RMweb Premium Clive Mortimore Posted August 14, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 14, 2020 2 hours ago, Tony Wright said: I recall David Jenkinson once stating that when making a model, get as many prototype pictures of it as possible (be it a loco, carriage or wagon). Then build the model, observing it from the same sort of angles as in the prototype pictures. Any detail which could be observed, incorporate into the model. Any detail which could not be seen, even if you knew it were present on the real thing (say a big brake cylinder between a loco's frames), don't bother with. He was once taken to task for not putting all the conduits and associated gubbins on the underneath of the floor pan of a carriage he'd built. His response was 'If the only way you can see this sort of detail is if your carriage derails, tumbles down an embankment and lands upside down in a ditch, then don't build a layout where this is likely to happen!'. Regards, Tony. Hello Tony and Everyone We all build models to our own level of detail, thankfully there is not a law stating what the minimum is. Some people like to get every thing on, like the bits you cannot see even when stood next to a real loco, coach or wagon, that is great. That isn't me, the way my layout is set up only a few locos that are in front of the control panel are close enough for me to see the finer details. The same loco when hauling a train can be over 20 feet away, I can see what class it is but not if it has its wiggly pipes in the right place. To me it is greater fun watching my trains moving than it is admiring them stationary. 4 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium t-b-g Posted August 14, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 14, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, Tony Wright said: Thanks Tony, I must admit to not noticing how far out the front frames are above the bogie wheels. Lack of perception on my part! Though I can't now remember, they must be add-on features provided with the model......... This is the NRM one as-supplied. Aren't you tempted? I must have fitted them on 62661 in her OO days. The 'sticking-out' effect is even more pronounced in 16.5mm. I think this is Barry Oliver's D11, or at least one he's weathered. Again, the front frames have been added. Though this is a D10, the characteristic sagging front buffer beam is apparent. And, look at those cabside patches! Another 'Director' droopy 'beam. just a hint on this one? And maybe here. Regards, Tony. Now my memory has been jogged, perhaps I did get one. There was a cheap one on the Bachmann "returns" stand at Warley several years ago. I got it, looked at it and realised how much work would be needed to put it into true GCR condition and it got put away and forgotten. Seeing the photos of the real thing and the RTR one together does raise a question about the top front corners on the firebox too. I hadn't really studied them before but there doesn't seem to be enough visible firebox front on the model. It is funny because I always thought that Bachmann had captured the D11 really well and it had never registered with me before. Perhaps it is an optical illusion caused by the angles and lighting of the photos. Edited August 14, 2020 by t-b-g correct typo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Buhar Posted August 14, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 14, 2020 The eye is very good a picking out relationships between items and also straight/parallel lines and this contributes to our view of a model's look. Modelling in the narrower gauges this can cause issues below the footplate, something in the right place (like the D10 framing) looks wrong because of the relationship to the wheels. We are fortunate in that nearly all UK prototypes have a running plate that breaks the eye's attempts to tie together items above and below it (especially viewed from the side) so we can tweak elements above and below that line to make them look right in terms of other relationships. Guard irons are a good example, in 00 we have to set them to the narrow width of the wheels or else they look daft. Equally, front frame extensions are viewed in relation to the smokebox and need to be set at their correct width rather than at the width of the model's frames. There are obviously exceptions like the open area behind the buffer beam on several Webb engines where the frames are visible. Modellers will have their own ideas about compromises and our compromises may be compromised by the need to make the thing work (Tony's dodge of offset piston rods and crossheads to allow for clearances). Alan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Jamiel Posted August 14, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 14, 2020 (edited) Sutton Loco Works sell their screw link couplings separately. I picked some up for their stand at last year's York show. They are currently waiting for new stock though. https://sulzertype2.co.uk/product/cosmetic-screw-link-couplings-x8/ I have bought detail packs from Peter's Spares for the screw link couplings as well, as they have some nice other bits in them as well. As they say on TV 'Other suppliers may also be available'. Jamie Edited August 14, 2020 by Jamiel 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarrMan Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 16 hours ago, polybear said: Why not build it, or something - and "exhibit" the build step-by-step on RMWeb? A far bigger audience than pretty much any Model Railway Exhibition. It could also be used as a fund raising mechanism for CRUK..... That sounds an excellent suggestion to me. It is not easy for me to attend any exhibitions, and