Excellent loco drawings

[Re6/6]

I've just received some very nice 4mm loco drawings from David Hulls at PDH drawings. Saw the ad in this month's Model Rail. I'm very pleased the quality of them. Highly recommended. Usual disclaimer....

[charliepetty]

I've just received some very nice 4mm loco drawings from David Hulls at PDH drawings. Saw the ad in this month's Model Rail. I'm very pleased the quality of them. Highly recommended. Usual disclaimer....

 

Be carefull, not always accurate. Some guesswork involved on the DMUs!!!! Charlie P

[Enterprisingwestern]

Be carefull, not always accurate. Some guesswork involved on the DMUs!!!! Charlie P

 

Also wagons and locomotives.

[Dagworth]

...and the APT drawings are seriously suspect in many areas....

 

Andi

[Horsetan]

A sample view I once saw didn't look very encouraging, giving the impression they were done on an ancient X-Y plotter.....

 

'tis unfortunate that in a few cases, PDH really is the only drawing resource......so you just have to trust your luck.

 

I've just received some very nice 4mm loco drawings from David Hulls at PDH drawings. Saw the ad in this month's Model Rail. I'm very pleased the quality of them. Highly recommended. Usual disclaimer....

 

What classes, out of interest?

[zarniwhoop]

The BR(S) EMUs and at least some of the DEMUs (particularly buffet cars) are also very suspect.

 

ĸen

[Enterprisingwestern]

Hmmmmm, doesn't look like they've got a lot going for them.

[Blandford1969]

The Stanier 2-6-2 and D20 had fundamental errors which if the creator had looked at a photo would seen was wrong. They don't like talking about the problems with the drawings either if you ever try to help them.

[Re6/6]

What classes, out of interest?

 

9Fs (regular, Crosti and de-Crostified) and WD 2-10-0. Fortunately Ivan, I'm not scratching but building from kits and 'bashing'

[charliepetty]

Many errors on the 141, 142, 143, 144 Units + lots of guess works on other classes too!

[ANDY47186]

Bit pricey too

[craigwelsh]

Bit pricey too

Still about 1/3 or 1/4 of the cost of proper drawings copying from the NRM.. I wonder how some of the stuff was researched though as the collection seems to have been built up pretty quickly.

 

The BR Standards are fully catalogued at the NRM though and the catalogue is available on Access to Archives

 

GB 756 2001-8487-SL-DE-24398 1-02-61

These documents are held at National Railway Museum Library and Archives

Contents:

Class 9/Crosti-2-10-0, DIAGRAM & DATA CLASS 9 2-10-0 CROSTI ENGINE

 

 

 

Information relating to document ref. no. GB 756 2001-8487-SL-BR-1366*

Class 9/Crosti-2-10-0, FRAME ARRANGEMENT. [National Railway Museum, BR STANDARD LOCOMOTIVES...]

 

for example. (SL-DE is Derby, SL-SW ones i've been looking through are Swindon)

 

Photography is free for personal use if anyone does visit and request a look.

[Blandford1969]

Still about 1/3 or 1/4 of the cost of proper drawings copying from the NRM.. I wonder how some of the stuff was researched though as the collection seems to have been built up pretty quickly.

 

The BR Standards are fully catalogued at the NRM though and the catalogue is available on Access to Archives

 

GB 756 2001-8487-SL-DE-24398 1-02-61

These documents are held at National Railway Museum Library and Archives

Contents:

Class 9/Crosti-2-10-0, DIAGRAM & DATA CLASS 9 2-10-0 CROSTI ENGINE

 

 

 

Information relating to document ref. no. GB 756 2001-8487-SL-BR-1366*

Class 9/Crosti-2-10-0, FRAME ARRANGEMENT. [National Railway Museum, BR STANDARD LOCOMOTIVES...]

 

If he had done that maybe some of the drawings might have been more acurate!

 

for example. (SL-DE is Derby, SL-SW ones i've been looking through are Swindon)

 

Photography is free for personal use if anyone does visit and request a look.

[Horsetan]

.... I wonder how some of the stuff was researched though as the collection seems to have been built up pretty quickly....

 

Ian Beattie's notorious old "Locomotives To Scale"?

[Re6/6]

In view of the matter of 'questionable' accuracy that has come up on here, what's the general opinion on who's/which drawings (other than those of 'official works' origins) are the most accurate, if there can be such a thing?

