Wright writes.....

[john new]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

A certain landscape format, comb-bound book of diesel and electric loco drawings contains a drawing of GT3 (!!).

 

The centres of the con-rod bearings are shown coincident with the wheel-centres; ie. zero crank throw!!

 

How the h*ll did that get published?

 

CJI.

As a former Editor of the SLS Journal and also the three most recent of the Society books the onus on checking the drawings, illustrations and captions is down to the authors. I have some knowledge of the prototype but not every detail of the specifics that were covered in various articles.  In a small publishing house like the SLS it is one person doing the lot, in small commercial organisations there will be some extra employees but likewise they won't have detailed knowledge of everything. 

 

I know during my time I c**ked up one article with some corrupted formulae but they were complicated and incomprehensible to me as a non-scientist/specialist in that field. Typically also for that issue there had not been time to send out an author's proof. These errors happen however much you try not to let them creep in. Going back to the drawing mentioned above would I have spotted it? Possibly not as what I would have been looking for (after the blindingly obvious is it the GT3 image?) was that the drawing had sufficient clarity to be readable, was inserted into the document correctly and without the distortion earlier posters have mentioned etc.

 

Incidentally image distortion through wrong use of the graphics fitting tools in software is surprisingly common across published works, most noticeably with the images used in adverts. As for wrong images book covers are often awful with regard to the accuracy of the chosen image even when they make a very nice looking cover. Example this cover which IS NOT of a Welsh narrow gauge engine however much the descriptions in the plot are a composite (The murder is at Devil's Bridge). Whether or not the cover designer has any knowledge of trains is immaterial, it will however be what the American & Canadian buyer expects a steam train to look like.

 

Edited June 14 by john new
Typos spotted on re-reading the thread.

[Dave John]

Never mind third party drawings, sometimes things were not as drawn from day one.

 

I am currently building a pair of CR Diagram 37 twin wagons. There is a copy of the original St Rollox drawing in the CR wagon book which clearly shows the heavy duty parallel shank self contained buffer. However the photograph ( as the author Mike Williams points out in the text)  shows the bottle shaped self contained buffer. 

 

So either that one wagon out of 200 happened to be repaired with a different buffer or they were all fitted with them. No real way of knowing for sure, but I'd tend to go with the photo every time. 

 

Must be plenty of similar examples around. 

 

 

[John Isherwood]

1 hour ago, john new said:

In a small publishing house like the SLS it is one person doing the lot ...

 

The example that I quoted was from the principal railway publishing house of the time - and the error in the drawing would have smitten in the eye anyone who had ever seen a locomotive with steam-era coupling rods!

 

CJI.

[john new]

3 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

The example that I quoted was from the principal railway publishing house of the time - and the error in the drawing would have smitten in the eye anyone who had ever seen a locomotive with steam-era coupling rods!

 

CJI.

Probably would have seen that error then if it was that obviously wrong a bit like the subconscious filtering needed on the quite high number of images supplied that needed some rotation to vertical. Surprisingly I do see those left in published works as spotting that issue isn't one where specialist knowledge is needed.

[1471SirFrederickBanbury]

I’m just always glad when modelling pre-war LNER that the original engineering drawings are available via the NRM.  I also hilariously stumbled on a realisation a while ago: that realisation being, that the publicly available scan on the original A1 drawings were a near perfect 1/76.2 on my computer when I opened it in a new tab!  Of course, I feel that sort of thing only has partial value, as I find it easier and more helpful to convert the units on a dimension on a drawing and divide by 76.2, only measuring the printed drawing where absolutely necessary, but it’s a great (perhaps not) coincidence either way.

[Re6/6]

I would be grateful if anybody can identify this five pole motor please? It came from this Jamieson B1. One of the carbon brushes has dropped off.

 

Many thanks in advance.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 14 by Re6/6

[jrg1]

On 13/06/2024 at 06:17, D.Platt said:

Evening All

I have just mentioned a project , after finishing a nu-cast B16/3 a couple of years ago I fancied building a B16/1 . I managed to buy  a DJH kit for a “bargain” price off eBay .

Now I’ve picked up on here off Tony and others that this kit has its problems so I purchased an Isinglass drawing . Wow where do I start ? from thinking the footplate and boiler were the correct length…I realised as Eric Morecambe once said “ they are all the right notes but not necessary in the correct order”

I’m looking at buying a PDK chassis for it because the DJH one is so basic  , but I’m left thinking  (dangerous)

is continuing with the DJH kit worth the time and trouble ? or should I just buy a complete PDK kit .

