Leaderboard

With the layout up, I have been able to assess and make a series of repairs required after its prolonged period in storage. First up was to fix and rectify all of the point mechanisms and prove the wiring such that I could get trains to run from one end to the other and back into the up and down yards. There's still a lit of errant ballast to deal with but I'm happy with progress. Most of the turnout droppers' soldered joints had failed and it took a while to sort out. I also fixed down some scenic sections which had come loose, reinforced the back of the layout where the road runs behind the hedge and dealt with the chasms which had formed at board joints, inserting new ply former pieces, applying filler and squeezing boards back together, with a sheet of cling film inserted to maintain the break. Scenics have been retrospectively applied and there's still a bit more to do.Photos show works in progress. The entire layout was then turned around so I could fix the fascia to the front. Filler has been liberally applied and it is currently primed, awaiting painting and scenery tweaks. This afternoon, I dragged the two 5ft fiddle yard turntables out of their hiding place and duly unwrapped them. These are Tim Horn products and came ready assembled. They're rather nice too. I couldn't resist putting some flexi track on the top to gauge how many roads I might be able to accommodate. At least 6 I reckon. They've been given a coat of Danish oil to seal the tops and I'll treat the underside in a similar manner. Once the fascia is done, the plan is to mate up the first and last board to their respective fiddle yard boards and finish the run off track work. Cheddar is going to the Railwells show in August as a work in progress, but I'd like to be able to run trains from one end to the other, if only to appease my sense of pride!

There is a photograph in Jim Russell's book 'GWR Wagons Appendix' that shows a wagon loaded with long, thin conifer tree-trunks, of the kind referred to as 'Norway poles'. For some time I have wanted to model a similar load. The wagon itself has been described in this blog before, and has a rather chequered history. Amongst other issues, I put washer plates on the inside, corresponding to the attachment points for the sheet supporter mechanism at each end. I was following the RCH drawing for the sheet supporter parts, which was the only information I had at the time; since then, I have seen photos that show the GWR didn't put washer plates on the inside. I therefore wanted to add a load to hide the washer plates I had put in, so this was my opportunity to model the Norway poles. Making the poles has been a slow process - 15 months in fact. They are made from the twigs of a Christmas tree, with the needles stripped off and most of the bark sanded off. I collected all the suitable twigs from our 2022 tree, but there weren't quite enough, so I had to wait until the 2023 tree became available. Each time, I left the twigs for a couple of months to dry out, then stripped the needles and sanded then with coarse sandpaper. The remaining texture gives a reasonable impression of the partly-stripped bark seen in the prototype photo: The bottom layer of poles was glued to a piece of stiff card about two-thirds the length of the wagon. More poles were glued on top, and the final layer left loose, as I wanted to ensure there was no glue visible. The roping follows that shown in the photo, and is made with 0.75mm rigging thread, as used by ship modellers - the same technique I have described in previous blog entries. A small amount of thin cyanoacrylate glue holds the knots in place. And here with a 2-plank wagon as a runner: Nick.