[Enterprisingwestern]

In view of the matter of 'questionable' accuracy that has come up on here, what's the general opinion on who's/which drawings (other than those of 'official works' origins) are the most accurate, if there can be such a thing?

 

From first hand experience, the only accurate way of obtaining detailed drawings is to climb all over an existing prototype with tape measure and camera. Obviously this is not always possible, so careful transposing from pictures is usually ok.

Never trust anybody elses information.

[jwealleans]

The late John Edgson (Isinglass Models) has a very good reputation for both accuracy and the amount of prototype information furnished on the drawings. They're not infallible, though (and I'm sure wouldn't claim to be).

[billbedford]

In view of the matter of 'questionable' accuracy that has come up on here, what's the general opinion on who's/which drawings (other than those of 'official works' origins) are the most accurate, if there can be such a thing?

The only accurate drawings are those that are full dimensioned.

[Baby Deltic]

I've got a few of the PDH books. The 'Peak' drawings look suspect - the front windows are totally the wrong shape. The LNER carriage drawings (three books) are pretty good. The DMU books (I bought the volume which includes class 125) seem OK but the reference to various drawings is pretty confusing. I much prefer the book, the name of which escapes me, which Charlie Petty was selling a couple of years back. I think it was a Cheona publication on first gen DMU's with drawings. Unfortunately I'm not at home so I can't look.

[Ravenser]

It's a quiet Friday afternoon so I'll bite...

 

The Cheona publication which Baby Deltic refers to is by Brian Golding , and I've got a copy - effectively my only first generation DMU drawing reference

 

This raises an old chestnut - whenever the availability of drawing for non-steam stuff come up , people seem to shudder and say "don't" and suggest models should be done by eye from your own personal photo collection , which in pretty well guaranteed to be at an angle in at least 1 dimension and probably 3 , and therefore a minefield

 

Enterprisingwestern

Never trust anybody elses information

 

That flies in the face of the whole of the fundamental principle of scholarship, in all walks of life. I read somewhere that inside the Bodlean Library in Oxford there is a Latin inscription which translates "Many shall pass by and knowledge shall be multiplied" . To reject all information collected or produced by others is to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and while verification is necessary, we can't check everything from first principles - we have models to make

 

I have a practical interest here . Among my stalled projects is the upgrade of a Hornby 142 . The only reference material available to me is some drawings in the reprint of Railnews Stockspot, which come from a semi-official industry source and appear to be scale side elevations (what scale has to be deduced) and some leading dimensions out of Platform 5 books , plus a few photos in a Colin Marsden book , none of them square on to anything, and a few photos of my own , from a distance , if I can find them. A drawing would be quite useful. I live at least 100 miles from the nearest place visited by Nodding Donkeys so going off with camera , tape measure and notebook isn't exactly easy.

 

Or I could take the moral high ground , refuse to rely on any info - and not try to make a model but simply sit tight and buy a Realtrack 144 from Charlie when he gets round to doing one in W Yorks red/cream. Then bitch about it cos I'm not sure it looks exactly like a photo of one in the bays at Doncaster which I took out of the open door of a train at the adjacent platform...... [i will be buying a 144 anyway, but I ought at least to do something about the pair of 142s , which are not ideal)

 

Everytime this issue comes up and a request for info is made, we get folk standing around shaking their heads, sucking their teeth and saying "Oooo, I wouldn't use that...." Life is short and 98% of us have to use secondary info if we wish to make something, and I've never understood the terror of dimensional info that seems to exist. Doing it by eye is guesswork, more or less inspired

 

 

charliepetty

Many errors on the 141, 142, 143, 144 Units + lots of guess works on other classes too!

 

Given the severe lack of other reference material for modellers wishing to tangle with these classes , can we at least identify what the known errors are in the PDH drawings of the Pacers, and thereby advance the sum of modellers' knowledge ? A drawing, with a list of errata available on the web does at least provide a basis for moving forward as a modeller

 

What other classes are being referred to here? First generation units or the Sprinters ? (I have a potential interest in both areas - a Bratchill 150 to finish and several DC Kits to build )

 

I take it from the general comments that the drawings in Golding's book are considered to be essentially reliable , and therefore a safer basis to work from than any first generation DMU drawings from PDH ? Or are some PDH drawings better than others.

 

I do feel quite strongly that the only way forward is the identification and reporting of specific errors in specific drawings, to advance the sum of human knowledge and refine the available info - not the usual rejection of the available info with the generalised comment "don't use any drawings they're wrong"

[Pugsley]

It's a quiet Friday afternoon so I'll bite...

