Wright writes.....

[t-b-g]

So if I build a loco to haul a 6 coach train at a scale 60mph, perhaps with friction fit driving wheels and it performs faultlessly and later on somebody else gets the loco, puts it on a 14 coach train at a scale 100mph and the loco fails, that is my fault and I should hang my head in shame as an inadequate loco builder.

 

Many locos are built to perform specific duties on specific layouts. If they fail when asked to perform well above what they were built for, blaming the builder is very harsh.

 

I had to pin the driving wheels on one of my locos. It performed superbly on my layout when I built it. I ran it on another layout on a much longer train and the quartering slipped. How could I have known as I didn't have a big layout with long trains to test it on?

[Tony Wright]

5 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

So if I build a loco to haul a 6 coach train at a scale 60mph, perhaps with friction fit driving wheels and it performs faultlessly and later on somebody else gets the loco, puts it on a 14 coach train at a scale 100mph and the loco fails, that is my fault and I should hang my head in shame as an inadequate loco builder.

 

Many locos are built to perform specific duties on specific layouts. If they fail when asked to perform well above what they were built for, blaming the builder is very harsh.

 

I had to pin the driving wheels on one of my locos. It performed superbly on my layout when I built it. I ran it on another layout on a much longer train and the quartering slipped. How could I have known as I didn't have a big layout with long trains to test it on?

Good morning Tony,

 

I'm assuming your observations are based on the A3 which is now on Retford.

 

Harsh criticisms? Harsh to blame the builder?

 

Just for the record, I saw some of the original paperwork when I sold the collection on behalf of the widow (some of the commissioned prices were eye-watering!) So, one pays the builder well in excess of four figures for a model locomotive, the prototype of which WILL haul 14 coaches at 100 mph. For the next few years it lives in a glass case, then; it's asked to do what the equivalent of the prototype will do, and it falls to bits! I'd say whoever built it should be criticised. Unless (and I found no evidence of this,) the late commissioner instructed the commissioned to build what was effectively a 'static' model (with a motor), informing him that it doesn't need to be built robustly enough to do in scale what the  prototype will. And, if you ever did try it on such a duty, don't be surprised that it WILL fall to bits! 

 

Just for your information, the A3 in question was tested on a lightweight train at slow speed when it first failed.

 

I can forgive 'cheap and tatty' locos for failing, but how would you like it if you'd paid a builder (originally) well over a grand for a loco which is not fit for purpose? 

 

My view on this matter is very simple. No matter what the layout I build a loco for might be, and even if the commissioner has no layout at all, the loco I build will be able to do in scale what its prototype will (and more). If it won't do that, without fuss or failure, over a protracted period of time, then I WILL hold my head in shame.

 

By the way, were you present at Retford when the LNER Society recently visited?  Robert tells me that 60526 (which he now owns) was brought to a dead stand from a scale 70, hauling a heavy train, because of a sticking micro-switch at Babworth. That would have turned that A3's mechanics into mincemeat! Apparently, SUGAR PALM suffered no ill effects at all! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

In answer to the question asked yesterday, Mo and I have sent over £18,000 to CRUK over the last six years.

 

This has come from donations for my fixing locos at shows, general donations made at shows, donations from those I've helped in their model-making, donations from visitors to Little Bytham, donations from sales of models donated and 10% from sales of models on behalf of bereaved/distressed families (the last-mentioned being substantial). 

 

People have been incredibly generous, and our thanks to you all. 

[Captain Kernow]

With friction-fit driving wheels, I find there is a bit of a different between Ultrascale and Gibson. The former (also having nickel silver treads, which I personally favour as they can't rust) are actually not quite so tight on the axles as compared to Gibsons (which have steel treads). Having said I prefer the N/S treads of Ultrascales, I've never had the steel treads of any of my own locos rust, although I have seen it elsewhere and where I've been asked for advice about it, it was to replace the drivers with new (ie. non-rusty) ones.

 

I have resorted to pinning Ultrascale wheels to axles before now (and also one or two Gibsons, but mostly Ultrascales).

 

However, having said all of the above, if it were possible to use a self-quartering fixing like with Markits wheels, albeit in P4, then I'd be a happy bunny indeed...

 

[t-b-g]

16 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Tony,

 

I'm assuming your observations are based on the A3 which is now on Retford.

 

Harsh criticisms? Harsh to blame the builder?

