Wright writes.....

[t-b-g]

18 minutes ago, 31A said:

 

Do you by any chance mean me?!  If so, thank you for those kind words and if not, I quite agree and this is what I did to try and improve things:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That was it. Lovely!

[Michael Edge]

This is the Hornby A4 on new frames and motion.

This runs on Carlisle and is EM gauge, the etched frames are fitted around the Hornby mechanism and it has Markits wheels on 3mm axles. Motion is all etched and includes the slidebar bracket which most rtr seems to ignore, leading to silly angles when the slidebars are just stuck out of the cylinders. To my eyes the body shape is just about spot on apart from the bottom of the cylinders, I've rounded them a bit but it's still wrong. The loco runs well but even with cerrobend poured into every cavity in the body it still won't pull our heaviest trains - it doesn't really need to though. This is the original Hornby finish with Barry O's weathering.

[t-b-g]

17 minutes ago, Pebbles said:

The A4 shape is a bit of a poser. When John Edgson draw the rebuilt W1 many years ago he quoted a height immediatley to the rear of the chimney of 12ft 6inches. From what I remember John's  drawing didn't reflect this giving a rather more pointed shape to the from end. John' W1 drawing also quotes other dimensions which would indicate that the front end of the W1 and A4s differ possibly as a result of the W1's bogies having a longer wheelbase.  All subsequent drawings of A4s appear to be very similar to John's W1 profile. I should add that when John eventually came to the A4s he appears to have corrected this.

I have been told that when Finney came to produce his kit he had obtained drawings of the A4 cladding, making his plastic boiler shape far more dependable. I would think that the Hornby shape was as result of scanning the prototype.

 

It is indeed a tricky shape. I recall Malcolm Crawley building an "as built" W1 from the SE Finecast kit. He had a set of "proper" railway drawings that had several cross sectional views at different places along the boiler. It was clear that they hadn't been used to design the kit, which had an almost triangular shape rather than the more rounded body of the real thing.

 

There is hardly a straight line in the A4 and anybody trying to make a kit from just a flat 2D drawing has their work cut out. Then trying to turn all those fancy curves into a flat etch that needs to be curved to shape makes it all very challenging indeed to get it spot on.

 

Martin Finney did extremely well to produce such a good shape if he did it from "flat" drawings and if Hornby scanned a real one, that would explain why theirs is a good shape.

[Tony Wright]

12 minutes ago, Pebbles said:

The A4 shape is a bit of a poser. When John Edgson draw the rebuilt W1 many years ago he quoted a height immediatley to the rear of the chimney of 12ft 6inches. From what I remember John's  drawing didn't reflect this giving a rather more pointed shape to the from end. John' W1 drawing also quotes other dimensions which would indicate that the front end of the W1 and A4s differ possibly as a result of the W1's bogies having a longer wheelbase.  All subsequent drawings of A4s appear to be very similar to John's W1 profile. I should add that when John eventually came to the A4s he appears to have corrected this.

I have been told that when Finney came to produce his kit he had obtained drawings of the A4 cladding, making his plastic boiler shape far more dependable. I would think that the Hornby shape was as result of scanning the prototype.

Thanks for that insight.

 

I know from prototype pictures that, when A4s were in works, all the cladding sections had to be numbered with stencils; otherwise, if they got muddled up with others, they wouldn't fit! It might have been the case with other classes, but it was particularly necessary with the A4s.

 

The A4s' shape is one of the most-complex to achieve, particularly in model form if building kits (I've never built an A4 from scratch!). The Pro-Scale one mentioned earlier needed a fair bit of 'pushing and shoving' before it looked anything near 'right', and 'right' it might not be, still.

 

I wonder how far a modeller would go in building an A4?

 

 

To the extent of putting dents in the cladding and erecting the cab out of perpendicular.......... (easy with the Pro-Scale kit?). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

27 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

This is the Hornby A4 on new frames and motion.

This runs on Carlisle and is EM gauge, the etched frames are fitted around the Hornby mechanism and it has Markits wheels on 3mm axles. Motion is all etched and includes the slidebar bracket which most rtr seems to ignore, leading to silly angles when the slidebars are just stuck out of the cylinders. To my eyes the body shape is just about spot on apart from the bottom of the cylinders, I've rounded them a bit but it's still wrong. The loco runs well but even with cerrobend poured into every cavity in the body it still won't pull our heaviest trains - it doesn't really need to though. This is the original Hornby finish with Barry O's weathering.

Good afternoon Mike,

 

Your new mechanism certainly is a huge improvement.

 

A couple of points, if I may? Carlisle's MERLIN looks to have been a (simple) renumbering - just a new '7' replacing the previous last digit? If that's the case, then the worksplate needs removing - for some reason, MERLIN lost hers in her double chimney days.....