So will I, although I think we may have crossed this bridge before....

 

I have a practical interest here . Among my stalled projects is the upgrade of a Hornby 142 . The only reference material available to me is some drawings in the reprint of Railnews Stockspot, which come from a semi-official industry source and appear to be scale side elevations (what scale has to be deduced) and some leading dimensions out of Platform 5 books , plus a few photos in a Colin Marsden book , none of them square on to anything, and a few photos of my own , from a distance , if I can find them. A drawing would be quite useful. I live at least 100 miles from the nearest place visited by Nodding Donkeys so going off with camera , tape measure and notebook isn't exactly easy.

In which case, I respectfully suggest that you're not really that bothered then. On several occasions now I have made trips of over 100 miles to visit, measure and record prototypes of interest, and the information gleaned has been invaluable for a couple of projects that I currently have on the go. I also envisage making some more in the not too distant future, so it's not that difficult.

 

If you're that determined, you'll go to where they are, take a few measurements and plenty of photos and make your own drawing, instead of moaning about the fact that no-one has gone out and done the hard work for you. Think of it as advancing the sum of human knowledge in a primary fashion (BTW you can deduce the scale of the Railnews drawing by using the dimensions given in the P5 book - I think they're quite accurate, I've got a copy myself, will check that out sometime)

[pete_mcfarlane]

I do feel quite strongly that the only way forward is the identification and reporting of specific errors in specific drawings, to advance the sum of human knowledge and refine the available info - not the usual rejection of the available info with the generalised comment "don't use any drawings they're wrong"

I've often wondered why the purveyors of scale drawings generally don't quote their sources. A published drawing could be based on a copy of the general arrangement plus careful measurement of the real thing, or it could be largely made up. If the draughtsman doesn't tell you, then you don't know whether to trust the drawing or not.

[Ravenser]

Pugsley

In which case, I respectfully suggest that you're not really that bothered then. On several occasions now I have made trips of over 100 miles to visit, measure and record prototypes of interest, and the information gleaned has been invaluable for a couple of projects that I currently have on the go. I also envisage making some more in the not too distant future, so it's not that difficult.

 

If you're that determined, you'll go to where they are, take a few measurements and plenty of photos and make your own drawing, instead of moaning about the fact that no-one has gone out and done the hard work for you. Think of it as advancing the sum of human knowledge in a primary fashion (BTW you can deduce the scale of the Railnews drawing by using the dimensions given in the P5 book - I think they're quite accurate, I've got a copy myself, will check that out sometime)

 

With the greatest respect, there has to be some middle ground between taking an elderly Hornby model entirely on trust as to accuracy in all respects and dedicating several years of my life to researching the damn things - when the research would in practise remain as unpublished notes and be unlikely to find its way into the wider world . I've got a layout to finish , and then sort out the fleet. We're talking about classes 142, (potentially 144 RTR) 150/1, 150/2, 153, 155, 156, 158, 170, 101, 105, 108, 114, and possibly a parcels unit, from RTR or kits. To personally research them all would be a decade of my life. I'm acutely conscious that it's taken best part of 6 months to sort out points and wiring, and to built a large part of the screen walls (about 2 and ahalf weeks and counting, at 1-2 hours a night) , and some readily available reference material to assess the rolling stock would be very useful . (The 142 has been lying stalled for over a year, the Bratchill 150 for more like 3) Apparently there are drawings out there , but in the next breath I'm being told not to touch the available material, without specifics . I don't think I'm the only modeller who would like to do more than take unmodified RTR on trust, but has limited time for his modelling , never mind to conduct extensive personal primary research

 

And I'm not moaning that nobody has done the hard work - apparently someone has, but I'm being warned off making any use of it, even though much of it may in fact be sound

 

I am struggling with the concept that any steam modeller who finds Historic Carriage Drawings an invaluable resource in their modelling isn't really bothered about accurate models - which would be the equivalent comment in terms of steam era modelling. After all quite afew pre nationalisation vehicles vehicles survive so modellers could search them out and personally measure them - and no doubt there are some errors here or there in some of the drawings in the books. If a modeller asked about drawings for Mk1 coaches , I don't think it would be suggested that if he wanted to have a drawing he didn't really care about accuracy.

