Wright writes.....

[Northmoor]

35 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

 

Might the numbers/branding be a little big? 

 

I think that the size is right but the letter spacing on the tender that's wrong (assuming my Woodhead Transfers sheet is correct).  I think I've just identified the solution.

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I really wonder what some critics expect from current RTR locomotives. I agree there are some issues, but every new model locomotive I've been asked to review of late has been really good; in terms of appearance and performance. They're light years beyond what was thought excellent years ago, and far, far better than the majority of kit-built equivalents. Lining too thick/incorrect? Then do better yourself, and please show us. Lubricator drive too thick? Then make it yourself, to scale, and see how it holds together under power, proving it with a video. 

 

I've been asked to review Heljan's latest manifestations of its O2s. The originals were not too good in many respects, but these issues appear to have been attended to in these latest models. I can see some potential points of criticisms, but here goes...............

 

 

The O2/2 version in early BR guise.

 

 

An extremely good puller.

 

 

Might the numbers/branding be a little big? 

 

 

The O2/4 version (ex-O2/2, now with B1 boiler and side-window cab).

 

 

 

An equally good puller. 

 

Both these models run superbly. 

 

 

 

 

A more scale lubricator linkage would be considerably easier than the motion on the 2mm scale U Class.

 

 

[polybear]

8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I really wonder what some critics expect from current RTR locomotives.

 

They expect a Beeson quality loco at RTR money......

No problems there, then.

[Tony Wright]

7 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

 

A more scale lubricator linkage would be considerably easier than the motion on the 2mm scale U Class.

 

 

For an expert modeller, perhaps. Indeed, I've seen some incredibly fine motion produced by those working in 2mm scale, but a high level of skill is required.

 

But, not something that has to be mass-produced (look at some N Gauge motion, and the Hornby lubricator drive is finer than the return crank/eccentric rod/expansion link in that scale). Not only that, but handled by who knows whom? 

 

I cannot see a credible comparison here. 

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

For an expert modeller, perhaps. Indeed, I've seen some incredibly fine motion produced by those working in 2mm scale, but a high level of skill is required.

 

But, not something that has to be mass-produced (look at some N Gauge motion, and the Hornby lubricator drive is finer than the return crank/eccentric rod/expansion link in that scale). Not only that, but handled by who knows whom? 

 

I cannot see a credible comparison here. 

 

You said that those who have been critical should demonstrate that they could do a better job themselves. I like to think that is what I was doing.

 

If you want to move the goalposts now and say that those being critical should prove how to make a scale model that could survive on a toy train set that is a whole other matter. That is where manufacturers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Are they producing a scale model, a toy, or something that has features from both camps and truly satisfies neither?

 

My personal view is that if they can't reproduce features to scale, or near to scale, they would be better left off. That would allow those of a more finescale mindset to add something to the model.

 

We managed for many years without massively overscale lubricator linkages on RTR models. Is it really considered a step forward adding them now?

 

When it comes to boiler bands, Hornby seem to manage to print the numbers on a dial in the cab so they are legible but can't get the widths of the black and white lines right. It shouldn't be so difficult with the facilities and abilities they clearly have. 

 

With the valve gear, I will happily cut them some slack. It has improved greatly over the years and making valve gear that is more accurate and prototypical would probably add to the cost of production compared to the present arrangement. Again, the more picky modeller can make improvements if they wish.

 

There are other faults on the B17 I have spotted that would have been just as easy to get right as they were to get wrong, like the positions of the panel lines and rivet heads on the valance. Anybody wanting to correct that would need lots of skill and be able to do a bit of repainting to match the Hornby finish, which wouldn't be easy.

[Tony Wright]

Speaking of various aspects of model valve gear/motion/lubricators, some examples..........

 

 

Current standards in N Gauge on this Dapol A3. Heavy?

 

 

But good enough (as yet) to be used in 2mm scale.

 

 

Even though, decades ago, the late Denys Brownlee built 'scale' Gresley motion in 2mm scale. 

 

 

A standard Bachmann N Gauge Austerity. 

 

 

But when great expertise is applied (the abilities given to but a few), this is the result. This is so good, I was 'tricked' into believing that it was built from a 4mm DJH kit. 

 

 

Better left off? The is the lubricator drive on a Dapol N Gauge A4. 