as a novice, it is always of interest to see how different aspects of the model are constructed. That is one reason that I enjoy this thread so much. Lloyd Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Northmoor Posted August 14, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 14, 2020 12 hours ago, john new said: Firstly this is posted a a personal viewpoint and I stress not an official statement of either the SLS or the YMRS team (see logos in my sig’). I concur with the timeline views expressed above regarding indoor gatherings of over 30 to perhaps a 100. One option that may be relevant going forward is what I did with my Hornby Dublo display many years back now before committing it to its’ first show - I ran it in the bar of the local pub with donations for the Lifeboat (we live at the coast). Whilst I couldn’t repeat that there with anything more than about 8ft x 6ft the local Ex-B Legion club bar could take something considerably larger. Perhaps a way for those of us with portable layouts to bring back the idea of taking up railway modelling to the general public, refresh our desire to show off our creations, and raise money for a charity. I think life will be very different for quite a while yet and we have to adapt to survive. There is an argument the calendar was becoming too overcrowded with new, and large, shows and only time will tell in what format, and how often, we get back to some form of public hobby shows. Speaking/writing as a viewer and not an exhibitor, I tend to agree about there being too many shows but both large and small. If you look through the listings in the magazines - though obviously not at the moment - and there are typically six shows every weekend for most of the year. I'm not sure there are enough high quality layouts to fill so many shows. Local to me we have the REC (Woking) and Farnham (Aldershot) shows every year, both generally very good indeed but I find the Farnham Club's smaller show being more consistent in quality of layouts. The bigger Woking show normally has a couple of layouts which I don't linger at, not because the subject matter doesn't interest me but because they contain too many RTR/RTP items. Such a layout has it's place in encouraging newcomers that the hobby is accessible, plus of course the Hornby-Dublo demo layouts are entirely RTR/RTP, but that it precisely the point of them. It's just that to me, an exhibition is meant to be an exhibition of craftsmanship, not a trade fair. Perhaps you're right and the days of the biggest shows are over, but local, smaller shows will continue. They probably have the advantage that the venues tend to be run by local/voluntary organisations instead of large events companies, so while the facilities are more basic, the rates are much cheaper. I'm optimistic that by this time next year, we might be almost back to normal. Brutal though it sounds, the virus may have now "harvested" the weakest victims and the lower infection rates now are partially a result both of public behaviour and the better general health of those not yet displaying symptoms. I'm also confident that by summer next year, possibly well before, the most vulnerable will have been given a working vaccine, the development of which is advancing at an incredible rate in the pharmaceutical industry. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Tony Wright Posted August 14, 2020 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 14, 2020 16 hours ago, polybear said: Hi Tony, Why not build it, or something - and "exhibit" the build step-by-step on RMWeb? A far bigger audience than pretty much any Model Railway Exhibition. It could also be used as a fund raising mechanism for CRUK..... Good morning Brian, Please forgive the tardy response to your question. Yes, building KP and reporting on progress on this thread (or a separate one?) might have a certain appeal. And, in the light of current no-exhibition trends, it might be the only way to show any layout. However, there are other priorities for me................... I'll explain. It has to do mainly with Retford. If ever a layout recreated my trainspotting heyday, that's it. Whenever I see it, I'm transported back to that magical place (not that is now), witnessing (as Clem quite rightly observes) 'the greatest free show on earth'. But it still requires the 'eye of faith' to be fully-transported back, because it's not finished. I'm delighted (along with everyone else) that it's the intention of the new owner to finish it, but she can't do it alone. It'll be an immense privilege for me to be part (in a small way) of the group which completes it. There's point rodding, telegraph poles and all manner of detail which I can contribute to. Not only that, I'm currently building a J6 for it (yes, it's been started!) and I'm building EM frames to go under a V2 and an A2/3. There are also several items of rolling stock to re-gauge. I'm also tasked as being 'official photographer' as progress continues. So, you see now why I'll never embark on building Kiveton Park. Regards, Tony. 6 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewartingram Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 On the subject of D11s, what is required to change a Bachmann Scottish version to an English one? The D11 is very much a low priority engine for my area, but not unknown; I acquired a Scottish one very cheaply, hoping to convert it. Would any parts be available? Stewart Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRman Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 2 hours ago, Tony Wright said: I honestly think it's impossible to copy the prototype exactly. Examine these pictures for instance.............. Two