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

Dennis

Remember Time versus Cost-at my age Time is the primary consideration.  For younger modellers a difficult kit may be an opportunity to improve their skills, taking possibly much longer.

[jrg1]

On 13/06/2024 at 16:45, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Graeme,

 

I'm not sure where bending bars are available from. Living for 30 years in an around Wolverhampton (a town - now a city - which made just about everything) and making many friends in the industries, a mate made these for me. Another chap made a tumblehome-forming device (sold through Modellers Mecca at the time) and I acquired a set of rolling bars from a friend. Another friend made a long back-to-back gauge.

 

 

 

The tumblehome-forming device.

 

I rather doubt its current availability.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

See if you can source keysteel from a steel supplier-ideal for modeller's folding bars

[jrg1]

14 hours ago, cctransuk said:

A certain landscape format, comb-bound book of diesel and electric loco drawings contains a drawing of GT3 (!!).

 

The centres of the con-rod bearings are shown coincident with the wheel-centres; ie. zero crank throw!!

 

How the h*ll did that get published?

 

CJI.

Many discrepancies in this particular volume

[Nick Holliday]

12 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

The example that I quoted was from the principal railway publishing house of the time - and the error in the drawing would have smitten in the eye anyone who had ever seen a locomotive with steam-era coupling rods!

 

CJI.

But what if the loco was an Aveling-Porter one?

https://preservedbritishsteamlocomotives.com/aveling-porter-works-no-8880-sir-vincent-0-4-0wtg/
As an aside, should it be an 0-2-2-0 as the drivers aren’t coupled by the rods?

[Tony Wright]

9 hours ago, Re6/6 said:

I would be grateful if anybody can identify this five pole motor please? It came from this Jamieson B1. One of the carbon brushes has dropped off.

 

Many thanks in advance.

 

 

 

 

Good morning,

 

I think the motor might be a Zenith. 

 

The Jamieson B1 looks well-made, but the lining on the tender is incorrect; it should just be a rectangle below the coping plate. It's similar to the way a few ex-LMS Fowler tenders were lined. 

 

My own Jamieson B1 is some 45 years old............

 

 

Seen running in Bytham's early days.

 

I don't know which came first - Jamieson's B1 or the same firm's V2? I say that because both had the same tender, which really only suits the V2 (and only a few at that) because the front cut-out is large (similar in size to the rear one), when it should be small. I built the B1 tender in complete ignorance!

 

 

This image should show the difference in the cut-outs - the far one being suitable for a B1, not the near one. 

 

And, rather going off at a tangent..................

 

 

The first V2 had the LNER 4200 gal GS tender with the larger cut-out (built from a Jamieson kit, painted by Geoff Haynes and now running on Grantham). 

 

Two more Jamieson kits I've built running on Little Bytham...........

 

 

Have different styles of tender with the large front cut-out, 60821 painted by me and 60820 painted by Ian Rathbone.

 

 

The Nu-Cast kit provides the most-common V2 tender (with small front cut-out), this one painted by Geoff Haynes. 

 

 

The Bachmann tender is ideal for a B1. 

 

And finally........

 

 

One more shot of my Jamieson B1, in company with another 4-6-0 of much the same vintage; an ancient Nu-Cast B16/3 (on a scratch-built chassis). I still keep these pieces of antiquity, not so much to run these days but more out of curiosity. They're just nowhere near 'current standards'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

[Re6/6]

Very many thanks Tony. 

 

Looking at it, the totem is too high so that will have to be replaced and lining alterations will have to be made. I'll have to find the bow pens!

[MarkC]

On 12/06/2024 at 22:17, D.Platt said:

Evening All

I have just mentioned a project , after finishing a nu-cast B16/3 a couple of years ago I fancied building a B16/1 . I managed to buy  a DJH kit for a “bargain” price off eBay .

Now I’ve picked up on here off Tony and others that this kit has its problems so I purchased an Isinglass drawing . Wow where do I start ? from thinking the footplate and boiler were the correct length…I realised as Eric Morecambe once said “ they are all the right notes but not necessary in the correct order”

I’m looking at buying a PDK chassis for it because the DJH one is so basic  , but I’m left thinking  (dangerous)

is continuing with the DJH kit worth the time and trouble ? or should I just buy a complete PDK kit .