 

 

And, in comparison, the lubricator drive on Hornby's latest streamlined B17. Better left off? 

 

 

Quoting a recent comment...

'My personal view is that if they can't reproduce features to scale, or near to scale, they would be better left off. That would allow those of a more finescale mindset to add something to the model.'

 

 

So this should be left off? It's nowhere near scale valve gear on this N Gauge Dapol Britannia. 

 

Some other examples...........

 

 

Dapol.

 

Farish.

 

 

I did wonder what happened to the steel when the Vanguard was scrapped!

 

Returning to lubricator drives on model A4s; I always add them to the models I've made, even though (out of necessity?), they're (slightly?) overscale. I think it's better to see them in movement rather than omit them.................. Some examples - there are several more!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I cannot guarantee that all are exactly the same, because they're formed from bits off etched sheets.

 

 

I certainly wouldn't suggest omitting the drive on a Hornby A4.

 

Weathering, of course, makes a big difference. 

 

 

 

 

[Willie Whizz]

44 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

…

 

There are other faults on the B17 I have spotted that would have been just as easy to get right as they were to get wrong, like the positions of the panel lines and rivet heads on the valance. Anybody wanting to correct that would need lots of skill and be able to do a bit of repainting to match the Hornby finish, which wouldn't be easy.

I think that’s the point, really. 
 

Some of the recent posts about this model (which I haven’t seen to make a personal judgment) read to me like “rivet-counting” of the first order.  Comparing what remains effectively a mass-produced model to what might, theoretically, be achieved by a superb craftsman and engineer who also happens to have significant workshop capabilities, exceptional painting skills (or can horse-trade at an equivalent standard to obtain same) and is willing to spend hundreds of hours and hundreds if not thousands of pounds building one to the standard of excellence being suggested, strikes me as almost comically ludicrous. 
 

Which is not to take away from Tony’s views on the benefits of “making it yourself”, especially where unusual or uncommon prototypes are involved (which the B17/5 certainly is) … but come on chaps, 99.5% of people who would ever aspire to owning a model of this locomotive will be delighted with the model as long as it runs well too. I think a “reality check” is in order; and I don’t mean of the model. 

[t-b-g]

12 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Speaking of various aspects of model valve gear/motion/lubricators, some examples..........

 

 

Current standards in N Gauge on this Dapol A3. Heavy?

 

 

But good enough (as yet) to be used in 2mm scale.

 

 

Even though, decades ago, the late Denys Brownlee built 'scale' Gresley motion in 2mm scale. 

 

 

A standard Bachmann N Gauge Austerity. 

 

 

But when great expertise is applied (the abilities given to but a few), this is the result. This is so good, I was 'tricked' into believing that it was built from a 4mm DJH kit. 

 

 

Better left off? The is the lubricator drive on a Dapol N Gauge A4. 

 

 

And, in comparison, the lubricator drive on Hornby's latest streamlined B17. Better left off? 

 

 

Quoting a recent comment...

'My personal view is that if they can't reproduce features to scale, or near to scale, they would be better left off. That would allow those of a more finescale mindset to add something to the model.'

 

 

So this should be left off? It's nowhere near scale valve gear on this N Gauge Dapol Britannia. 

 

Some other examples...........

 

 

Dapol.

 

Farish.

 

 

I did wonder what happened to the steel when the Vanguard was scrapped!

 

Returning to lubricator drives on model A4s; I always add them to the models I've made, even though (out of necessity?), they're (slightly?) overscale. I think it's better to see them in movement rather than omit them.................. Some examples - there are several more!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I cannot guarantee that all are exactly the same, because they're formed from bits off etched sheets.

 

 

I certainly wouldn't suggest omitting the drive on a Hornby A4.

 

Weathering, of course, makes a big difference. 

 

 

 

 

 

As with all these things, it comes down to personal choice and what an individual is either happy or not happy with.

 

Seeing photos of N gauge locos blown up on a large screen, the valve gear looks horrible. Seen actual size on a layout, hopefully with some weathering, it doesn't look nearly as bad.

 

I never saw Wright Writes as a place where people wanting to make more accurate models would be criticised for wanting to do so. It just shows how misguided I can be sometimes.