ex-works A4s, fresh from Donny paint shop. Look at all the creases and dents in the boiler cladding and, particularly, on 60023's tender. Who'd be brave enough to deliberately reproduce this effect? Is Hornby's A4 too perfect? A detailed/modified example, re-painted by Ian Rathbone. Not a crease or dent in sight. And who'd model the patches and creases in this? Or the buckled valance at the front? Or the crease in this? And the buckled cylinder casing and bent valance................... I've shown the following pair before, but they substantiate the point about modelling the prototype, accurately...... I had thought at first that a particularly-obese fitter had been fiddling with the domes, using the handrail as a step. However, one picture I saw of these ex-NB 4-4-0s had part of the motion hanging from the handrail, attached by a block and tackle. Model those handrails like these and it would just look wrong! Regards, Tony. I have said this myself in the past. I have noted bent handrails and wrinkled panelling on steam, electric and diesel locomotives and units (remember the slab-sided Hastings DEMUs?). Any attempt to model these things accurately not only looks wrong, but actually makes it look like a badly made model, even though the builder may know better. 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodcock29 Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 52 minutes ago, t-b-g said: It is funny because I always thought that Bachmann had captured the D11 really well and it had never registered with me before. Tony G One aspect Bachmann haven't got quite right on the D11/1 is the chimney. It's too tall, measuring 6mm when it should be 5mm. From my sources it appears that generally whichever chimney of this style (original Robinson or later Gorton cast version) they were fitted with it was 1'3". One mm doesn't sound like much but it does change the face of the loco a bit. The chimney on the model seems to be based more on the original Robinson chimney as it has quite a wide base, which is logical because I think the GC version of Butler Henderson was the first model Bachmann made of the D11/1. Andrew 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarrMan Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 A few days ago, there was a discussion on the effect of making part or all of the bogie in effect rigid to reduce the excessive throw on the fronts of loco's on under-scale sharp curves. As I have been down with depression this week, and on Wednesday the internet connection failed for most of the day, I thought I would relax by working out the centre play needed and front and rear throws for some sample locos on given radius curves , comparing the fixed wheelbase using only the drivers and using all wheels. I have entered the appropriate formulae in the attached spreadsheet along with four sample loco's for two curve radii, with some spare lines if anyone wants to enter specific details for themselves. Also on the second sheet are conversion formulae between metric and imperial lengths and for scales. I give no guarantee of the accuracy of the formulae, and therefore of the results, but they look much as I would expect. I have also added a column for the sideplay needed at any point on the fixed chassis. The information to be entered is in the yellow headed columns, and the rest should work through on the formulae. As the results entered show, there is much reduced front and rear throw where there are front and rear carrying wheels, at the expense of much increased sideplay required, which may not be manageable within the limits imposed by the frame. For the Black 5, with no rear carrying wheels, the rear throw is increased, but the front throw much reduced. For particular models, it may be worth putting in different wheelbases and overhangs to represent some carrying wheels being fixed, to reach a suitable compromise. Having worked it out for fun, I hope that it may be of some use to someone. Lloyd Cenre offset, front and rear throws for model railway curves.xlsx 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium t-b-g Posted August 14, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 14, 2020 56 minutes ago, Tony Wright said: Good morning Brian, Please forgive the tardy response to your question. Yes, building KP and reporting on progress on this thread (or a separate one?) might have a certain appeal. And, in the light of current no-exhibition trends, it might be the only way to show any layout. However, there are other priorities for me................... I'll explain. It has to do mainly with Retford. If ever a layout recreated my trainspotting heyday, that's it. Whenever I see it, I'm transported back to that magical place (not that is now), witnessing (as Clem quite rightly observes) 'the greatest free show on earth'. But it still requires the 'eye of faith' to be fully-transported back, because it's not finished. I'm delighted (along with everyone else) that it's the intention of the new owner to finish it, but she can't do it alone. It'll be an immense privilege for me to be part (in a small way) of the group which completes it. There's point rodding, telegraph poles and all manner of detail which I can contribute to. Not only that, I'm currently building a J6 for it (yes, it's been started!) and I'm building EM frames to go under a V2 and an A2/3. There are also several items of rolling stock to re-gauge. I'm also tasked as being 'official photographer' as progress continues. So, you see now why I'll never embark on building Kiveton Park. Regards, Tony. I thought that once Little Bytham was as near finished as a layout can be, with more than enough locos and stock to run it, that somebody who gets the most pleasure out of the hobby from making things would need something to do. A new challenge of some sort. Given a choice between starting a new exhibition layout that might take several years to get to a reasonable level of completion, then be used maybe a couple of times a year and be packed away the rest of the time, or helping to finish Retford, I know which I would choose too! As the years go by, the idea of lugging big layouts around to shows gets less appealing, even when (and if) there are shows to go to. 