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

Dennis

Hello Dennis

 

The DJH B16 is no different than at least 2 of their other ex-NER/LNER offerings, I suggest.

 

Take their A8. On its own it looks fine. However, stand it next to a Little Engines A8 and there are differences. Doubtless placing a 52F Models A8 next to the other two will be different again, and my money would be on the 52F for accuracy. (The same is true of the DJH H1 (NER Class D), which is the same body as the A8.)

 

Similarly, the Little Engines A6 is a nice model, capturing the classic Edwardian appearance of the class. However, compared to a North Eastern Kits (Arthur Kimber) A6, which again will be more accurate, then there are obvious dimensional errors.

 

I guess that in many ways, your DJH B16 would be fine as a "layout loco". Certainly there are quite a few that have been built & run.

 

Oh, the DJH A8 & H1 are improved when the bodies are fitted to 52F chassis - and AFAIK the A8 & B16 were produced by DJH using the same basic chassis, so it might be possible to cut down a 52F chassis to suit the B16?

 

Mark

[MJI]

11 hours ago, 1471SirFrederickBanbury said:

I’m just always glad when modelling pre-war LNER that the original engineering drawings are available via the NRM.  I also hilariously stumbled on a realisation a while ago: that realisation being, that the publicly available scan on the original A1 drawings were a near perfect 1/76.2 on my computer when I opened it in a new tab!  Of course, I feel that sort of thing only has partial value, as I find it easier and more helpful to convert the units on a dimension on a drawing and divide by 76.2, only measuring the printed drawing where absolutely necessary, but it’s a great (perhaps not) coincidence either way.

Do you? or do you multiply feet by 4?

 

These older mixed format scales are good for this, 4mm is the best.

[John Tomlinson]

20 hours ago, Orion said:

Don't forget that manufacturers still make errors today, even with 3D scanning, exclusive access to real locos in a building, free of weather problems, an almost infinite supply of photos etc etc.

 

In the good old days, all you needed was a few dimensions, one or two grainy photos (if you were lucky) and a few stiff whiskies and you could draw almost anything - inaccurately, of course. 

 

Re. your first sentence, isn't that the truth!

 

Even more so with diesels, and a glance through most of the topics relating to loco releases will show the controversy generated, right up to the present day.

 

Arguments about whether compound curves are "correct", windows the right size or a fraction of a millimetre out, and all manner of other discrepancies abound. Quite funny in a way, when most of the purchasers will be running said loco on track that is underwidth by 12%!

 

John.

[Mark Laidlay]

38 minutes ago, John Tomlinson said:

 

Quite funny in a way, when most of the purchasers will be running said loco on track that is underwidth by 12%!

 

John.

And under length by substantially more........

 

[Hollar]

23 hours ago, john new said:

As a former Editor of the SLS Journal and also the three most recent of the Society books the onus on checking the drawings, illustrations and captions is down to the authors. I have some knowledge of the prototype but not every detail of the specifics that were covered in various articles.  In a small publishing house like the SLS it is one person doing the lot, in small commercial organisations there will be some extra employees but likewise they won't have detailed knowledge of everything. 

 

I know during my time I c**ked up one article with some corrupted formulae but they were complicated and incomprehensible to me as a non-scientist/specialist in that field. Typically also for that issue there had not been time to send out an author's proof. These errors happen however much you try not to let them creep in. Going back to the drawing mentioned above would I have spotted it? Possibly not as what I would have been looking for (after the blindingly obvious is it the GT3 image?) was that the drawing had sufficient clarity to be readable, was inserted into the document correctly and without the distortion earlier posters have mentioned etc.

 

Incidentally image distortion through wrong use of the graphics fitting tools in software is surprisingly common across published works, most noticeably with the images used in adverts. As for wrong images book covers are often awful with regard to the accuracy of the chosen image even when they make a very nice looking cover. Example this cover which IS NOT of a Welsh narrow gauge engine however much the descriptions in the plot are a composite (The murder is at Devil's Bridge). Whether or not the cover designer has any knowledge of trains is immaterial, it will however be what the American & Canadian buyer expects a steam train to look like.

