Wright writes.....

[trw1089]

A little while back Jonathan mentioned Three Aitch kits.  I was given one recently which I made up with improved brake gear and buffers, along with a supposedly LNER van of unknown origin that was in a box of detail parts I acquired recently.  I’m always inspired by the great work on here, so hope you don’t mind an amateur such as myself posting.

 

Regards

Tony

 

[St Enodoc]

5 hours ago, jamieb said:

I've lived in both Steyning and Portslade in my time.One is considerably more picturesque than the other!

Ah, that depends which part of Portslade - old (north of) or new (south of) the Old Shoreham Road - of course. I lived at the top of Mile Oak, two minutes walk from the Downs (before they built the Brighton by-pass...).

[jrg1]

5 hours ago, 1471SirFrederickBanbury said:

May I suggest the use of broken tungsten anodes (broken using a hammer of course), with the gaps filled with tungsten powder?  Tungsten is almost twice as dense as Lead and Liquid Gravity isn't the most space efficient form of lead anyways.  I think the difference would be significant, and bot forms of Tungsten aren't that expensive when bought off of Ebay.

You can buy very low melting point metal-it will melt in boiling water.  It can be puddled into bodies or chassis-even plastic.

[St Enodoc]

1 minute ago, jrg1 said:

You can buy very low melting point metal-it will melt in boiling water.  It can be puddled into bodies or chassis-even plastic.

Cerrobend is one such.

[1471SirFrederickBanbury]

2 hours ago, jrg1 said:

You can buy very low melting point metal-it will melt in boiling water.  It can be puddled into bodies or chassis-even plastic.

Yes, but as such metals are far less dense than Tungsten, perhaps the order of adding weight should be: fill cavity with crushed solid Tungsten, fill the gaps with tungsten powder, and lastly, seal the whole thing with a low melt metal.  That would probably ensure maximum possible weight.

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, 1471SirFrederickBanbury said:

May I suggest the use of broken tungsten anodes (broken using a hammer of course), with the gaps filled with tungsten powder?  Tungsten is almost twice as dense as Lead and Liquid Gravity isn't the most space efficient form of lead anyways.  I think the difference would be significant, and bot forms of Tungsten aren't that expensive when bought off of Ebay.

Good morning Rohan,

 

I don't think 'Liquid Gravity' is lead-based. The reason I say this is that it's attracted to magnets (as I found to me cost when I spilled some and it covered a motor! It was the very Devil to remove). It must be ferrous, then? 

 

Now, I'm not a physicist, so I'm guessing here, but it's recommended as ballast in rolling stock; locomotives are not mentioned. Could that be because it might affect the magnetic flux surrounding a motor, if it surrounds a motor itself? To the detriment of that motor? 

 

Empirical (if slightly tangential) evidence suggests not. The motor failed in the Redcraft B&M 0-6-0ST not because of 'magnetic interference', but because the motor's brushes became unscrewed, ceased making good contact on the commutator, overheated and melted their plastic housing! Anyway, the 'Liquid Gravity' was well away from the motor. 

 

At one Glasgow Show, Shap Summit was in attendance, and Mo and I were present as well. I had a Britannia with me, formed from a Hornby (originally) tender-drive ANZAC. Since I have an almost pathological loathing of tender-drove units, I'd made Comet frames for it for both the loco and the tender, riding on Markits wheels, with a big Portescap providing the motive power. I altered its identity to DORNOCH FIRTH (and weathered it), because I saw that actual loco (by then shedded at Leeds, not in Scotland) rolling through Retford on a Down fast freight (my logic being that it must have come on to the train at Peterborough, and, thus, run through Little Bytham). 

 

And, applying that logic.................

 

 

I put my model on a Down fast freight, running through my own Little Bytham.

 

 

 

In both directions. 

 

In order that it could haul such freights, I'd ballasted it with 'Liquid Lead' (which is non-ferrous), and all was well. 

 

To return to Scotland, I asked the kindly Graham Nicholas if he'd like to borrow 70054 to run on Shap for the duration of the show (DORNOCH FIRTH being more-commonly seen on the WCML rather than on the ECML), and he said 'Yes please'. However, not long after, he returned with it, saying 'It won't climb the bank. It just slips to a standstill!'. Obviously, always being 'jealous' about my locos' abilities to haul really heavy trains (uphill!), this was intolerable, especially in front of spectators! So, I bought a 'bottle' of 'Liquid Gravity' at the show, took of 70054's lid and investigated how to get more weight onboard (or inboard?). There was plenty of space left inside (Bytham is 'flat', and there was enough 'Liquid Lead' inside to enable her to haul trains 'on the level'), so I added more 'Gravity', holding it it place with superglue (never use PVA for securing extra weight - the horror stories of 'exploding' boilers are well-known!).