Dave the welder has run out of big bits to weld..... We are now at the stage of where we now have lots and lots and lots of fiddly small parts that need to be sorted out, and if you watch something like car SOS this is where the time gets eaten up..... The drivers side window getting much attention after more rot was found in the corner, the lower window frame and shelf have been replaced with metal. Another view of the shelf, some quite complex fabrication was required to recreate this. towards the side the shelf has to curve in correctly Awaiting final cutting the whole area of new metal is etched primed to protect it from corrosion. There have also been significant issues found with the door frames and at no1 end the corrosion was so bad it would have prevented proper fitment of the doors, so it has been cut away and replaced with fresh steel. The steel here is 6mm thick so it can be tapped to hold the hinge bolts for the cab doors. Similarly on the other side the door frame was completely rotten its and the cab grab rail recess have been replaced with new steel. below that the door threshold has been replaced and this will form part of the outer skin of the locomotive. this is prior to having the side skirt fitted. on the other side the side skirt has been bent to shape and fitted giving an idea of how things are being achieved, towards the front original side skirt deemed suitable for re-use has been re-attached, it awaits final welding to close up the join, you cant weld too much too quickly as during welding the metal expands and distorts. the cab grabrail recess base awaits cutting and replacing. the drivers side getting the same treatment, as you can see, if you don't protect the steel with primer...it very very quickly starts to rust. At no2 end the cab desk refurbishment is underway we see the absolute rats nest of pipe work below the desk, the cab desk has been removed as the Formica is life expired, and needs replacing. the Formica has been removed (it didn't take much effort) and this leaves behind the contact adhesive we can see the aluminium desk is pretty badly butchered with years of modifications evident. a solvent has been applied to "clean" the old glue off. the desk has been re-covered with tufnol, which is similar to formica but a lot cheaper and less brittle, the only problem is, that its more susceptible to scratches, and isn't as hard wearing as Formica, the desk is being trial fitted, to determine its correct position. the desk in its final position with the fittings attached, the instrument panel will be thoroughly cleaned, and the gauges given a good clean as well after years of dirt ingress, the gauges themselves were comprehensively overhauled, by a group member many years ago and as a result need no attention and are in perfect working order. The brass plunger behind the locomotive air brake is the brake overcharge valve, as 26s had a yellow band FV4 (valve on the left) they didn't overcharge the brake valve in the release position. Back to the exterior....the part we have been really dreading is the front skirts...they are an extremely complicated part of the bodywork and many discussions have been had with other 26 owners on ways to fabricate these correctly.... the one problem we do have is none of us have legible original drawings....so we are going to have to compromise. the skirt itself is a is a curve on 3 planes....and this is something a skilled panel beater could probably achieve with an incredible amount of time....on an English wheel, but the labour costs quoted would be in the region of 5 to 6k per end. Another way of creating it would be with press, but we would need to create the tooling....which for such a limited amount of panels required wouldn't be viable. the way you see above is actually the way BRCW created them individual sections profiled to create the curve along the base and the front to the middle.....but since we don't have the drawings...and neither do the NRM...we will have to use our gut.....and go with what we think looks right from photos....but every other 26 has the same issue....none of them are the original front skirt....they were all repaired and bodged over the years. above we have the plates tack welded into place...to do some trial and error....fitting after we were happy with the result....they were finally welded.... the welds ground and primed... the process completed for the other side..... and finally the front.....is complete.... the windows have been cut to roughly the correct shape, no doubt some work will be required when the screens go back in, there is also some remedial work needed to the "eyebrows" as well. only 15% of the steel in the whole front end of the locomotive is original steel! the original front end.....nice paint....but its hiding a lot of issues.... the July gala approaches......time is of the essence.. and an old friend is coming back....and there's only one thing better than one 26..........

With all the running repairs completed for now, I couldn’t resist putting a few items of stock on the layout before putting it away for the time being. I’ve a list of jobs to do before Wells, including finishing off stock items so I’ve filled my display case with items requiring attention, just to remind me. Some just need lamps, crews and coaling. Some need motors! Next up will be the fiddle yards. photos attached The prairie is heavily reworked Lima with Comet chassis The Collett Goods a reworked Replica with High Level chassis 5757 is a Bachman pannier with a High Level chassis 4694 is rewheeled Bachman Pannier The twin rail car a Worsley Works etch on a cut and shut Replica chassis all are detailed in my other tinking table blog.