 

 

And, for true pedants, there should be an extra strip at the base of the tender tank, which once carried the stainless steel embellishment from her 'Coronation'-hauling days.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

I wouldn't want to use the Hornby A4 as it comes. There are always some aspects that need sorting out. One thing I am not keen on is the "working" lubricator drive that is almost the same size as the valve gear. In real life you hardly notice the lubricator as it is tiny compared to the valve gear but on the A4 shown above, it almost looks like it has an extra set of motion on the rear axle. It should be much less conspicuous. If perfect models could be had RTR, there would be nothing left for people like us to do.

 

Have you any A4s that use the Hornby body on a new mechanism, such as the Comet one?

 

That might give the best of both worlds.

 

I did that with the Royal Scot on Narrow Road. The Bachmann mechanism was discarded and Comet frames and motion/cylinders were used. That gave a loco with a more than acceptable body on a mechanism that runs like a kit built loco and there was plenty of room to add weight to give it plenty of haulage capacity.

 

It was probably easier than converting the RTR mechanism to EM too.

Good afternoon Tony,

 

I haven't put a replacement chassis underneath a current Hornby A4 body (the earlier, tender-drive A4s were very poor in body-shape). 

 

I have, however, put a South Eastern Finecast chassis underneath a Lilliput/Bachmann A4 body.

 

 

This was the last Bachmann RTR A4 released (no lubricator drive - see later).

 

 

Here's my Lilliput/Bachmann/SEF combination, painted by Ian Rathbone. As well as the new chassis (with the lubricator drive made as 'flimsy' as I dared), I also made a South Eastern Finecast tender for it (Bachmann's is poor). 

 

Roy's Retford A4s were arrived at by using Lilliput bodies on his chassis, with SEF tenders. If the process were good enough for the great man, then.............

 

 

I don't think Hornby's lubricator drive is too obtrusive (especially when weathered-down). However, what a fag having to part-dismantle it to get the body off!

 

 

I suppose the best RTR depiction of the lubricator drive in 4mm is that provided by Golden Age, seen here on my MERLIN. I say 'mine', but that's only in terms of it being my property. I keep on asking myself why I bought it, especially since I can make A4s.

 

Having a little cash at the time, I must have been daft; especially as it cost more to have the DCC stuff taken out! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

[billbedford]

45 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

Martin Finney did extremely well to produce such a good shape if he did it from "flat" drawings

 

I don't know why you should think that, after all, iron and steel ships had been built from "flat" drawings for over a hundred years. 

[Tony Wright]

Out of possible interest, a pair of Pro-Scale A4s built several years ago (in the last century), before the current Hornby RTR one became available...........

 

 

 

Both were started by Mick Peabody and I completed them.

 

Both needed alterations to their respective tenders.

 

Ian Rathbone painted both. 

 

 

[Michael Edge]

24 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Mike,

 

Your new mechanism certainly is a huge improvement.

 

A couple of points, if I may? Carlisle's MERLIN looks to have been a (simple) renumbering - just a new '7' replacing the previous last digit? If that's the case, then the worksplate needs removing - for some reason, MERLIN lost hers in her double chimney days.....

 

 

And, for true pedants, there should be an extra strip at the base of the tender tank, which once carried the stainless steel embellishment from her 'Coronation'-hauling days.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I knew you would find something wrong with it!

The actual mechanism is all Hornby, the new frames are essentially cosmetic, fitted outside the Mazak block on spacers. We have two A3s with this modification as well.

[30368]

Re discussion of Hornby A4. Back in 2020 I recall a similar discussion, sorry, can't recall where, but I had recently bought a Hornby Miles Beevor (it was very heavily discounted and in my view no layout, including an SR one should be without a streak) and was immediatley struck by the slab sided cylinder valance so I set about improving it (I had a Brassmaster detailing kit too).

 

Gently filing away the valance to creat a curved profile.

 

It is a very simple modification and improves the look of the model a great deal.

 

Kind regards,

 

30368

[lezz01]

Going back to the loss of retailers if I may, the one that really hurt was W & H Models of New Cavendish St. Why did that hurt? Well they were the main wholesalers of loco kits, their catalogue was full to bursting with kits from almost every manufacture you could name. I brought my first etched brass kit from there the year before they closed. Now they really were a loss!

Regards Lez. 

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, billbedford said:

 

I don't know why you should think that, after all, iron and steel ships had been built from "flat" drawings for over a hundred years. 

 

I say he did well because so many model A4s, both kits and RTR, didn't get the shape quite correct and he seemed to manage it.

 

It shouldn't be remarkable but in the case of model A4s, it is.

 

 

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Tony,

 

I haven't put a replacement chassis underneath a current Hornby A4 body (the earlier, tender-drive A4s were very poor in body-shape). 