 

I did in fact measure up the Railnews drawing in the way suggested some time ago . My calculation shows it as printed at 1.873mm to the foot. (that is 46.825% of 4mm scale)

 

For the benefit of others - the book is BR Equipment 2 : Drawings from Railnews Stockspot David Gibbons (Ian Allan 1990 , ISBN 0 7110 1925 8 )

 

The drawings in question are at p61 , the section headed Pacers and Sprinters. This shows as Fig 61 , side elevation drawings of "Sprinter 150" , "Railbus 142" and "Railbus 143"

all apparently to 1.873mm /foot

 

Fig 62 , on the next page "Class 150 Sprinter builds compared" which appears to be of a 150/1 and 150/2 above each other , is also to the same 1.873mm to the foot

 

Fig 63 (page 63) is of classes 155 and 156 compared - I make the scale 1.6mm to the foot

 

Fig 64 (p65) in the section Super Sprinter Class 155 the Longer Look , shows side elevations of both cars of the unit , and I make the scale 2.6666mm /foot - or exactly 2/3rds of 4mm scale, which is curious.... Assuming the drawings are accurate , and to scale, dimensions can be derived by scaling off the drawing and adding 50%.

 

No end elevations, plans or drawings of the roof are provided

 

Some people may possibly have access to the original copies of Railnews . I don't know at what scale the drawings were originally printed

 

As many of the drawings in the book are cut aways or isometric perspective I don't know whether they were intended as exact scale or simply illustrative diagrams. I'd hope that a professional draftsman working for publication to an industry audience would be pretty accurate , but I'd like to have something more than my ignorant hopes to rely on

 

I wouldn't think it impossible that PDH might simply have redrawn these Railnews illustrations to 4mm scale and cooked up end views, - it would be interesting to hear what errors exist in both drawings, and whether they are errors in common

 

I take note of Dagworth's comments about the APT drawings but in practice very fewpeople are ever going to try to build up an APT, so sorting out the errors is only of interest to a small number of dedicated people (There are very few mainline 25kV layouts out there, and a couple of shortlived units that never officially entered revenue service are alittle esoteric - it's a 25kV Decapod...) Pacers and Sprinters are another matter - decent sized classes with working lives of heading for 3 decades, across most of the network. Almost anyone modelling Britain's railways in the last 30 years would find drawings potentially useful

 

For reference Jim Smith Wright published some class 150 drawings in DEMU Update , although I recall there was an error in one place and he has in the past talked about redrawing and republishing (Jim has a heck of a lot on his plate with P4 New St , never mind earning his daily bread, so I fully understand why he hasn't got round to it)

[Pugsley]

With the greatest respect, there has to be some middle ground between taking an elderly Hornby model entirely on trust as to accuracy in all respects and dedicating several years of my life to researching the damn things - when the research would in practise remain as unpublished notes and be unlikely to find its way into the wider world . I've got a layout to finish , and then sort out the fleet. We're talking about classes 142, (potentially 144 RTR) 150/1, 150/2, 153, 155, 156, 158, 170, 101, 105, 108, 114, and possibly a parcels unit, from RTR or kits. To personally research them all would be a decade of my life.

You didn't mention all of those earlier, just 142's. I'm not suggesting you have to dedicate your life to it, just a nice day out somewhere.

 

WRT the 144, 150, 105, 108 (and possibly the 170) I would suggest that the Bachmann models are pretty much spot on, with only details to be added if you so desire, which could quite cheerfully be done from photographs. I realise that isn't as simple as it used to be, with the demise of fotopic, but there is still a fair amount of pictures on the internets. You could, of course, go and photograph those at the same time as the 142's

 

This may be of help:

http://www.hmrs.org.uk/books/bookdetails.php?bookid=1035

 

You can tell that the Hornby 142 isn't quite right from photographs, IIRC there's something with the front end but I can't remember what exactly, but it affects the positioning of the numbers relative to the windscreens.

 

In terms of sharing the information once in a usable form, you are already posting on the UK's leading model railway forum, so there's one outlet for it. If you're a member of DEMU, I'm sure there's people over there who would love to see it, or why not approach one of the magazines about an article? Even if you don't, you've still got the satisfaction of knowing that your model is as accurate as you can make it.

[Pugsley]

And I'm not moaning that nobody has done the hard work - apparently someone has, but I'm being warned off making any use of it, even though much of it may in fact be sound.

It probably is. Again, you can quite easily check this out from published dimensions and plenty of photographs and make your own judgment on the accuracy of the drawing. You should never rely on drawings alone, as I found out to my cost when converting a Bachmann Peak into a 44 from the drawing in the Marsden and Fenn book...