[t-b-g]

4 minutes ago, Willie Whizz said:

I think that’s the point, really. 
 

Some of the recent posts about this model (which I haven’t seen to make a personal judgment) read to me like “rivet-counting” of the first order.  Comparing what remains effectively a mass-produced model to what might, theoretically, be achieved by a superb craftsman and engineer who also happens to have significant workshop capabilities, exceptional painting skills (or can horse-trade at an equivalent standard to obtain same) and is willing to spend hundreds of hours and hundreds if not thousands of pounds building one to the standard of excellence being suggested, strikes me as almost comically ludicrous. 
 

Which is not to take away from Tony’s views on the benefits of “making it yourself”, especially where unusual or uncommon prototypes are involved (which the B17/5 certainly is) … but come on chaps, 99.5% of people who would ever aspire to owning a model of this locomotive will be delighted with the model as long as it runs well too. I think a “reality check” is in order; and I don’t mean of the model. 

 

If it is wrong to point out things that Hornby might have done better, then I accept that I am in the wrong.

 

The B17 is, to my eyes, a very nice model with a handful of relatively minor faults. If drawing attention to them is ludicrous, I give up!

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

If it is wrong to point out things that Hornby might have done better, then I accept that I am in the wrong.

 

The B17 is, to my eyes, a very nice model with a handful of relatively minor faults. If drawing attention to them is ludicrous, I give up!

 

It's only because a thing is so very good that it's worth picking over such nits. If as fine a modeller as Tony has only these things to pick up on, then that is effectively high praise of the model.

[t-b-g]

I will just add that I spent a happy hour or so on Thursday counting rivets on a tender at the KWVR, to help a friend make a model. If you have a blank canvas, with a sheet of metal, you can either put the rivets in the right or the wrong places. If you have the information needed to see clearly where they should be, why should I, Hornby or anybody else put them in the wrong places and hope nobody notices or cares!

[stewartingram]

1 hour ago, Willie Whizz said:

I think that’s the point, really. 
 

Some of the recent posts about this model (which I haven’t seen to make a personal judgment) read to me like “rivet-counting” of the first order.  Comparing what remains effectively a mass-produced model to what might, theoretically, be achieved by a superb craftsman and engineer who also happens to have significant workshop capabilities, exceptional painting skills (or can horse-trade at an equivalent standard to obtain same) and is willing to spend hundreds of hours and hundreds if not thousands of pounds building one to the standard of excellence being suggested, strikes me as almost comically ludicrous. 
 

Which is not to take away from Tony’s views on the benefits of “making it yourself”, especially where unusual or uncommon prototypes are involved (which the B17/5 certainly is) … but come on chaps, 99.5% of people who would ever aspire to owning a model of this locomotive will be delighted with the model as long as it runs well too. I think a “reality check” is in order; and I don’t mean of the model. 

I think the saleability of this model should also be taken into consideration. Fine if you can spread the R&D cost over several runs, it keeps the price down. But, as much as I like this model - a must have for my layout - I do feel this has limited sales possibility and I can't really see repeat runs. Detail does cost money, more detail costs more. This has (probably) to be recouped very early in the case of this model.

[30368]

14 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Both these models run superbly. 

 

They look really great Tony, especially the O2/2, and they passed the pulling test.

 

Kind regards,

 

30368

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

13 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I really wonder what some critics expect from current RTR locomotives.

I was reminded by the picture you posted of the Farish BR 76xxx, of the Bachmann OO model needing attention, recently received from a friend. Thus prompted, now fixed it.

 

The problem was the tightness of the mechanism in the body, the cemented on mechanism detail that came away when separation was achieved, the cryptic instructions for decoder installation, and the general awkwardness of getting a decoder installed and everything properly reassembled to restore it to the fine 'as received' appearance.

 

The model itself is a cracker, but the above paragraph describes one element of RTR OO that frustrates those who never built it for themselves, and thus lack an appreciation of 'the difficulties' in making a running model from an awkward cuss of a prototype.

 

Personally I am grateful for RTR OO, as it means not having to build much from kits or scratch: so that time is free to run trains to schedule, which is my reason for having a layout and the stock to operate on it.

