen fields, the highest quality scenic and architectural modeling still goes hand in hand with kit or scratch built stock as far as I can see. I don't think that RTR has had as much an effect on the quality of scenic modeling as is often stated. There are some that are really excellant but far more that are not so good, or at best fair to middling.

[Northmoor]

Have a look at the likes of Carlisle or Copenhagen fields, the highest quality scenic and architectural modeling still goes hand in hand with kit or scratch built stock as far as I can see. I don't think that RTR has had as much an effect on the quality of scenic modeling as is often stated. There are some that are really excellant but far more that are not so good, or at best fair to middling.

I've said this before but will say it again, what makes those layouts so superb is that the builders know/knew WHAT they wanted to achieve and it would be exhibited WHEN it was ready, not before.

 

Too many exhibition layouts are built to a schedule instead of a standard.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Northmoor

[Headstock]

I cannot remember when you wrote the article, only that it must have been in the 1990's. The article that always stuck in my mind though was published in the Railway Modeller and covered the conversion of a Peppercorn A2 into an A1. Now, that is a project that must be unnecessary now as there must be a kit available (as well as the two rtr versions I can think of in 00). I remember as a child reading and re-reading that article and being enthralled about how such a crazy idea could, not only work, but look so good. As it turned out my own modelling interests developed into the pre-war LNER and the I ended up turning to N Gauge due to a lack of space.

 

Turning back to crazy ideas for a moment, I thought I'd try my hand at something similar to Graeme King in terms of crazy chassis conversions. I've been on the look out for a suitable chassis to use for an A5 but I've been unable to find anything that would get close to the correct 6'6 by 6'6 coupled wheelbase. While rummaging around a few weeks back, I came across some old Graham Farish chassis blocks (the generic kind with the 7'9 by 7'9 wheelbase). Given that I'd never use them for anything else and not have a great deal to lose, I cut one up and removed the excess material before reassembling it using epoxy and adding strengthening frames using 0.25mm nickel silver sheet (as per Graeme's Bachmann A1 to A2 conversion a few years ago). I did the same with the coupling rods and found some 3MT wheels (too small but matches the wheels I've had to use for my K3s) and that's how things remained until this week.

 

I finally got around to fitting a 40 tooth MOD 0.2 gear to the driven axle, made up a keeper plate out of copper clad board, fitted some pickups and glued an 8mm motor to the chassis. Amazingly the chassis ran and after a bit of fettling, it now runs quite well - the track is Kato and only in use for my 'temporary' test loop.

 

 

I wouldn't have ever tried such an extreme method to get the wheelbase I required if it wasn't for those old articles and threads like this one.

 

What a remarkable project and locomotive, are you related to Edward Thompson?

[Headstock]

There you go Tony, a new set of numbers applied and the paintwork touched up. It just requires a bit of varnish wacking on and then a bit of muck on top.

The intention is to replace the Bachmann chassis, thus the Bachmann running board and splashers will be sandwiched between the Little engine chassis and whitemetal cab and boiler combo (the latter is made to screw on and off). The Little engines running board has a number of detail problems, not least of which is that it is too short, as is the Little engines chassis. The chassis will require and extension piece soldering to the frames.

Bachmann have got both the chassis and running board correct, however, the inclination of the cylinders and there placement are way out, as is the position of the front truck, both have been modified. The Bachmann running board has already had the middle section cutaway so that when the new chassis is fitted it will be visible between the too platforms and splashers. The little engines tender will probably be paired with the B7, with some modification, if that project comes to fruition. It may even be possible to pair the Bachmann chassis with the stunted little engines running board to produce a Q4.

[grahame]

Have a look at the likes of Carlisle or Copenhagen fields, the highest quality scenic and architectural modeling still goes hand in hand with kit or scratch built stock as far as I can see. I don't think that RTR has had as much an effect on the quality of scenic modeling as is often stated. There are some that are really excellant but far more that are not so good, or at best fair to middling.

Indeed, there are some super examples of fine scenic with scratch/kit built rolling stock layouts.

 

But I'm not so sure that RTR, or more pertantly RTP, is not having an affect on layout building. These days I seem to see an increasing number of layouts with almost nothing but resin RTP buildings or festooned with Metcalfe card kits simply assembled and not even detailed or individualised. Some don't even colour or disguise those horrid white exposed card corners.

 

G