 

And, the result......................

 

 

 

 

Away she went over Shap without the slightest hesitation (yes, I know it's only on eight cars, but more could be handled with ease). 

 

At this time, I was unaware of the ferrous nature of 'Liquid Gravity', and had effectively surrounded 70054's motor with it (it was later that I found out how well it stuck to a magnet!).

 

Anyway, not only did 70054 run easily up Shap over the three days of the Glasgow Show, I then sold her to Graham, and she's run ever since (and on his latest, vast project).

 

The empirical evidence? She still continues to run perfectly. Could it be that a coreless motor is not potentially affected? Could it be that no motor is affected? As I say, I'm not a physicist.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

6 hours ago, trw1089 said:

A little while back Jonathan mentioned Three Aitch kits.  I was given one recently which I made up with improved brake gear and buffers, along with a supposedly LNER van of unknown origin that was in a box of detail parts I acquired recently.  I’m always inspired by the great work on here, so hope you don’t mind an amateur such as myself posting.

 

Regards

Tony

 

Good morning Tony,

 

Great stuff!

 

Thanks for showing us.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[jamieb]

7 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Ah, that depends which part of Portslade - old (north of) or new (south of) the Old Shoreham Road - of course. I lived at the top of Mile Oak, two minutes walk from the Downs (before they built the Brighton by-pass...).

South, near the bright lights of Boundary Road 

Portslade old village is nice, I'll give you that!

[St Enodoc]

31 minutes ago, jamieb said:

Portslade old village is nice

Especially the St George and the Stag's Head. Our local, the Mile Oak, was a bit of a characterless roadhouse on a road to nowhere but the local crowd made up for that. Happy days.

[Tony Wright]

My posting of the build sequence for the Redcraft B&M 0-6-0ST seemed to generate some little interest........

 

That being the case, how about the build sequence for the Brassmasters 0-8-4T I also built in EM for Rob Kinsey's Merthyr Riverside?

 

To call the kit 'challenging' is probably appropriate...........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The rest to follow.....................

 

 

[Tony Wright]

More on the Brassmasters 0-8-4T...........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Geoff Haynes painted it.

 

It, too, can be seen running on Merthyr Riverside at Expo EM North next month in Shipley.

 

 

[john new]

On 16/07/2024 at 17:59, Barry O said:

Any none acrylic ink (I use lots of Windsor and Newton inks from rhe Tamge or my.local printers. Black comes from a big bottle of rotring  ink. Dilute to taste but add a very small amount of washing in.liquid).

 

The less water you add, the more shiny matt it becomes.

Add powders when dry .or add powders to wet to the touch inks as this produces a surface "crusty to the touch" finish.

 

If you done like it use water, CIF and a toothbrush

 

It's all in my weathering with ink and powders: thread..or else come to the Summer expo EM at Shipley.

 

Pm me if you need any more info.

 

Baz

 

 

I use a similar watercolour based painting system for weathering. Not the same method as Baz’s but as with his it does not affect any underlying finish and is 100% removable. Will be showing the technique at the Bridport show on 27th. My weathering results may not be as good as that done by many of the experts on here but it is the technique I am demonstrating to encourage people to have a go themselves.

 

 

 

[john new]

On 15/07/2024 at 22:04, 46444 said:

Evening Tony,

 

Hope you don't mind me posting some snaps of one of the Bachmann LT Pannier tanks I have been working on for my layout Juniper Hill Tip.

 

Lamp irons corrected, missing handrails added and RT Models etched sanding rods added. 

 

 

Steve at Railtec made me up a selection of 3D printed LT reporting number sets.

 

The cab roof rain gutters have been modified as per the prototypes to fit into the Metropolitan Lines loading gauge.

 

Cab curtains have been made from masking tape dusted with ground pastels.

 

 

Here's L90 in action on my Juniper Hill Tip LT based layout

 

 

It will be making its exhibition debut at Filey this forthcoming Saturday. 

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

 

Very much like that weathering.