In Part One , I wrote that “this engine had several very unusual features” and, in regard to building a model, “I had to start somewhere and, with so many peculiarities, it was hard to choose. As a ‘gentle introduction’, I decided to start with the two bogies.” I intend to continue, as far as possible, to follow a line of ‘least resistance’ but before going any further, I collected as much potentially useful information , photos, and drawings as I could. In his book ‘The British Steam Locomotive 1825 – 1925’ p.106, Ahrons noted that “no description of them, beyond the meagre details in Colburn's " Locomotive Engineering," page 73, has ever been given, and the following account of their constructional details may therefore be of interest.” He continued with quite an extensive article, providing many key dimensions and descriptions of the rubber suspension system. This suspension anticipated Alex Moulton’s work for the Austin Mini by more than a century! Ahron’s also referenced an article in ‘The Engineer’ supplement, 16 Dec 1910 , which provided various sectional views of the engine from which I could make a start. Using these drawings, I started by creating some of those major components for which I had already gained experience in modelling other engines. Ahrons gave the boiler dimensions as 10ft. 9in. long by 4ft. 0½ in. inside diameter, so I created a tube of length 43 mm, inside dia. 16 mm, with 1 mm wall thickness, which provided a good match to an ‘The Engineer’ drawing. I then added firebox and smokebox by tracing over the drawing and extruding as required, to create solid ‘bodies’ in ‘Fusion 360’. The results were as shown below: 3D model of Boiler Assy. Referenced from an illustration in ‘The Engineer’. The next ‘familiar’ item on the agenda was a pair of driving wheels. although these are a little larger than usual, at 36 mm diameter, and flangeless. The stages of my usual method are shown below: My steps in 3D modelling the Driving Wheels It always surprises me how rapidly something resembling an engine emerges, especially once the platform, chimney and safety valve housing have been added. The chimney and safety valve cover were created by my usual method of tracing the profile and then using the ‘Revolve’ tool to create the cylindrical ‘bodies’. The platform was a simple rectangular extrusion from the plan drawing, with the exception that small ‘humps’ had to be raised over each of the bogie wheels. Those early designers did nothing to make life easier for the workmen having to fabricate these shapes by hand! First impression of my evolving model That has completed most of the straightforward parts of this engine and it is now time to start tackling its (many) peculiarities! Outside ‘Frame’ According to Ahrons “The inside bearings were only 5in. long, and therefore additional outside bearings, 9in. long, were provided, the hornblocks of which were riveted to the triangular queen truss " frame," shown outside the driving wheel”. This ‘frame’ was my next subject for modelling. I created the truss and the outside rim of the splasher as a single ‘body’ in ‘Fusion 360’ by extruding from a drawing, as shown below: My sketch of the outside frame supporting the driving axle Most of the sketch was made by using the ‘three point arc’ tool in ‘Fusion 360’ and then I extruded the area coloured blue to form the frame. Next, I extruded the rectangle representing the axlebox, to house the outside bearing. I used another useful tool – the ‘offset’ tool – to create an outer rim around the frame and then ‘pushed’ the annulus (coloured yellow) backwards, to surround the driving wheel as the splasher. Yoke and Boiler Support Plates Now it was time to address two more peculiarities – the yoke across the top of the boiler and the curvaceous plates that supported the boiler from the platform. I created both these features by sketching over one of the front-elevation illustrations from ‘The Engineer’. Again, the most useful sketching tool was the ‘three point arc’ and I then extruded the outlined area to form plates of 0.5 mm thickness, as shown below: There were two identical ‘yoke’ plates in tandem (blue in my sketch) straddling the top of the boiler, with pivoted brackets between them, to carry the vertical suspension rods above the riving wheels. Two curved support plates (green) were placed, one on either side of the boiler, immediately ahead of the driving wheel splashers. Tracing the shapes of the Curved Plates around the Boiler I then move and rotate the parts I have made and align them against my reference 'canvas'. I have hidden the rest of the model for clarity: After producing models of these plates, I moved on to the suspension units for the driving axle. These were illustrated and described by Ahrons. I created my models of the suspension units by sketching the profile over the drawing from ‘The Engineer’ and then using the ‘Revolve’ tool in ‘Fusion 360’ to create the cylindrical rods and