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold johndon Posted August 14, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 14, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Tony Wright said: However, one picture I saw of these ex-NB 4-4-0s had part of the motion hanging from the handrail, attached by a block and tackle. Model those handrails like these and it would just look wrong! A very common 'feature' of Q6 locos in the North East. Edited August 14, 2020 by johndon 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porcy Mane Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Tony Wright said: Model those handrails like these and it would just look wrong! Model a great deal of Q6 representing the 1960's without that handrail kink & it would be equally incorrect. https://flic.kr/p/dxtDnN Sunderland 1967 by Nick Barnett, on Flickr N1000_19660716_Sunderland_SouthDockShed_23 by Tom Young, on Flickr P Edited August 14, 2020 by Porcy Mane 8 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Popular Post Tony Wright Posted August 14, 2020 Author RMweb Gold Popular Post Share Posted August 14, 2020 On the subject of dents, dings, creases and bashes on the prototype, I think it's fair to say that the original Bulleid Pacifics were the most-creased of the lot. But, what does it look like on a model? I made MORTEHOE over 25 years ago (it appeared in BRM and on the front cover of the 1995/'96 index). I used a Crownline kit and Ian Rathbone painted it. Because of the nature of the build-process (thin etched overlays over a substantial 'skeleton'), whenever the soldering iron got near, the thin etches would buckle under expansion. I was quite alarmed by this, thinking it would make me look a bad builder (please, don't agree). However, over time I've got used to the rather rippled look, and I think it looks more realistic than a very flat-sided, plastic RTR equivalent. During her busy life, a few more dents and dings have occurred naturally.................... 19 4 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Tony Wright Posted August 14, 2020 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 14, 2020 1 hour ago, stewartingram said: On the subject of D11s, what is required to change a Bachmann Scottish version to an English one? The D11 is very much a low priority engine for my area, but not unknown; I acquired a Scottish one very cheaply, hoping to convert it. Would any parts be available? Stewart Stewart, You'll need to increase the height of the cab, fit a different-style spectacle plate, higher chimney and dome and probably have to alter the face............. You'll also have to add beading to splashers. Anything else? Regards, Tony. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodcock29 Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, t-b-g said: Edited August 14, 2020 by Woodcock29 deleted duplicate post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodcock29 Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, t-b-g said: Edited August 14, 2020 by Woodcock29 deleted duplicate post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
landscapes Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 13 minutes ago, Tony Wright said: On the subject of dents, dings, creases and bashes on the prototype, I think it's fair to say that the original Bulleid Pacifics were the most-creased of the lot. But, what does it look like on a model? I made MORTEHOE over 25 years ago (it appeared in BRM and on the front cover of the 1995/'96 index). I used a Crownline kit and Ian Rathbone painted it. Because of the nature of the build-process (thin etched overlays over a substantial 'skeleton'), whenever the soldering iron got near, the thin etches would buckle under expansion. I was quite alarmed by this, thinking it would make me look a bad builder (please, don't agree). However, over time I've got used to the rather rippled look, and I think it looks more realistic than a very flat-sided, plastic RTR equivalent. During her busy life, a few more dents and dings have occurred naturally.................... Hi Tony A stunning model, if I had not gone for Haymarket as a project ,it would definitely have been a Southern location with Bulleid Pacific's included. Regards David 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
landscapes Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, SRman said: I have said this myself in the past. I have noted bent handrails and wrinkled panelling on steam, electric and diesel locomotives and units (remember the slab-sided Hastings DEMUs?). Any attempt to model these things accurately not only looks wrong, but actually makes it look like a badly made model, even though the builder may know better. Edited August 14, 2020 by landscapes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