[Geep7]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I don't think 'Liquid Gravity' is lead-based. The reason I say this is that it's attracted to magnets (as I found to me cost when I spilled some and it covered a motor! It was the very Devil to remove). It must be ferrous, then? 

 

 

 

 

I've come to that conclusion as well, as when i've used PVA to fix it in place, after a while I have noticed it going rusty. As you've mentioned, I only ever fix it with superglue now.

[Tony Teague]

In extreme cases this is the consequence of using PVA:

 

 

Boiler split!

 

Tony

[1471SirFrederickBanbury]

5 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Rohan,

 

I don't think 'Liquid Gravity' is lead-based. The reason I say this is that it's attracted to magnets (as I found to me cost when I spilled some and it covered a motor! It was the very Devil to remove). It must be ferrous, then? 

 

Now, I'm not a physicist, so I'm guessing here, but it's recommended as ballast in rolling stock; locomotives are not mentioned. Could that be because it might affect the magnetic flux surrounding a motor, if it surrounds a motor itself? To the detriment of that motor? 

 

Empirical (if slightly tangential) evidence suggests not. The motor failed in the Redcraft B&M 0-6-0ST not because of 'magnetic interference', but because the motor's brushes became unscrewed, ceased making good contact on the commutator, overheated and melted their plastic housing! Anyway, the 'Liquid Gravity' was well away from the motor. 

 

At one Glasgow Show, Shap Summit was in attendance, and Mo and I were present as well. I had a Britannia with me, formed from a Hornby (originally) tender-drive ANZAC. Since I have an almost pathological loathing of tender-drove units, I'd made Comet frames for it for both the loco and the tender, riding on Markits wheels, with a big Portescap providing the motive power. I altered its identity to DORNOCH FIRTH (and weathered it), because I saw that actual loco (by then shedded at Leeds, not in Scotland) rolling through Retford on a Down fast freight (my logic being that it must have come on to the train at Peterborough, and, thus, run through Little Bytham). 

 

And, applying that logic.................

 

 

I put my model on a Down fast freight, running through my own Little Bytham.

 

 

 

In both directions. 

 

In order that it could haul such freights, I'd ballasted it with 'Liquid Lead' (which is non-ferrous), and all was well. 

 

To return to Scotland, I asked the kindly Graham Nicholas if he'd like to borrow 70054 to run on Shap for the duration of the show (DORNOCH FIRTH being more-commonly seen on the WCML rather than on the ECML), and he said 'Yes please'. However, not long after, he returned with it, saying 'It won't climb the bank. It just slips to a standstill!'. Obviously, always being 'jealous' about my locos' abilities to haul really heavy trains (uphill!), this was intolerable, especially in front of spectators! So, I bought a 'bottle' of 'Liquid Gravity' at the show, took of 70054's lid and investigated how to get more weight onboard (or inboard?). There was plenty of space left inside (Bytham is 'flat', and there was enough 'Liquid Lead' inside to enable her to haul trains 'on the level'), so I added more 'Gravity', holding it it place with superglue (never use PVA for securing extra weight - the horror stories of 'exploding' boilers are well-known!).

 

And, the result......................

 

 

 

 

Away she went over Shap without the slightest hesitation (yes, I know it's only on eight cars, but more could be handled with ease). 

 

At this time, I was unaware of the ferrous nature of 'Liquid Gravity', and had effectively surrounded 70054's motor with it (it was later that I found out how well it stuck to a magnet!).

 

Anyway, not only did 70054 run easily up Shap over the three days of the Glasgow Show, I then sold her to Graham, and she's run ever since (and on his latest, vast project).

 

The empirical evidence? She still continues to run perfectly. Could it be that a coreless motor is not potentially affected? Could it be that no motor is affected? As I say, I'm not a physicist.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

That would mean that its probably Iron, or some allow of it, which makes Tungsten look even better as an option, as in all cases, it will be at least 2.5 times heavier, and with Liquid Gravity being composed of spheres, then the more likely difference using the three metal strategy I proposed earlier would be 3-4 times heavier!  Although it seems my source of solid Tungsten (anodes at $3 1/3, or 2.6 pounds an ounce) wont ship to the UK unfortunately,  Tungsten weights and powder are cheap enough where it would make sense for anything where you'd want to double the weight.  For reference, if RTR models were able to substitute their Zinc castings and steel weights with Tungsten, they'd be 4 times heavier, and would be able to pull, well, more than we could ever need them too!

