RMweb Premium John Isherwood Posted December 10, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 10, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, Tony Wright said: Not too sure about that chimney - it looks somewhat over-excited to me !! ... and the dome lacks the rather evident bolted cover plate where the Ramsbottom valves were originally located. Regards, John Isherwood. Edited December 10, 2019 by cctransuk 4 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium John Isherwood Posted December 10, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 10, 2019 9 minutes ago, cctransuk said: Not too sure about that chimney - it looks somewhat over-excited to me !! Regards, John Isherwood. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 31A Posted December 10, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 10, 2019 1 hour ago, Tony Wright said: It's a sort of in between, Steve, It's not as fixed as Hornby's, but there isn't the same amount of sideplay as in the A1 and A2 arrangements. The loco went round 3' curves with ease. Regards, Tony. Thanks Tony, I await its arrival with interest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
micknich2003 Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 6 hours ago, Clem said: Hi Mick, It's been a while since I did it. It think it was Phoenix Precision can't remember for definite what shade but I pretty sure it was bog standard track colour. Clem, many thanks for your reply, whatever you used, it certainly looks the part. Yours, Mick. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arun Sharma Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 2 hours ago, St Enodoc said: I learned it at primary school when it was drummed into us by rote without any real explanation - much like the times tables (times' tables?). I learned virtually no English grammar in English classes - that came largely from French and German and especially from English lessons in a German "Gymnasium" when I was an exchange student in 1969. I agree - Having studied Russian, Hindi and German where the presence of several cases and formal distinction between transitive and intransitive actions affect how a sentence is structured, there is no doubt that one comes away from that activity with a better understanding of how one's own language works. Obviously transitive and intransitive verbs exist in english but few passing by in the street understand these terms even though most normally use these verbs successfully. The French make life slightly easier for foreigners learning their language by creating reflexive verbs which have a broadly similar effect. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Barry Ten Posted December 10, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 10, 2019 Following on from the recent discussion of signals, operating or otherwise, i thought I'd post a few pictures of some recent additions. My layout is a made-up location so I can't claim any authenticity with regards to the exact arrangements but hopefully there's nothing too ridiculous. These two are the platform and bay starters, both adapted from Dapol signals that had failed for one reason or another. In both cases they were cut down in height, with the severest alteration being to the platform starter. This view along and under the footbridge hopefully shows why the platform starter needed to be lowered. From a driver's viewpoint, the bay starter wouldn't be in line with the platform one. The signals use my standard servo arrangement: The mount is made from three bits of thick plastic card, including the signal base. The servo is just lightly glued into position, and the existing operating wire from the Dapol mechanism tucked into a hole in the servo horn. This junction signal (not yet properly bedded down into the scenery) is from the Ratio kit. I made a simple wooden jig to solder up the handrails on the platform. But the underlying servo mechanism is exactly the same, except for there being two servos mounted back to back: All of these are driven by a Megapoints servo control board which will operate 12 arms, with simulated bounce, and the board in turn is operated by a DCC Concepts lever frame. Al 13 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium MarkC Posted December 10, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 10, 2019 The Poppys 8 coupled chassis jig - I was given one a while back as a gift by a kind relative, but I only recently built it up to try. Perhaps it's just me, but I couldn't set up a 8' x 8'6" 6-coupled chassis on it. It did look as though shorter wheelbases would be fine though. No doubt future projects of mine will use it, but for the loco in question, the old Perseverence tapered rods & springs (which have served me well) were used once again. There is a rumour that a Poppys 6-coupled jig might be heading my way in 2 weeks - we will see Mark 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium MJI Posted December 11, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 11, 2019 2 hours ago, cctransuk said: Regards, John Isherwood. I actually want one of these locos for a small project and I was looking at the LRM one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium St Enodoc Posted December 11, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 11, 2019 1 hour ago, Barry Ten said: Following on from the recent discussion of signals, operating or otherwise, i thought I'd post a few pictures of some recent additions. My layout is a made-up location so I can't claim any authenticity with regards to the exact arrangements but hopefully there's nothing too ridiculous. These two are the platform and bay starters, both adapted from Dapol signals that had failed for one reason or another. In both cases they were cut down in height, with the severest alteration being to the platform starter. This view along and under the footbridge hopefully shows why the platform starter needed to be lowered. From a driver's viewpoint, the bay starter wouldn't be in line with the platform one. The signals use my standard servo arrangement: The mount is made from three bits of thick plastic card, including the signal base. The servo is just lightly glued into position, and the existing operating wire from the Dapol mechanism tucked into a hole in the servo horn. This junction signal (not yet properly bedded down into the scenery) is from the Ratio kit. I made a simple wooden jig to solder up the handrails on the platform. But the underlying servo mechanism is exactly the same, except for there being two servos mounted back to back: All of these are driven by a Megapoints servo control board which will operate 12 arms, with simulated bounce, and the board in turn is operated by a DCC Concepts lever frame. Al Nice work Al. Can you do something about the stripes on the Dapol arms so that they look more like the Ratio ones? They look awful as they are. The handrails on the bracket look good too. I failed miserably when I tried to make them so I gave up and left them off completely. Funnily enough, it doesn't really show. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold teaky Posted December 11, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 11, 2019 9 hours ago, cctransuk said: Regards, John Isherwood. I applied a striaght edge to the photo of the real thing in your previous post and it seems to be about the same to me, John. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Michael Edge Posted December 11, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 11, 2019 13 hours ago, polybear said: Is it possible to build an 8-coupled loco on a 6 coupled box by first building it as a "6" and then simply moving the chassis "along one" in order to fit the remaining axle? Yes, it's quite easy to do this. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Michael Edge Posted December 11, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 11, 2019 Thinking about this again it is quite easy to move the frame along for more wheelsets but only if the shorter distances between axles fits the box - which comes back to my requirement for the 8 coupled box. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium John Isherwood Posted December 11, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 11, 2019 9 hours ago, MarkC said: The Poppys 8 coupled chassis jig - I was given one a while back as a gift by a kind relative, but I only recently built it up to try. Perhaps it's just me, but I couldn't set up a 8' x 8'6" 6-coupled chassis on it. It did look as though shorter wheelbases would be fine though. No doubt future projects of mine will use it, but for the loco in question, the old Perseverence tapered rods & springs (which have served me well) were used once again. There is a rumour that a Poppys 6-coupled jig might be heading my way in 2 weeks - we will see Mark I have to say that I was surprised to discover the limitations of my Poppy's jig; some very common wheelbases have proved to be problematic - when a slight lengthening of certain axle slots would have accommodated them. I even slightly (and VERY carefully) modified my jig to allow its use for a couple of projects; it seems to me that insufficient thought was put into the design in order to optimise the range of wheelbases that could be built. Regards, John Isherwood. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Tony Wright Posted December 11, 2019 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted December 11, 2019 22 minutes ago, cctransuk said: I have to say that I was surprised to discover the limitations of my Poppy's jig; some very common wheelbases have proved to be problematic - when a slight lengthening of certain axle slots would have accommodated them. I even slightly (and VERY carefully) modified my jig to allow its use for a couple of projects; it seems to me that insufficient thought was put into the design in order to optimise the range of wheelbases that could be built. Regards, John Isherwood. 'I even slightly (and VERY carefully) modified my jig to allow its use for a couple of projects;' Whisper it low, John, But I've done the same; without any loss of function. Regards, Tony. 1 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Tony Wright Posted December 11, 2019 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted December 11, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, teaky said: I applied a striaght edge to the photo of the real thing in your previous post and it seems to be about the same to me, John. Apparently, if one puts a straight edge from the top of the chimney, along the top of the dome to the top of the safety valves, they're all in line (on the prototype). I've been informed that the chimney fitted to the BR 1P example is incorrect - it's the MR one. Obviously, this will be corrected on the production batches. Regards, Tony. Edited December 11, 2019 by Tony Wright to clarify a point 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium t-b-g Posted December 11, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 11, 2019 (edited) Chimneys, domes and such fittings are an area where many models get it nearly correct but not quite! The shapes are so subtle and the ways the bases fit the curve of the smokebox and boiler with barely a visible line, just a flowing curve, are rarely captured perfectly. Big gaps and really chunky edges are the order of the day on most kits. As if the radius of the boiler and the radius of the bottom of the dome casting are different. Comparing the dome on the prototype photo of the 0-4-4T and looking at the shape (are the sides vertical on the model or do they taper in?) and the flare at the bottom (gentle curve on the real one, almost a crease on the model) illustrates my point. The chimney is not 100% convincing either but if anything, it looks slightly too big a diameter rather than too tall to me. Again, the flare at the base just doesn't seem to capture the flowing curve of the prototype. On the real thing, the chimney has a visible edge where it meets the smokebox, due to it being a big cast lump. The dome has virtually no visible edge as it was formed from thin metal sheet. On the model, they both have the same thickness of edge showing. Little things I know but they do cause it to look "not quite right somehow". I nearly finished a Craftsman kit for one of these many years ago. When the model was announced, I thought I might get my Midland tank without having to finish the kit. Having seen it, if it has traction tyres which might make an EM conversion awkward, I may stick with the kit! Edited December 11, 2019 by t-b-g To correct poor language use! 