 

Just for the record, I saw some of the original paperwork when I sold the collection on behalf of the widow (some of the commissioned prices were eye-watering!) So, one pays the builder well in excess of four figures for a model locomotive, the prototype of which WILL haul 14 coaches at 100 mph. For the next few years it lives in a glass case, then; it's asked to do what the equivalent of the prototype will do, and it falls to bits! I'd say whoever built it should be criticised. Unless (and I found no evidence of this,) the late commissioner instructed the commissioned to build what was effectively a 'static' model (with a motor), informing him that it doesn't need to be built robustly enough to do in scale what the  prototype will. And, if you ever did try it on such a duty, don't be surprised that it WILL fall to bits! 

 

Just for your information, the A3 in question was tested on a lightweight train at slow speed when it first failed.

 

I can forgive 'cheap and tatty' locos for failing, but how would you like it if you'd paid a builder (originally) well over a grand for a loco which is not fit for purpose? 

 

My view on this matter is very simple. No matter what the layout I build a loco for might be, and even if the commissioner has no layout at all, the loco I build will be able to do in scale what its prototype will (and more). If it won't do that, without fuss or failure, over a protracted period of time, then I WILL hold my head in shame.

 

By the way, were you present at Retford when the LNER Society recently visited?  Robert tells me that 60526 (which he now owns) was brought to a dead stand from a scale 70, hauling a heavy train, because of a sticking micro-switch at Babworth. That would have turned that A3's mechanics into mincemeat! Apparently, SUGAR PALM suffered no ill effects at all! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

All I am saying is that there are so few layouts like Retford that expecting every builder to build every loco so that it will pull the heaviest trains on it is unrealistic. If you can't test a loco in such a situation, it is impossible to tell if it will survive.

 

I wasn't thinking of the A3 on Retford when I posted. I prefer to talk about my failings, rather than criticise the work of unknown others. I was thinking about when I took my Q4 to run on it. It managed the 25 wagons on Tickhill and Wadworth with no problems and it had the adhesion to pull 60 wagons on Retford but the Ultrascale wheels slipped.

 

I simply could not have known that such a thing would happen when I built it.

 

 

[Michael Edge]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

So if I build a loco to haul a 6 coach train at a scale 60mph, perhaps with friction fit driving wheels and it performs faultlessly and later on somebody else gets the loco, puts it on a 14 coach train at a scale 100mph and the loco fails, that is my fault and I should hang my head in shame as an inadequate loco builder.

 

Many locos are built to perform specific duties on specific layouts. If they fail when asked to perform well above what they were built for, blaming the builder is very harsh.

 

I had to pin the driving wheels on one of my locos. It performed superbly on my layout when I built it. I ran it on another layout on a much longer train and the quartering slipped. How could I have known as I didn't have a big layout with long trains to test it on?

There is a full size equivalent to this, 08 shunters have a remarkable tendency to suffer shifted cranks when used to move 2500 tons or so...

This was in answer to my question of why don't they run them as A1As.

[1471SirFrederickBanbury]

6 hours ago, polybear said:

 

What scale are you planning to do this in?

I don’t see why it can’t be done in smaller scales, but I’ll be doing it in P4, using a small, fast motor, with a high reduction gearbox (with the 90 degree drive as the final drive) to save a lot of space.  

 

The Bendix type clutch can be made rather small and on the driving wheel axle (as it’s just a threaded sleeve with clutch plates, that interact with a threaded hole in the final drive gear, to move the sleeve towards clutch plates on the axle), the centrifugal and magnet clutches can mounted like regular flywheels, but between the motor and the gearbox.

 

Thankfully, nothing about the clutches is breaking new ground, as I can just buy a centrifugal clutch (I once again advocate Hobbytown of Boston as a valuable source of useful parts and chassis),

 

a magnet clutch is just some magnets and an iron flywheel,

 

and while the Bendix clutch is slightly more complicated, making a threaded sleeve, clutch plates, and tapping holes are not difficult operations, nor are they unusual for the average modeller.

[MJI]

Perhaps i should remotor my western with a micro torque converter.

 

Does anyone do one?

[Tony Wright]

5 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

All I am saying is that there are so few layouts like Retford that expecting every builder to build every loco so that it will pull the heaviest trains on it is unrealistic. If you can't test a loco in such a situation, it is impossible to tell if it will survive.

 

I wasn't thinking of the A3 on Retford when I posted. I prefer to talk about my failings, rather than criticise the work of unknown others. I was thinking about when I took my Q4 to run on it. It managed the 25 wagons on Tickhill and Wadworth with no problems and it had the adhesion to pull 60 wagons on Retford but the Ultrascale wheels slipped.