 

I have, however, put a South Eastern Finecast chassis underneath a Lilliput/Bachmann A4 body.

 

 

This was the last Bachmann RTR A4 released (no lubricator drive - see later).

 

 

Here's my Lilliput/Bachmann/SEF combination, painted by Ian Rathbone. As well as the new chassis (with the lubricator drive made as 'flimsy' as I dared), I also made a South Eastern Finecast tender for it (Bachmann's is poor). 

 

Roy's Retford A4s were arrived at by using Lilliput bodies on his chassis, with SEF tenders. If the process were good enough for the great man, then.............

 

 

I don't think Hornby's lubricator drive is too obtrusive (especially when weathered-down). However, what a fag having to part-dismantle it to get the body off!

 

 

I suppose the best RTR depiction of the lubricator drive in 4mm is that provided by Golden Age, seen here on my MERLIN. I say 'mine', but that's only in terms of it being my property. I keep on asking myself why I bought it, especially since I can make A4s.

 

Having a little cash at the time, I must have been daft; especially as it cost more to have the DCC stuff taken out! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Roy's Lilliput A4s dated back to High Dyke days, when that was about the best way to get an A4 without trying to scratchbuild one. If you wanted to stock an EM layout very quickly, it was the best route to go down. If I recall correctly the body was not 100% accurate but was better that the Wills kit or the Hornby Dublo RTR, which were the other options at the time. 

 

More recent "Retford" A4s have been based on converted Hornby models.

 

The Golden Age lubricator does show the correct proportional difference between the lubricator and the valve gear. If they could do it, why not others? It is no worse than doing valve gear in 2mm scale and plenty of modellers (and RTR people) seem to manage with that.

[John Isherwood]

1 minute ago, t-b-g said:

 

The Golden Age lubricator does show the correct proportional difference between the lubricator and the valve gear. If they could do it, why not others? It is no worse than doing valve gear in 2mm scale and plenty of modellers (and RTR people) seem to manage with that.

 

Because your average Hornby customer would break the lubricator drive taking the model out of the box.

 

What is viable for a high-end, niche-market model does not translate into the mass market.

 

CJI.

[John Tomlinson]

On 16/01/2024 at 21:55, ndeluck said:

Today I received some name and numberplates from Fox Transfers to alter the identity of a Bachmann Peppercorn A1 no. 60147 North Eastern, which I very recently acquired, to 60134 Foxhunter.






Upon acquiring the A1, I learnt subsequently that they suffered motor and springing issues in their initial batches which I believe North Eastern was a part of.
I've made it a habit to immediately open up secondhand locos and inspect them for maintenance, as I suspected this model would need to remedy its prescribed issues.



Need for maintenance? Yes!
Re-motoring? I don't suppose I should! 
I've never encountered a Mashima motor in a model before, but am thoroughly pleased!

 

It was very much to Bachmann's credit that they took the fault on the chin and did a recall.

 

I took my 60147 and 60158 into Barwell personally (an excuse for a visit to nearby Midland Counties books, when it was worth visiting), and there was a massive pile of A1's in the entry hall to the offices!

 

As has been said, they all came back from China, remotored and returned to customers, and it is such an example that you now have.

 

If you find you still have haulage issues, it's probably due to the spring on the front bogie being too strong, so the front drivers lift away from the track. Chop the spring in half and see if that helps.

 

John.

Edited January 22 by John Tomlinson
typo

[MikeParkin65]

6 minutes ago, John Tomlinson said:

 

It was very much to Bachmann's credit that they took the fault on the chin and did a recall.

 

I took my 60147 and 60158 into Barwell personally (an excuse for a visit to nearby Midland Counties books, when it was worth visiting), and there was a massive pile of A1's in the entry hall to the offices!

 

As has been said, they all came back from China, remotored and returned to customers, and it is such as example that you now have.

 

If you find you still have haulage issues, it's probably due to the spring on the front bogie being too strong, so the front drivers lift away from the track. Chop the spring in half and see if that helps.

 

John

If you cut the spring you may need to add a little weight to the plastic bogie especially if fitting replacement wheels as it can get very skittish on anything other than perfect track (so TW wont have problems but 95% of the rest of us will 😎)

[PMP]

3 hours ago, billbedford said:

 

I don't know why you should think that, after all, iron and steel ships had been built from "flat" drawings for over a hundred years. 

Yes but those are from industrial sheet metal presses, forming individual sections using several tons of pressure.

Mr Finney produced tooling to make accurate compound curve resin castings of formidable quality, far better than pretty much every other manufacturer that I can think of from JLTRT of the same era and Modelu more recently. He also designed the etchings to accurately join to those castings giving consistency across the whole model. 
 