the brass pots that contain the india rubber ‘springs, as shown below: My extrusion of a suspension arm alongside ‘The Engineer’ Drawing Motion Plate The motion plate was, again, unusual in that its outer edges were shaped to follow similar curves to those of the boiler support plates. For details of their appearance, I had to turn to another drawing, shown in the Broad Gauge Society (BGS) journal ‘Broadsheet’ No.49 (Spring 2003). The original is one of those ‘split’ drawings, with halves of two different cross sections shown together. To help my visualisation of the engine, I 'mirrored' each half to provide two separate complete cross sections, although I cannot guarantee that all the details on the two sides were perfectly matched. Two cross-sections created from drawings in BGS ‘Broadsheet’ No.49 In my drawing ‘B’, I have shaded the split motion plate, which has square apertures for the connecting rods to pass through. I copied the outlines of these motion plates, as for the other boiler support plates, and extruded them to 0.5 mm thickness. The valves were placed between the cylinders and the valve rods are shown with supporting slide bars. There are many other unusual features in these drawings that I shall return to later, including the well tank suspended below the boiler on brackets from the motion plate. Cylinders The cylinders themselves were too long to fit within the very short smokebox, so they extended for about 1 foot forwards of the smokebox. They were connected across the width of the engine by a box, which enclosed most of the front end of the valve gear, although there were two tail rods protruding from the front face of this box. A photograph of the front end of No.42 also shows a small steam cock on the centre of his cover I constructed this box and the cylinder ends as a separate ‘body’, which I then fixed to the front of the smokebox. My model of the cylinder ‘front end’ That has completed all the main components needed for a ‘top-side’ view of the engine. I have added buffer beams, copied from a different Broad Gauge engine, and extruded the outer sides of the coke bunker. Although simple in external appearance, this bunker has many unusual internal features but I shall come to these later. In the meantime, my 3D model in ‘Fusion 360’ now looks as shown below: I think this model is beginning to capture something of the ‘presence’ that the original engines must had. I still have a lot of work to do on the underpinnings – especially the attachment points for the bogies and the well tanks but right now I feel it’s time to pause for the Easter break! Mike

I ended Part Three with the prospect of modelling the many rods and brackets on the underside looming over me. I had intended to write more at that time but found myself struggling to understand how various parts of the engine fitted together. I think all the ‘easy’ bits have now been done, so I could no longer avoid the complex underpinnings. To gain an overview, I ‘mirrored’ one half of the split plan-view from ‘The Engineer’ and then colour-coded various elements – blue for frames, orange for crankshafts, green for valve gear, and red for wheel bearings. I made a couple of ‘corrections’ to the ‘mirror’ process by moving the cranks on one side to represent ‘quartering’. I have repeated this plan as a ‘header’ to this entry. following its use in Part Three . My 3D model overlaid on ‘The Engineer’ plan view I was pleased to find more information, which helped me interpret the various drawings, in an article from ‘Engineering’, 11th Feb.1870 (reproduced in the Broad Gauge Society (BGS) journal ‘Broadsheet’ No.27, Spring 1992). Although the article refers to the ‘rebuilds’, some of the information appears to apply to the original engines as well. I quote: “…. There is also a centre stay for the crank axle fitted with adjustable wedges; this stay is bolted to transverse plate in front of the firebox which ties the frames and assists in supporting the stay; The eccentric sheaves are of cast iron, as are also their respective straps, these latter having cast on the half that receives the rod two ears which with a pin inserted vertically and eye in the eccentric rod make a lateral joint. The valve gear is of that class known as Gooch‘s stationary link. ... The valve spindles are. guided by a cast-iron bracket bolted to the plates which carry the bogie pin and unite the boiler barrel with the smoke-box tube plate; these brackets have each a flat bar of iron or steel fitted for the spindle crossheads to slide on; these crossheads being similar to the piston crossheads. The reversing shaft is carried by two brackets bolted to the bottom slide bars.” Gooch ‘Stationary Link’ Valve gear I then found a lot more useful information in articles by Douglas S Johnson, published in two issues of ‘Broadsheet’, Nos. 83 and 84 (2020), in which he described constructing a model the ‘hard way’, using nickel silver and brass. While very helpful, these