 

Many years ago I was editor of a small scholarly journal.  In the evening of deadline day I was faced with a paper which dealt with a live topic but was so  poorly written that it's conclusion wasn't clear.  I read it several times and decided that there was only one sane conclusion that could be reached, so I did a small rewrite and ran it round to the printer. . .   Never spoke to me again even though I didn't  mention muddy writing or weird conclusion.

 

Tony

[Barclay]

Published drawings must always be checked for dimensional accuracy. I owned the Backwoods Miniatures crane tank kit for some years before I built it, and someone once told me it was HO scale, not 4mm. I checked it against the drawing in the Modeller from about 1970, and all seemed fine, until I double checked the dimensions. It really is HO, as is the drawing ! I can only assume therefore that the kit manufacturer sized it directly from this drawing... I also have reservations about the industrial Garratt - it's the right length but seems a little narrow. I've built both anyway but it's a valuable lesson I feel. 

[t-b-g]

2 minutes ago, Barclay said:

Published drawings must always be checked for dimensional accuracy. I owned the Backwoods Miniatures crane tank kit for some years before I built it, and someone once told me it was HO scale, not 4mm. I checked it against the drawing in the Modeller from about 1970, and all seemed fine, until I double checked the dimensions. It really is HO, as is the drawing ! I can only assume therefore that the kit manufacturer sized it directly from this drawing... I also have reservations about the industrial Garratt - it's the right length but seems a little narrow. I've built both anyway but it's a valuable lesson I feel. 

 

You raise a matter which has been giving me much thought recently.

 

I started building a kit but only got hold of a drawing part way through construction. I had just been cutting bits off the etch and cleaning off cusps.

 

The kit looks OK and the bits, most of them anyway, fitted together on a dry run. A photo of a built up one looks quite good. It is a fairly obscure prototype that most people won't know very well.

 

When I got hold of the drawing, the whole kit turns out to be a mess. There are numerous faults, some of which would almost need a scratchbuilt replacement to correct.

 

So if I hadn't found a drawing, I would have been happy building it as it came. Now I know it is wrong, my enthusiasm for carrying on has vanished.

 

Perhaps too much knowledge isn't always a good thing!

 

 

[Michael Edge]

How many kits come with a drawing? Not many in my experience but all of ours come with an accurately printed reproduction of what was used to create the kit so if I have made any mistakes (and I have!) they are there for all to see.

[Tony Wright]

Some very interesting comments of late. Thanks for all the posts.

 

Tony Gee's comment above regarding 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing' set me thinking, though rather tangentially (as usual). 

 

Having built over 500 locos and countless carriages (plus a couple of score of wagons/vans), I very much doubt if any are really 'accurate' (discounting the fact that most are 'narrow gauge'). Many were built in 'ignorance' over five decades, but at least I have them. Remember, I build layout locos and layout trains (a term first coined by the late Iain Rice, though occasionally derided on here - nonetheless, I like it). 

 

One such layout loco(s)/layout train is 'The Queen of Scots'. Built around 30 years ago now, it's done countless miles on Stoke Summit and Little Bytham. I built the locos (DJH A1s) which pull it and built the whole train (Ian Rathbone painted the whole ensemble; brilliantly!).

 

Anyway, I thought I'd take a few shots of it in action yesterday on Little Bytham.

 

 

I hope 'I' managed to get a decent picture.

 

 

 

Other photographers were present, too. One on top of the Down station building!

 

Slightly 'jaunty' train headboards were not uncommon. 

 

 

Speaking of 'dangerous' knowledge, it might be that that Parlour Third Pullman has the number of one of the 1928 all-steel K cars, when, in fact, it's an earlier wooden-bodied (with aluminium cladding) car with angle trussing and curved roof rainstrip. If it's incorrect, it's my fault, not Ian's because I gave him a list of numbers/names to apply. Will it be altered? One guess! 

 

 

The photographer on the roof has swung round to capture the pair of Leeds-only cars at the front of the rake.

 

 

And off she goes (the rear brake riding on Gresley 10' HD heavy-duty bogies). 

 

And, the conclusion? I think (mainly due to Ian's painting) the whole ensemble 'works'. Of course, 30 years ago, if one wanted 'accurate' Pullman trains it was this approach in the main - Comet sides stuck to Hornby donors riding on proper bogies. 