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium John Isherwood Posted December 11, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 11, 2019 1 minute ago, Tony Wright said: Apparently, if one puts a straight edge from the top of the chimney, along the top of the dome to the top of the safety valves, they're all in line (on the prototype). They are on the model. Regards, Tony. Tony, When you say "line up" - would that be horizontally, or just on an inclined line? It MAY just be a result of the angle of the photo but, IMHO, the chimney of the BR version dominates in an exaggerated manner. Regards, John Isherwood 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium John Isherwood Posted December 11, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 11, 2019 1 minute ago, t-b-g said: I nearly finished a Craftsman kit for one of these many years ago. When the model was announced, I thought I might get my Midland tank without having to finish the kit. Having seen it, if it has traction tyres which might make an EM conversion awkward, I may stick with the kit! I, too, am wondering whether the sale of my Craftsman kit was such a good idea. I cancelled (for other reasons) my Bachmann order before I saw these photos, and I don't now regret that. Regards, John Isherwood. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Tony Wright Posted December 11, 2019 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted December 11, 2019 1 minute ago, cctransuk said: Tony, When you say "line up" - would that be horizontally, or just on an inclined line? It MAY just be a result of the angle of the photo but, IMHO, the chimney of the BR version dominates in an exaggerated manner. Regards, John Isherwood An inclined plane, John, Though I haven't tried it. As I've mentioned in my last post, the BR version was fitted with the MR-style (taller?) chimney in error. It is the first decorated sample, and it'll be correct on the production batches. Isn't it a lovely little loco, though? Regards, Tony. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium t-b-g Posted December 11, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 11, 2019 2 minutes ago, cctransuk said: I, too, am wondering whether the sale of my Craftsman kit was such a good idea. I cancelled (for other reasons) my Bachmann order before I saw these photos, and I don't now regret that. Regards, John Isherwood. Mine ground to a halt when a change of modelling period from the 1930s to pre WW1 left me with a 90% finished loco with a Belpaire firebox! Thinking about changing the firebox to a round top one put me off but one day I will pluck up courage and attack it. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Tony Wright Posted December 11, 2019 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted December 11, 2019 With the greatest of respect to recent commentators, the little 1P tank is still a 'prototype', and, as mentioned, the BR version has the wrong chimney. When I build a loco, I spend ages (at times) fiddling with chimneys and domes to get them looking right. With regard to a plastic-bodied RTR loco, there are obvious limitations on how chimneys and domes (and other fittings) can be 'truly' represented. They have to come out of a mould for a start - not a rubber one (which will flex, allowing for straight sides), nor can the chimneys and domes (economically) be turned from metal. So, as with many things in life, the modeller has a choice. Except, it's not an equal choice across the board. To the builders out there, I say 'Please go ahead, make your models as accurate as you like. You have the skills and the time, and also the self-discipline to make sure your models are right'. However you (the generic 'you') are in a very small minority in this hobby. Compared with the 'masses', you are very few in number. Most can't build to anything like the standard of that latest Bachmann 1P (overall, I don't think I could; not with that finish). Those who can better it (the chosen few?) will do so, and those who are so unhappy with the appearance of the boiler fittings will easily replace them with turned-brass items sourced elsewhere. As for price? Buy a kit, acquire the wheels/motor/gearbox, build it and paint it - all for less than what the 1P will cost? I think not. Having built two (years ago), I know! As a builder myself, what I've written above might appear as hypocrisy (so be it). That I choose to build my own locos is well known, as is why (though this 1P will pull a house down!), but there are far more out there who cannot. It is for the likes of that majority to which this model is aimed, and that should not be forgotten in my view. 6 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Barry Ten Posted December 11, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 11, 2019 9 hours ago, St Enodoc said: Nice work Al. Can you do something about the stripes on the Dapol arms so that they look more like the Ratio ones? They look awful as they are. I hadn't really noticed the stripe, but now you mention it, it does need something doing to it. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNER4479 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 48 minutes ago, Tony Wright said: 'I even slightly (and VERY carefully) modified my jig to allow its use for a couple of projects;' Whisper it low, John, But I've done the same; without any loss of function. Regards, Tony. Me too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold ROSSPOP Posted December 11, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 11, 2019 Never mind the height of the chimney.... are they going to do something with those terrible toy-like coupling rods??? No matter how I tried to improve the Craftsman kit, and it has always been a favourite of mine, It never quite looked right ....and now someone needs to think about producing the pull-push coach....other than the very old and hard to come by...Perseverence kit..... 9 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Tony Wright Posted December 11, 2019 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted December 11, 2019 36 minutes ago, ROSSPOP said: Never mind the height of the chimney.... are they going to do something with those terrible toy-like coupling rods??? No matter how I tried to improve the Craftsman kit, and it has always been a favourite of mine, It never quite looked right ....and now someone needs to think about producing the pull-push coach....other than the very old and hard to come by...Perseverence kit..... Very nice work, Thanks for showing us. Despite some 'issues', the lining is complete on the Bachmann loco, with no gaps, and no overlaps where corners meet straight edges. And yes, I know it's very difficult with transfer lining, or even bow-pen lining. 'are they going to do something with those terrible toy-like coupling rods???' Rather unlikely, but those who can do it will (no doubt) replace them. That carriage is gorgeous, by the way! Regards, Tony. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now