articles also provoked great sighs of relief that I was using 3D computer modelling, rather than facing the problems raised by real model engineering. Modelling the ‘Motion’ As before, I have tried to follow a ‘line of least resistance’, so decided that the moving parts of the motion were the easiest components to understand and place in their appropriate locations. My hope was that the locations of the various supporting brackets would become more obvious once I had the moving parts in place. One of the great things about 3D modelling in a computer is that individual parts will stay where they are placed, as though on ‘sky hooks’! Sketch of Motion over ‘The Engineer’ Drawing I started with the main drive-shafts between the cylinders and the driving wheel cranks. The rods are simply cylinders, produced by extruding their cross-section drawings. I have simplified the cross head by extruding from a plan view and then set in place two slide bars, above and below the cross head. I show these parts above the ‘canvas’ which provided me with the overall dimensions. My representation of the main drive components These parts will form a static representation of the motion – fully working motion would need metal bars and bearings, which are not on my agenda at present. Because of their prominent locations, they are needed for completing the external appearance of my model. Side view of the Motion in place on my model I followed up by using similar methods to create the various components of the valve gear. I made the profile of the Gooch stationary link by tracing over the above sketch of the valve gear and then created the various rods by simple extrusions from sketches. After creating the various components individually, I moved them into their appropriate locations on one side of the engine and then ‘mirrored’ the whole lot to the other side. My layout of Valve gear components Next, I put the components into the context of the rest of the model (minus boiler and smokebox), to help me to determine where the various supporting structures need to be placed. Setting the Motion in the context of my Model Before I could get much further, I needed to develop a better understanding of how this engine ‘worked’. Overall Engine Structure In most engines, the driving wheels transmit the force needed to pull the train, through a pair of strong plate frames running the full length on each side of the engine. These are linked at the back to a strong drag bar running across the width of the engine and carrying the couplings to following vehicles. In this Pearson engine, the strong plate frames are notably absent. The design has been likened to a road-going Traction Engine but, although there are similarities, they are not the same. In a Traction Engine, the driving wheels are near the back and transmit their forces through a strong frame at the rear end, which carries the necessary draw gear. The boiler in such an engine is a forward extension from the ‘pulling part’ of the engine, carried at its forward end by the steerable front wheels. A different analogy can be found in Brunel’s design for his Chepstow Bridge, in which he took advantage of the considerable strength of an iron tube to transmit both compression and tension forces. In Pearson’s engine, it is the boiler that provides this key structural component, being connected to the central driving axle through the yoke spanning the top of the boiler. As a tank engine, the design was intended to work in both directions. When running forwards the boiler transmitted the driving force in turn to the firebox, through a transverse frame member, and then to the rectangular tank underneath the coal bunker. The rear coupling hook was bolted directly to the back of this tank, which acted as a box girder. For running backwards the forces were carried by two plates riveted to the lower sides of the boiler, which transmitted the forces to the cylinder casting and then by a short shaft to the front coupling. I should point out that the above is my own interpretation after spending several days looking at drawings. If those with more engineering expertise see it differently then I shall be pleased to be corrected. This method of conveying the main driving forces through the boiler would not be permitted now. The fact that even substantial plate frames were subject to cracking under stress, suggests what could happen to a pressurised boiler in similar circumstances. Modelling the Structure It took a lot of head-scratching and poring over drawings before, largely by trial and error, I worked out how everything fitted together. The drawings show a plethora of riveted plates, which took me some time before I could understand their functions and how they fitted within the overall context of the engine as a working vehicle. I’m not sure that I can now recall all the steps that I made (and an account would be very tedious anyway) but the outcome of all my deliberations is shown