landscapes Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 3 hours ago, Tony Wright said: I honestly think it's impossible to copy the prototype exactly. Examine these pictures for instance.............. Two ex-works A4s, fresh from Donny paint shop. Look at all the creases and dents in the boiler cladding and, particularly, on 60023's tender. Who'd be brave enough to deliberately reproduce this effect? Is Hornby's A4 too perfect? A detailed/modified example, re-painted by Ian Rathbone. Not a crease or dent in sight. And who'd model the patches and creases in this? Or the buckled valance at the front? Or the crease in this? And the buckled cylinder casing and bent valance................... I've shown the following pair before, but they substantiate the point about modelling the prototype, accurately...... I had thought at first that a particularly-obese fitter had been fiddling with the domes, using the handrail as a step. However, one picture I saw of these ex-NB 4-4-0s had part of the motion hanging from the handrail, attached by a block and tackle. Model those handrails like these and it would just look wrong! Regards, Tony. Hi Tony Thats an interesting lamp on the front of Mallard, similar to the ones carried on todays preserved locos working the main lines. Do you have any idea when the photo was taken. Regards David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom F Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Tony Wright said: On the subject of dents, dings, creases and bashes on the prototype, I think it's fair to say that the original Bulleid Pacifics were the most-creased of the lot. But, what does it look like on a model? I made MORTEHOE over 25 years ago (it appeared in BRM and on the front cover of the 1995/'96 index). I used a Crownline kit and Ian Rathbone painted it. Because of the nature of the build-process (thin etched overlays over a substantial 'skeleton'), whenever the soldering iron got near, the thin etches would buckle under expansion. I was quite alarmed by this, thinking it would make me look a bad builder (please, don't agree). However, over time I've got used to the rather rippled look, and I think it looks more realistic than a very flat-sided, plastic RTR equivalent. During her busy life, a few more dents and dings have occurred naturally.................... That looks superb, and actually the distortion looks perfectly scaled. Klear actually manages to create a similar effect on models I’ve found, but in this case, just like the real thing. I have worked on the 1:1 scale version of the class at the East Lancashire Railway. As an engine cleaner, you are kept busy that’s for sure! Edited August 14, 2020 by Hawin Dooiey 8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium t-b-g Posted August 14, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 14, 2020 11 minutes ago, Woodcock29 said: Tony G One aspect Bachmann haven't got quite right on the D11/1 is the chimney. It's too tall, measuring 6mm when it should be 5mm. From my sources it appears that generally whichever chimney of this style (original Robinson or later Gorton cast version) they were fitted with it was 1'3". One mm doesn't sound like much but it does change the face of the loco a bit. The chimney on the model seems to be based more on the original Robinson chimney as it has quite a wide base, which is logical because I think the GC version of Butler Henderson was the first model Bachmann made of the D11/1. Andrew I agree that 1mm on a 5mm chimney is a big % difference. I don't have a GCR period GA drawing for a D11 but if your drawing is showing the LNER period then the chimney will be shorter. My D11 GA is an LNER one and does show the shorter chimney. I have a GCR period GA for a D10 which shows the chimney as 1ft. 6 1/2 ins. tall. I know the D11 boiler was pitched 1 1/2 ins. higher but I don't think that would have necessitated a chimney 3 ins. shorter. There was a shorter Robinson style chimney and the less attractive alternative that would have been fitted in LNER days to suit the inferior loading gauge of the other, more secondary lines that formed the LNER. Many GCR locos had lower boiler fittings fitted after 1923, as you probably know. So I don't know for sure how high the original GCR one was but I think it may have been higher than the LNER period ones. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium t-b-g Posted August 14, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 14, 2020 1 hour ago, Tony Wright said: On the subject of dents, dings, creases and bashes on the prototype, I think it's fair to say that the original Bulleid Pacifics were the most-creased of the lot. But, what does it look like on a model? I made MORTEHOE over 25 years ago (it appeared in BRM and on the front cover of the 1995/'96 index). I used a Crownline kit and Ian Rathbone painted it. Because of the nature of the build-process (thin etched overlays over a substantial 'skeleton'), whenever the soldering iron got near, the thin etches would buckle under expansion. I was quite alarmed by this, thinking it would make me look a bad builder (please, don't agree). However, over time I've got used to the rather rippled look, and I think it looks more realistic than a very flat-sided, plastic RTR equivalent. During her busy life, a few more dents and dings have occurred naturally.................... Just makes the tender look too smooth! That rippled look really does work on the loco. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Barry Ten Posted August 14, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 14, 2020 The distortion on Tony's Mortehoe does look good. I think what doesn't scale well in model terms is glossiness. I don't mean in the sense of whether models should or should not be glossy, but that the pattern of reflections never look quite right, giving the scale away. I think by the time we're down to the surface effects of painted models, light just doesn't scatter off them in anything like the right way. 2 1 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