Finished (if that's the right word) product looks good to me, despite whatever bugs you need to fix in the building process.

Only obvious thing that I can see wrong with it is that the lowest gap should be planked between the feet of the two 'X's - apparently to allow the painting of "G" and "W" there (according to Russell in Great Western Coaches Part One).

On a second check, the arc of the roof looks too rounded, should be flat in the middle (which would probably be a little more difficult to fix than adding the missing part-planks).

Look forward to seeing the final product at some future date.

David

Well well well Rich!

No matter how bad you put it, you have got much further than loads of people, myself included.

Stop being so harsh on yourself! Im very impressed.

Missy

Finished (if that's the right word) product looks good to me, despite whatever bugs you need to fix in the building process.

 

 

 

Only obvious thing that I can see wrong with it is that the lowest gap should be planked between the feet of the two 'X's - apparently to allow the painting of "G" and "W" there (according to Russell in Great Western Coaches Part One).

 

On a second check, the arc of the roof looks too rounded, should be flat in the middle (which would probably be a little more difficult to fix than adding the missing part-planks).

 

Look forward to seeing the final product at some future date.

 

David

Thanks. This is the good side. There is a really ugly part of the lower plank where the bend lines went badly wrong on the other side.

The in fills were added to allow the 16" lettering style to be applied. Before that they had 6" G.W.R on the upper planks. I've been thinking on how to include these without compromising what is there for anyone who wants them without. This isn't an omission or a mistake and they could be added reasonably easily by the builder.

You are right that the three arc roof is not three arc-ed enough. It should be flatter in the middle and more curved at the sides. I made my best guess at this and it looked okay on the CAD screen, or so I thought, but it doesn't look right. If you look again at the photographs of real ones you will also notice that the chunk of wood for the lamp iron to fix to on the end is on the wrong side. I have no idea how I got this wrong, but checking your own work is a minefield.

Ok things might not be quite right but how many people would notice? And as a prototype you would expect there to be some tweaks that need to be made. I think that it looks lovely and would consider one or two even if I can't justify them.

If I can get it right then I should. If it was little things I would leave them. Designing parts and assemblies as a day job I am used to changing and tweaking to make the first one into a good final product. I know they lasted into BR as ENPARTS vans so I don't see how they can't be justified. Everyone drinks milk, no? Apart from having a soft spot for brown vehicles I read that Tiddington had a large volume of milk traffic and photographs seem to show a large number of churns adorning the station, backing this statement up.

Very impressed with the body sides are they one pice or are they made of overlays.

The framing is full thickness with locations for the strapping (I still have to check these for fit) that fold over the full thickness horizontal planked layer. Afterwards the tags are removed at the top. The sides fold up from the floor and the ends work a similar way, fitting inside the sides.

(edited for typo. early wagon lettering was 6in tall.)

Nice work Rich! I have been thinking about some etch design for a while, but got no further than a few bits drawn in Autocad.

Have you designed the chassis, or is it one of Bob Jones' Cleminson chassis?

Andy

Have you designed the chassis, or is it one of Bob Jones' Cleminson chassis?

Yeah it's one of them. I did think about a chassis with just a small amount of centre wheel movement, which is how I made my n gauge 6 wheeled stock back in the day, but this provides what I believe is a fully compensated and articulated track following ability.

The axle boxes are white metal ones (with the springs cut off). You would struggle to use etched ones because here they have to move independently from the springs.

The in fills were added to allow the 16" lettering style to be applied. Before that they had 5" G.W.R on the upper planks. I've been thinking on how to include these without compromising what is there for anyone who wants them without. This isn't an omission or a mistake and they could be added reasonably easily by the builder.

 

You are right that the three arc roof is not three arc-ed enough. It should be flatter in the middle and more curved at the sides. I made my best guess at this and it looked okay on the CAD screen, or so I thought, but it doesn't look right. If you look again at the photographs of real ones you will also notice that the chunk of wood for the lamp iron to fix to on the end is on the wrong side. I have no idea how I got this wrong, but checking your own work is a minefield.

I am intending to model the changeover period - so most of rolling stock should be in 5" style, with a few new (or newly repainted) items in the larger style (which I think was 25" initially, before later settling on 16"). Therefore your existing design would suit me well - adding the missing infill in cases where I need it should be within my limited abilities

I will take your word for the wooden block being on the wrong side - I can't see this clearly either in your photo, or in any of my selection of photos of the originals (nor the corresponding drawings).

So far as I am concerned, the curvature of the roof is the only thing wrong which "needs" fixing.

And yes, I know that they were used for the area I intend modelling, so I'm definitely interested in a few when they are available.

David

You are right 25" came first followed by 16", however there was not space in-between the framing on these vehicles for 25" letters. Slinn (GWR Siphons, HMRS) claims that they were painted as big as could be fitted. I'm sure I recall this backed up in another source (possibly Great Western Way). Looking at pictures they can't have been a huge amount bigger than 16". Maybe 18"-20".

Prototype or not, it still looks very impressive Rich!

It does mean I'll ditch my plans to do exactly what you have already achieved and wait (but not too long please) for your offerings to be finished...

It does mean I'll ditch my plans to do exactly what you have already achieved and wait (but not too long please) for your offerings to be finished...

The only things to cross of my list of amendments now are the roof profile and to sort out an alternative chassis arrangement to the cleminson one. It should still be possible to make the kit using one of these if desired, however the wheelbase is very short and should lend itself to a 4 wheeled chassis with a centre axle that can slide sideways a small amount in each direction (a little over 0.5mm should be sufficient for a 2' radius). Progress has slowed to a stop due to an infection, which is preventing me from doing anything that requires concentrated vision for more than a short period.

I would have thought that for Calne you would be looking for a yard full of the slightly larger, lesser wheeled, Siphon Cs. I had thought about doing the O5, O6, and O8 or O9 diagrams next to allow a milk train with the characteristic height and width difference between vehicles.