[sjp23480]

24 minutes ago, stewartingram said:

I think the saleability of this model should also be taken into consideration. Fine if you can spread the R&D cost over several runs, it keeps the price down. But, as much as I like this model - a must have for my layout - I do feel this has limited sales possibility and I can't really see repeat runs. Detail does cost money, more detail costs more. This has (probably) to be recouped very early in the case of this model.

@stewartingram I suspect Hornby is relying on the collectors market to pick up much of the run. In anticipation of it being a one off and seeing the value appreciate in the future. 

 

I wonder how many will actually get run in anger?

 

[Northmoor]

I'm not going to criticise the new RTR locos because I'm probably not in the market for most of them and definitely couldn't build better myself.  I remember when we were grateful that RTR locos had the right number of wheels; where all 0-6-0s in the range shared a chassis (and wheels) irrespective of prototype wheel centres. 

 

Are some critics in danger of chasing perfection in their models and eliminating their imagination?  For those that believe these RTR locos' faults are significant, ask themselves these questions:

• Does your railway look like a railway? 
  • Is the track layout and signalling prototypical?
  • Is there dirt and weathering where you would expect it to be on the real thing?
• Does your landscape look like a real landscape?
• Do your natural features look natural?
  • Are your buildings based on prototypes and placed in realistic locations?
  • Are your road vehicles correct for period and (unless they do move) placed in realistically parked positions?
  • Are your people placed in positions where you would expect them to be stationary?
• Do you have DCC sound for your locomotives and rolling stock moves only or for all the wider environment as well?

If you can honestly answer Yes to all the above, then you can fairly expect perfection from a mass-produced RTR product.

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

As with all these things, it comes down to personal choice and what an individual is either happy or not happy with.

 

Seeing photos of N gauge locos blown up on a large screen, the valve gear looks horrible. Seen actual size on a layout, hopefully with some weathering, it doesn't look nearly as bad.

 

I never saw Wright Writes as a place where people wanting to make more accurate models would be criticised for wanting to do so. It just shows how misguided I can be sometimes.

Good afternoon Tony,

 

If one makes 'critical' comments (of/on any model) one must expect 'critical' comments in return.

 

It happens to me all the time! It's a feature of Wright writes........ One which I hope continues.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

30 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

I'm not going to criticise the new RTR locos because I'm probably not in the market for most of them and definitely couldn't build better myself.  I remember when we were grateful that RTR locos had the right number of wheels; where all 0-6-0s in the range shared a chassis (and wheels) irrespective of prototype wheel centres. 

 

Are some critics in danger of chasing perfection in their models and eliminating their imagination?  For those that believe these RTR locos' faults are significant, ask themselves these questions:

• Does your railway look like a railway? 
  • Is the track layout and signalling prototypical?
  • Is there dirt and weathering where you would expect it to be on the real thing?
• Does your landscape look like a real landscape?
• Do your natural features look natural?
  • Are your buildings based on prototypes and placed in realistic locations?
  • Are your road vehicles correct for period and (unless they do move) placed in realistically parked positions?
  • Are your people placed in positions where you would expect them to be stationary?
• Do you have DCC sound for your locomotives and rolling stock moves only or for all the wider environment as well?

If you can honestly answer Yes to all the above, then you can fairly expect perfection from a mass-produced RTR product.

Very thought-provoking. Thank you.

 

I have a rather 'simplistic' take on the whole discussion; how can one be concerned with the 'accuracy' of the items listed above (or the number and positions of rivets, or whether moving components are over-sized, etc), when a whole layout is not based on an actual prototype? The dichotomy is too great for me to understand. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited August 24 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Willie Whizz]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

If it is wrong to point out things that Hornby might have done better, then I accept that I am in the wrong.

 

The B17 is, to my eyes, a very nice model with a handful of relatively minor faults. If drawing attention to them is ludicrous, I give up!

Just to clarify,  quoted from your post, but it was not the only one I was referring to. 

[t-b-g]

34 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Tony,

 

If one makes 'critical' comments (of/on any model) one must expect 'critical' comments in return.

 

It happens to me all the time! It's a feature of Wright writes........ One which I hope continues.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Yet being critical of a new RTR model draws comments about rivet counting and expecting too much.

 

I will explain what I was on about with the rivets in a bit more detail. It has nothing to do with expectations of everything being correct to a fraction if a mm. I can't tell from looking whether the rivets are in the right place or there are the right number.