Edited July 19 by 1471SirFrederickBanbury
add the USD amount to show what I calculated/rounded for price

[Barry O]

Tungsten is a very hard to machine metal.. can't imagine RTR manufacturers switching to it. If you want a really heavy metal.. use depleted uranium.. its now the metal of choice for tank munition... ( 3xcept Germany as they don't seem to have much of it..)

 

Baz

Edited July 19 by Barry O
Spellung

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, Barry O said:

Tungsten is a very hard to mach8ne metal.. can't imagine RTR manufacturers switching to it. If want a really heavy metal.. use depleted uranium.. its nowcthe metal of choice for tank munition...

 

Baz

 

[polybear]

2 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

 

 

Every time I see that film I wonder if they managed to get the gold or not - and if so then how.....

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, 1471SirFrederickBanbury said:

That would mean that its probably Iron, or some allow of it, which makes Tungsten look even better as an option, as in all cases, it will be at least 2.5 times heavier, and with Liquid Gravity being composed of spheres, then the more likely difference using the three metal strategy I proposed earlier would be 3-4 times heavier!  Although it seems my source of solid Tungsten (anodes at $3 1/3, or 2.6 pounds an ounce) wont ship to the UK unfortunately,  Tungsten weights and powder are cheap enough where it would make sense for anything where you'd want to double the weight.  For reference, if RTR models were able to substitute their Zinc castings and steel weights with Tungsten, they'd be 4 times heavier, and would be able to pull, well, more than we could ever need them too!

Good afternoon Rohan,

 

I've never tried to obtain tungsten as ballast.

 

As intimated, I use proprietary weight-adding products, but usually use roofing lead sheet, which is easy to cut and shape and (very important) can be soldered with (ease) using low-melt inside metal-bodied locos. I got to know a few builder mates, and they gave me plenty of offcuts. 

 

Another source of lead is (or was) redundant balancing pieces taken from cars' wheel rims when tyres are changed (the lead can be prised/cut off from the metal clip relatively easily).

 

I certainly don't apply any 'science' to how I ballast my locos (I adopt a 'weight & see' approach). I put the finished loco on to the heaviest train it'll be expected to haul. If it takes it (with a little, prototypical, wheel-slip on starting) then that's enough. I see little point in weighting a loco so much that wheel-slip on starting is eliminated - it'll wear out its bearings/rods unnecessarily quickly.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Bucoops]

I'm not sure if it actually happened but Accurascale were certainly looking at using Tungsten as a material within one or more locos.

[Tony Wright]

Looking back through old discs showing step-by-step pictures of locomotives I've built, it crossed my mind how 'unnecessary' some have now become. Take a J69 for instance, built from a South Eastern Finecast kit..............

 

 

Which motor/gearbox to choose?

 

 

The big one, with a flywheel!

 

And, so on.................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thoroughly-tested on Little Bytham on completion, before off to the layout for which it was built - Grantham.

 

Graham Nicholas painted it, and, every time I've seen the layout, it's been working (perfectly) as south end pilot.

 

How did Graham pay for it? By building some of, and installing Bytham's main line signals. I thoroughly recommend barter!

 

I built/painted/weathered another SEF J69 as a Christmas present for Ian Wilson...........

 

 

 

Who didn't have it for long, because Accurascale borrowed it when the firm started working on its own 'Buckjumper'. It won't be because of the loan of the kit-built model that Accurascale example will be superb, but it might have helped just a tiny bit.

 

See what I mean about building something like the above being unnecessary now?

 

More non-necessities to come............

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

How about 'Big Bertha', soon to be available RTR?

 

I built her from a DJH kit.............

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Geoff Haynes painted her.

 

 

Including the cab interior.

 

 

After which she was thoroughly-tested on LB before going off to the Far East and her owner. 

 

Not long after she'd been completed, Mashima motors became scarce.

 

So much so....................

 

 

That Comet redesigned its gearbox mountings to take a Canon motor - an ideal solution. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

One loco which will probably never appear RTR is the SR W 2-6-4T (but what do I know?).

 

I built one from a South Eastern Finecast kit for review...........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ian Rathbone later painted it.

 

 

Has anyone ever tried to build one of these other than in OO?

 

Clearances area bit tight!

 

 

[Bernard Lamb]

It seems that WW has turned into a ' find the ugliest loco' competition.

😀

Bernard