 

I simply could not have known that such a thing would happen when I built it.

 

 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

I'm not sure if entirely a case of criticising the work of others, unknown or otherwise. 

 

It's my view that any locomotive built on commission must be able to to what its prototype will do, but in model-form. Sandra has every right to be critical of the Finney A3 I sold her (and, by association, critical of the builder). She spent over £700.00 on it (about half what it had cost the late commissioner!). I'm damned critical of the (unknown) builder, because I sold her (in good faith) a beautiful 'dud'. I've been responsible enough to offer to fix it for her, by building a new (Comet) set of frames and non-slip drivers. Or, buy it back off her, get rid of the EM chassis and build one in OO for use on Little Bytham.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Michael Edge]

It shouldn't need new frames, just resetting the drivers and rebuilding the motion. Are they Ultrascale drivers by any chance?

[60526]

I seem to remember that there was a discussion around the SR W a while ago. I bought this model as a non runner some years ago mainly because it looked as though it had been really well made and the paint job on it is superb. I'm always up for a challenge anyway. It's an EM model, I replaced the DS10 motor like for like and made some alterations to the pick-ups, ok, perhaps the wrong motor, but it now runs really well........in a straight line. On a 4 foot curve it seems ok, just, 3'-6", not really, the front and rear pony wheels make contact with either the steps or cylinder drain cocks. If it was professionally made, I wonder what the original buyer thought of this?

 

[t-b-g]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Tony,

 

I'm not sure if entirely a case of criticising the work of others, unknown or otherwise. 

 

It's my view that any locomotive built on commission must be able to to what its prototype will do, but in model-form. Sandra has every right to be critical of the Finney A3 I sold her (and, by association, critical of the builder). She spent over £700.00 on it (about half what it had cost the late commissioner!). I'm damned critical of the (unknown) builder, because I sold her (in good faith) a beautiful 'dud'. I've been responsible enough to offer to fix it for her, by building a new (Comet) set of frames and non-slip drivers. Or, buy it back off her, get rid of the EM chassis and build one in OO for use on Little Bytham.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I have never yet seen a loco with slipped Ultrascale wheels that couldn't be fixed. My Q4 has them and drilling and pinning them took less than a minute a wheel. Surely a better use of time than building a new mechanism. A set of valve gear that can't be fixed would have to be pretty well wrecked too.  Perhaps your prejudice towards friction fit wheels doesn't allow you to consider such options.

 

I have seen the loco on question and it looks great just as it is. My involvement with Retford is mainly working on the station building at the moment but next time I am over there, I will offer to fix it to save you the bother. I am sure it won't take long.

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Michael Edge said:

It shouldn't need new frames, just resetting the drivers and rebuilding the motion. Are they Ultrascale drivers by any chance?

 

They are Mike. They look great and as you say, fixing them is pretty straighforward.

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

It shouldn't need new frames, just resetting the drivers and rebuilding the motion. Are they Ultrascale drivers by any chance?

I think so, Mike.

 

Sorry, just read Tony's response.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited August 4 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Camperdown]

3 hours ago, 60526 said:

"... On a 4 foot curve it seems ok, just, 3'-6", not really, the front and rear pony wheels make contact with either the steps or cylinder drain cocks. If it was professionally made, I wonder what the original buyer thought of this?"
 

On Tony's principle that the model should be able to do what the original could do, then the original owner was presumably happy.  The Prototype W would not have been able to go round (the equivalent of) 3' 6" curves.  Why should the model?

 

There are plenty of layouts with gentle curves where people do not have to compromise on clearances.  It seems pretty unreasonable to expect every model to run around the tight curves on every layout and pull prototype length trains.

[thegreenhowards]

6 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

It's my view that any locomotive built on commission must be able to to what its prototype will do,

Does that include making realistic sounds and smoke effects?! Just asking…..😂

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, Camperdown said:

On Tony's principle that the model should be able to do what the original could do, then the original owner was presumably happy.  The Prototype W would not have been able to go round (the equivalent of) 3' 6" curves.  Why should the model?

 

There are plenty of layouts with gentle curves where people do not have to compromise on clearances.  It seems pretty unreasonable to expect every model to run around the tight curves on every layout and pull prototype length trains.

It seems pointless, to me, to be second-guessing what the original purchaser specified. If the commission was for a "scale model" then the W would turn out as it has. If it was for a model to run on track of 30" radius it would have turned out differently. I suspect that some commissioned "glass case" models don't even have a motor, gears or pickups.