Now your ship, locomotive and aircraft builder are getting multiple pre-formed components to nail together with varying degrees of accuracy, BAe and Shorts showing an interesting interpretation of ‘accuracy’ across some heavier than air flying machines. Mr Finney however managed to miniaturise a large piece of machinery, capturing the aesthetics and critically the profile and cross sections of the prototype. And he did it in two scales from flat drawings and Mk1 eyeball. 
 

Quite an achievement in my humble opinion.

 

Edited January 22 by PMP
Spellcheck

[Pebbles]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks for that insight.

 

I know from prototype pictures that, when A4s were in works, all the cladding sections had to be numbered with stencils; otherwise, if they got muddled up with others, they wouldn't fit! It might have been the case with other classes, but it was particularly necessary with the A4s.

 

The A4s' shape is one of the most-complex to achieve, particularly in model form if building kits (I've never built an A4 from scratch!). The Pro-Scale one mentioned earlier needed a fair bit of 'pushing and shoving' before it looked anything near 'right', and 'right' it might not be, still.

 

I wonder how far a modeller would go in building an A4?

 

 

To the extent of putting dents in the cladding and erecting the cab out of perpendicular.......... (easy with the Pro-Scale kit?). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

John Edgson scratch rebuilt a W1 and Streamline B17 that he use to display. He also built an A4 and somewhere I have a rather scruffy photocopied photo of this. With regards the Finecast Rebuilt W1 this was mastered by Ron Gault using their A4 as a basis

[Mark C]

On 21/01/2024 at 11:17, MJI said:

Does anyone know a good source of turned buffer heads 13 inch?

 

Wsnt to get a few to detail moulded buffer body kits.

 

MJT out of stock.

 

Need 8 at moment

 

A bit late perhaps, but try H&A Models' own product - https://www.hamodels.net/4mm-steel-wagon-buffer-heads-pack-12.html

 

...they are also a good source of so many things and with an excellent mail order service too (and good to chat with too at exhibitions).

 

Regards

Mark

 

[billbedford]

17 minutes ago, PMP said:

Yes but those are from industrial sheet metal presses, forming individual sections using several tons of pressure.

 

The components were produced to a specification defined by the drawing office. Before computers, this was done by a draughtsman producing a table of offsets for each piece that needed forming. 

 

17 minutes ago, PMP said:

Mr Finney produced tooling to make accurate compound curve resin castings of formidable quality, far better than pretty much every other manufacturer that I can think spelt from JLTRT of the same era and Modelu more recently. He also designed the etchings to accurately join to those castings giving consistency across the whole model. 

 

 

If the starting point for the model is the same drawings used for the full-sized original, it would take someone with rare skills to get it wrong. That we are having this conversation at all shows just how rare it has been for kit producers to have used original data. 

[Willie Whizz]

Although that presumes they actually built the real thing the way it was drawn, which I believe wasn’t always quite the case …

Edited January 22 by Willie Whizz

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

Because your average Hornby customer would break the lubricator drive taking the model out of the box.

 

What is viable for a high-end, niche-market model does not translate into the mass market.

 

CJI.

 

Modern N gauge RTR seems to manage with fairly small and delicate valve gear.

 

The Golden Age models A4 shows what is possible.

 

If I wanted an A4, I would be quite happy to take the Hornby lubricator off and put a nearer scale one on.

 

It would be one of the things I would be looking to improve.

 

I would also make a bracket on my new frames and hang the top end of the lubricator on the frames rather than attach it to the body.

 

Just because a model is produced for the "average train set" market shouldn't mean that it stays that way.

 

If folk are happy with it is as supplied then good luck to them but it is something I would want to change.

[MikeParkin65]

3 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Modern N gauge RTR seems to manage with fairly small and delicate valve gear.

 

 

Apart from the hand made finescale modelling sometimes shared on here I have yet to see any rtr N scale valve gear that doesnt look like mangled girders.

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

I knew you would find something wrong with it!

The actual mechanism is all Hornby, the new frames are essentially cosmetic, fitted outside the Mazak block on spacers. We have two A3s with this modification as well.

Good afternoon Mike,

 

I was making observations rather than finding things wrong. Because it's got such excellent motion now, I believe the body should have the same level of 'accuracy'. 

 

Anyway, you'll have the opportunity for finding something wrong with the A4 I'm building for Carlisle (SEF loco, Martin Finney tender). 

 

It's moving up the queue...............

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[PMP]

1 hour ago, billbedford said:

 

The components were produced to a specification defined by the drawing office. Before computers, this was done by a draughtsman producing a table of offsets for each piece that needed forming. 

 

And your point is?
 

Anyone whom has worked on a shop floor and seen the additional work requirements to make compound curve panels fit, understands just how excellent the Finney components are. Clearly from the amount of variety we see in model products (not just railway) getting shapes right isn’t as easy as you seem to think it is.