 

Today, such an approach is unnecessary because Hornby makes all the appropriate Pullmans (if you can get them) and Bachmann makes an RTR A1. But, in a way, so what? By far the most important thing for me is that I've made all this. Yes, me. Granted, it would be of little real merit without Ian Rathbone's painting, but I'm aware of my limitations. 

 

I suppose it comes down to 'personal' modelling, warts and all. As many have said, nothing beats being able to say 'I made that', even though it might be the product of 'ignorance' in part and help has been needed. Personal modelling, at least to me, is far more-rewarding than the acquisition of RTR wonderment or commissioned work, even though it might be 'inferior'.  

 

Needless to say, I made just a bit of the environment through which the QoS is running, but I'm very much part of the team which built LB. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 16 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Tony Wright]

Another 'layout train' (for which I'm wholly responsible, apart from the rear BR Mk.1s, which are the work of Dave Lewis from his own Southern Pride kits) is 'The Elizabethan'. I thought I'd take some more pictures of that. 

 

 

Actually, more of the loco, in this case a South Eastern Finecast A4 (built by me, painted by Geoff Haynes). 

 

60013 was a regular on the 'Lizzie' in 1958.

 

 

The Thompson PV cars were made using Southern Pride sides fixed to 'mutilated' original Bachmann Thompsons (in this case, all painted by me). 

 

 

Though I never saw steam at Little Bytham, this three-quarter 'going away' shot is so redolent of my memories of watching A4s at speed further north. 

 

Recently, a friend showed me images of a Lawrence/Goddard Elizabethan for sale on Ebay. Though beautifully-finished, the cars appeared to be no more than standard Comet Thompsons with just 'monsoon' ventilators on the roof; not the correct PV stock, though it was not highly-priced as far as I could see.  

Edited June 16 by Tony Wright
typo error

[Barclay]

Ignorance would definitely be bliss in my case, but knowing this is wrong doesn't stop me running an HO scale loco on my EM layout. It has definitely made me more suspicious of drawings, and kits, going forward though !

 

[Tony Wright]

Regarding the two prestige trains I featured earlier, it's gratifying to know that after nearly 30 years, both the trains and the contemporary locos which haul them are still going strong. 

 

 

The 'Queen of Scots' ran originally on Leighford (coincidental with an article in BRM), but for most of its exhibition running it saw service on Stoke Summit; here bombing along behind KESTREL but without the headboard.

 

 

And now running on Little Bytham - same loco, same train but many years separating these shots.

 

 

The 'Lizzie' first saw exhibition running on Kirkfield (coincidental with another article in BRM), but, like the QoS, most of its exhibition mileage was achieved on Stoke Summit.

 

 

And now with the same loco (KINGFISHER, built from a Pro-Scale kit with Ian Rathbone's painting) running on Little Bytham (this shot was taken before the girder bridge was replaced and the point rodding finished). 

 

Three other express trains which ran on Stoke Summit and now on LB included........

 

 

The morning Talisman (again coincidental with a BRM article, when Bachmann's BR Mk.1s were first introduced). 

 

 

And it now runs on LB, but in the opposite direction.

 

 

I made-up 'The West Riding' for Stoke Summit using a mixture of modified and kit-built cars. Fiddle yard restrictions meant it was a couple of cars short. 

 

 

 

But no such restrictions apply on Bytham......

 

Another Stoke/Bytham express was the afternoon 'Talisman'.........

 

 

For some reason, I never took its picture on Stoke Summit but it's still running well (as is ALCAZAR) on LB.

 

Some of the sets I've described also worked on Biggleswade. I imagine they'll all outlive me! 

 

I wonder how many other model express trains are still going well after three decades. I mean long ones, travelling at high speed over long-distance exhibition/home running. Any examples? 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 16 by Tony Wright
clumsy grammar

[dibateg]

Sorry for the late report - I have been away.

 

DJH B16/1 - That was a long time ago - but as I recall there is something wrong with the wheelbase ( I think the coupled wheelset was too far forward ) , which maked the rear splashers too long. So I did a reshuffle with the frames and modified the splashers. It's easy enough to make a replacement boiler from brass.

 

Given the choice now, I'd probably go with the PDK, but modifying the DJH kit is a good exercise in model making!

 

I only have a very poor picture form the very early days of digital photography...

 

Regards

Tony

Edited June 17 by dibateg
More pictures