[Michael Edge]

I am occasionally asked to build a model without a motor (presumably to save money) but I always point out that the build cost will be exactly the same whether it runs or not and all they would be saving is the relatively small cost of the motor itself - so I've never actually done it.

[Tony Wright]

The business regarding friction-fit drivers keeps on coming up on regular (if not frequent) basis. My (prejudiced'?) views are well known, but might be summarised thus; any product which has to be modified before it is fit for purpose, I'm suspicious of. 

 

If pinning is necessary to prevent the drivers moving on their axles, what happens when a motor/drive fails and it has to be replaced?

 

Some examples..................

 

 

I sold this ECJM L1 from the collection of a deceased modeller three years ago. A 'glass case' model, its Portescap drive was completely seized up. Foolishly, in trying to release it, I applied pressure to the friction-fit drivers, and they shifted on their axles (obviously not-pinned). This would not have happened with Romford/Markits drivers. 

 

I sold it to a friend who has the ability to put it right (at a much-reduced price, of course).

 

Removing the drivers should not be a problem, but that's not the question I asked........

 

All the following examples have Romford/Markits drivers, but assuming the motor/drive had failed, how could the motor/drive be replaced without removing the drivers?

 

 

No problem here, with an old-fashioned style of motor/gear drive - just undo one or two screws.

 

 

No problem here, either. 

 

 

Nor here. Branchlines, very cleverly, allow for a motor to be fixed by employing the side 'wings' on the 'box.

 

 

Nor here - Markits does the same.

 

 

As does High-Level.

 

All brilliant examples of clever design. 

 

However, what if a motor fails in the following examples, and the drivers are (permanently?) fixed to their axles?

 

 

It might just be possible to get at the bottom screw of the DJH 'box (the nearer one).

 

 

And, maybe just possible here.

 

But, not in any of the following. To remove the motor by getting at the bottom screw holding it to the gearbox, the 'box will have to be removed from the frames - meaning taking off the drivers (or at least on one side) and sliding the axles out. How would this be possible with 'pinned' drivers? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Having employed getting on for 2,000 driving wheels in 4mm, I have never had a Romford/Markits driver shift on its axle nor its tyre fall off. Quartering is instant and easy, with no modification being necessary. Apart from some early Romfords, I've never come across a non-concentric/eccentric, 'nodding' wheel in action, and no driver has had to be modified/altered before it's fit for purpose. 

 

Evidence? I rest my case..................

 

 

Edited August 5 by Tony Wright
clumsy grammar

[Michael Edge]

I don't pin Ultrascale drivers, I knurl the ends of the axles to provide the necessary grip by rolling them under a fairly rough file. I did once have to remove a set of the original Gibson drivers which had a machined taper pin fit with a brass insert in the centre of the wheel (same as early P4 wheels) - the only way to do it was to saw through the axle with a piercing saw between the frame and the wheel.

If I do have to repair anything with pinned drivers they have almost always had to be replaced but they don't shift anyway - repairs were needed for something else, often a broken crankpin.

[Chuffer Davies]

29 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

Evidence? I rest my case..................

 

 

Okay I’ll respond…..

 

And yet many of us continue to use friction fit wheels with complete confidence, I wonder why?

In my case  of the nearly 100 chassis I have built over the years (remember I’m not a professional modeller like you) none of them use Markit wheels, none of the wheels are pinned, and only one wheel has failed since final assembly of the model.  My models are required to perform to the same demanding levels as those on LB.

Okay occasionally a Gibson wheel will be slightly out of true in which case a call to Gibson’s will secure a replacement. Also I have had a Gibson tyre come loose during build but once epoxied back on they never fail again. Given they (Gibson’s wheels) are less than half the price of Markit wheels I’m prepared to put up with the occasional inconvenience for the money saving alone.
Given the age of my earliest chassis I have had a few occasions when I have needed to dismantle a chassis to remove a gearbox. My use of Loctite 603 to fix friction fit wheels on their axles means that with sufficient pressure the joint will break allowing the wheel to be removed.  No more work than undoing an axle nut I suggest…

As an EM modeller the positives for me are that I have never had to offset the slide bars on a loco, nor have I ever had to reposition splashers to provide adequate clearance for  wheels.  Cosmetically the axle ends are far superior.
For P4 modellers of course there is no other option without some very clever machining of Markit wheels.  
I can see the advantage of Markit wheels for novice modellers, or for those who want an easy life, but for me, and for many others, friction fit drivers remain the wheel of choice. Personally I really enjoy the added challenge and satisfaction that they present with regards quartering and gauging.  