 

I can tell, without measuring anything, that the vertical line of rivets that should be directly under the front boiler band isn't. It is a clear mistake that shows without a micrometer or hair shirt being anywhere near it.

 

Once I saw it, I tried but I just couldn't " unsee" it.

 

I am not going to be drawn yet again into a discussion about prototype versus fictional layouts.

 

As with all these things, there are facts and there are opinions. The latter is very much a matter of opinion.

 

The boiler band on the B17 not lining up with the rivets as it should is a matter of fact.

 

 

[John Isherwood]

3 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

The boiler band on the B17 not lining up with the rivets as it should is a matter of fact.

 

....... only if you are one of the tiny minority of potential purchasers who KNOW - OR CARE - that the boiler band should line up with the rivets!

 

John Isherwood.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

1 hour ago, stewartingram said:

I think the saleability of this model (B17/5) should also be taken into consideration. Fine if you can spread the R&D cost over several runs, it keeps the price down. But, as much as I like this model - a must have for my layout - I do feel this has limited sales possibility and I can't really see repeat runs. Detail does cost money, more detail costs more. This has (probably) to be recouped very early in the case of this model.

1 hour ago, sjp23480 said:

 I suspect Hornby is relying on the collectors market to pick up much of the run. In anticipation of it being a one off and seeing the value appreciate in the future. 

Much as I currently enjoy the consequences of collectorising (see below) the bubble must burst eventually. This specific model must have been relatively cheap in R+D, as the model requires two new bodies, one of them with transferable CAD from the A4.

 

When compared to other well researched, moulded and decorated items such as the all steel K type Pullman cars, which Hornby - so far as I am aware - rolled out in a single release of original Pullman style and BR period Pullman liveries, and then never seen again as individual releases; this is presumably viable?

1 hour ago, sjp23480 said:

I wonder how many will actually get run in anger?

On a broader note than just this one example, when eejits like me that operate their RTR OO are able to purchase s/h at a decently low price, items that have clearly been stored unopened on a shelf.

 

Value appreciation non-existent, actually serious depreciation in my recent purchase of a Pullman set with A4 and three all steel K type cars with alternative names never seen on the individual releases circa 2015/16: the complete set obtained for less than the £150 that three of those cars originally retailed for, when sold individually.

[CF MRC]

Some of the commercial N gauge valve gear from a few years ago (e.g. Dapol A class Pacific’s) is very crude, unnecessarily so.  Replacement etches are available from 2mm sources. However, Farish seem to be getting much better with their new V2. 
 

I do believe that the commercial lining would look so much better if they used v. dark grey and v. light grey for white & black lining. It takes away the excessive contrast which catches the eye. 
 

Tim

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, stewartingram said:

Detail does cost money, more detail costs more. 

 

This depends on the type of detail. For instance, Rapido have been adamant in the face of persistent grumbling that the inclusion of luggage racks in their forthcoming B set coaches is a negligible additional cost. If it's a case of a row of 13 rivets rather than a row of 12, I really don't see how that can possibly cost more!

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

43 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I have a rather 'simplistic' take on the whole discussion; how can one be concerned with the 'accuracy' of the items listed above, when a whole layout is not based on an actual prototype? The dichotomy is too great for me to understand. 

All comes under the heading 'Fun'.

 

There are  folk that spend a monster amount of money for a car capable of exceeding the speed limit several times over, which is b. uncomfortable to ride in, there's no space for shopping let alone a suitcase, and never take it out for a track day to wind her up, (and probably crash) while regularly complaining of underbody repairs due to sleeping policemen.

 

Others construct a hi-fi or home cinema system at vast expense and solely replay the Bay City Rollers or a few Disney animations. (Other poor audio quality recordings and puerile fillums are available.)

 

I could drone on about clothes and accessories never worn, regular extensive long distance travel and rarely leaving the residence to experience the unique features of the location, etc... I know these people, and it's what they apparently enjoy.

 

This lunatic has a prototype track formation but near zero scenic treatment. It was the railway trains operation that intrigued me, and I never looked further from the trains than the rust on the railsides and state of the ballast. All the rest my imagination 'paints in', and it's 'perfect'. For me!