 

Each to their own I say.

[t-b-g]

30 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

I don't pin Ultrascale drivers, I knurl the ends of the axles to provide the necessary grip by rolling them under a fairly rough file. I did once have to remove a set of the original Gibson drivers which had a machined taper pin fit with a brass insert in the centre of the wheel (same as early P4 wheels) - the only way to do it was to saw through the axle with a piercing saw between the frame and the wheel.

If I do have to repair anything with pinned drivers they have almost always had to be replaced but they don't shift anyway - repairs were needed for something else, often a broken crankpin.

 

I do the same with a new build and I have several Ultrascale and Gibson wheeled locos that have had no slipping at all, despite having hauled long trains. So that certainly works.

 

With my Q4 and the Retford A3, I adopted pinning because they were already complete and to knurl the axle ends would mean removing all the wheels. When locos have outside cylinders (plus valve gear on the A3), and brake gear all soldered up and close to the wheel treads, pinning is less destructive and is a much quicker and easier option. I left a small amount of pin protruding on the Q4, in the hope that removing it isn't impossible. I haven't needed to get the pins out, so I have no idea if that works or not.

[Barry O]

If I can get friction fit drivers to work anyone can. ..of course Hornby A4s have real problems with wheels shifting on axles.. but even they can be fixed..

 

Romford are getting more expensive and a variation in axle length means they do not always give you the correct back to back.. albeit this must have been due to a manufacturing era manyvyears ago...

 

Baz

[Tony Wright]

27 minutes ago, Chuffer Davies said:

Okay I’ll respond…..

 

And yet many of us continue to use friction fit wheels with complete confidence, I wonder why?

In my case  of the nearly 100 chassis I have built over the years (remember I’m not a professional modeller like you) none of them use Markit wheels, none of the wheels are pinned, and only one wheel has failed since final assembly of the model.  My models are required to perform to the same demanding levels as those on LB.

Okay occasionally a Gibson wheel will be slightly out of true in which case a call to Gibson’s will secure a replacement. Also I have had a Gibson tyre come loose during build but once epoxied back on they never fail again. Given they (Gibson’s wheels) are less than half the price of Markit wheels I’m prepared to put up with the occasional inconvenience for the money saving alone.
Given the age of my earliest chassis I have had a few occasions when I have needed to dismantle a chassis to remove a gearbox. My use of Loctite 603 to fix friction fit wheels on their axles means that with sufficient pressure the joint will break allowing the wheel to be removed.  No more work than undoing an axle nut I suggest…

As an EM modeller the positives for me are that I have never had to offset the slide bars on a loco, nor have I ever had to reposition splashers to provide adequate clearance for  wheels.  Cosmetically the axle ends are far superior.
For P4 modellers of course there is no other option without some very clever machining of Markit wheels.  
I can see the advantage of Markit wheels for novice modellers, or for those who want an easy life, but for me, and for many others, friction fit drivers remain the wheel of choice. Personally I really enjoy the added challenge and satisfaction that they present with regards quartering and gauging.  

 

Each to their own I say.

Good morning Franks,

 

A sound piece of reasoning, if I may say so?

 

Though you're not a 'professional modeller', you are, nonetheless, highly skilled and experienced. 

 

The following examples were all built 'professionally' (no names, obviously), using friction-fit drivers, and I had to replace the lot with Markits before I could get them to run anything like properly.

 

Problems? Poor quartering because the drivers shifted under load, the whole things nodding along because the wheels were eccentric and the tyres encrusted with rust (which helped retain them, I suppose, because one had fallen off!). 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone interested in the friction-fit drivers previously fitted to some of these models? Just PM me, and they're yours FOC! 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

[jwealleans]

10 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

It seems pointless, to me, to be second-guessing what the original purchaser specified. If the commission was for a "scale model" then the W would turn out as it has. If it was for a model to run on track of 30" radius it would have turned out differently. I suspect that some commissioned "glass case" models don't even have a motor, gears or pickups.

 

There was another example of this on this very thread recently - Geoff West brought some carriages along which I'd built for Tom Foster and he had then bought.   One or two of them (I forget) didn't go round LB's curves.   That wasn't a problem for Tom as his layout was all but straight.   Simply rectified, but a problem which would never have been identified when they were built as it was implicitly outside the requirements.