below. I started with the basic rectangular frame, described Ahrons as “only 8in. deep for the greater part of its length except at the driving hornblocks. An arrangement of angle plates, 2ft. deep, was fastened to the side of the fire-box and to the front of the well tank. From this point to the back buffer beam there was no frame at all.” Next, I had to understand the curved plate that can be seen in ‘The Engineer’ side elevation, extending from the back of the smokebox and riveted along the lower sides of the boiler. I determined that there were actually two of these plates attached on either side of the casting that carries the front bogie mount. Their purpose was, apparently, to transfer tractive forces from the boiler to the front coupling on the engine. I placed them on my model as shown below: Modelling the Front-end Boiler Brackets I could now place the ‘motion’ I described earlier into the context of these brackets and the rectangular frame, as shown below: Setting the motion within the inside frame I could now work out the arrangements for the centre bearing of the crank axle and its fore and aft attachments to the firebox and front well tank. Centre-bearing for Crank Axle (outer bearings not shown) It all looks so simple now – it’s hard to take in how long it took me to figure all this out from the drawings I have 🙂 Actually, when I put it all together, perhaps it doesn’t look quite so simple! Quite a step up from my previous modelling methods: My model of the ‘Works’ It’s rather a pity that almost all of this becomes invisible once the boiler and outer frames are in place 😒 I also find myself wondering how the real engine was erected, with so many ‘inter-dependent’ parts. My 3D model in ‘photographic grey’ There’s not even much to see from underneath because it’s hidden by the well tank. My 3D model viewed from below After rendering in ‘Fusion 360’ my model looks like this: My 3D model rendered in ‘Fusion 360’ You’d have to look at this rather carefully to spot any visible differences from my earlier renderings! Now that I’ve teased out most of the internal features, which has been an ‘interesting’ mental exercise, I shall have to return to considering the ‘cosmetic’ appearance. There’s still a lot to be done on the details, such as rivets, boiler bands, and so on … and on. Oh, and brake gear on the rear bogie. Enough for now Mike

I recently finished the ratio Toad kit. The whole thing was sprayed halfords white primer then humbrol 64 light grey. The solebar and below are revell matt black and handrails etc painted white. I wanted to have the van allocated to Croesnewydd although I have no photos of a BR era van with this legend. The areas for black were masked and sprayed. As @Mikkel suggested I used an HMRS sheet to construct the croesnewydd but only had the general wagon sheet so the Y was cut from HYBAR! I weathered with a black enamel was and sprayed the solebar and beneath with a mix of revell black and brown. Lamps and spratt and winkles to follow.

Before moving northward I picked up a bargain couple of kits from John Dutfield in Chelmsford. The subject of this blog is the Ratio toad kit bought for £3. It is showing its age and 'requires' some uplifting procedures. I was inspired by Geoff Kent's upgrade of this kit in his 3rd book on the 4mm wagon. The kit has a nice shape to it but the handrails along the body side aare moulded and are fairly thick. Again, this is a matter for taste and their is little value in critiquing what I assume is a 40 odd year old kit. As ever, all handrails are scraped away using the scalpel. I am not very knowledgable about diagrams etc etc but Geoff points us in the right direction to what needs changing. The vertical L section on the sides of the cabin stop short for the type of vehicle being modelled. It is not a fault of the kit. These were extended with pladtikard. The end windows have sloping upper and lower cills so were scraped away and replaced with shaped plastikard. The footboard brackets are replaced with .8mm brass rod at the ends and .5mm brass for the central bits. On closer inspection of the prototype I think these might be made for L section. The new handrails are made from .45mm rod mounted on L section brackets made from brass section. The L section is drilled with a .5mm bit and the protusion length marked with pen. Then I fettled the piece to be mounted into the body with a mini cutting disc. The veranda doors or gates are not right and to model them open you need to build your own. This was made from .5mm plastikard cut into the frame shape of rectangle with diagonal brace (see the door on the far siee above) this was laminated with plastikard scribed with planks and .33mm wire used for the handrail. A new step was also built from plastikard. Inside the veranda a new brake handle, sander lever and bench were made. Underneath, sanding pipes were made from .8mm and .45mm rod. Brake gear was partially represented in .45mm rod and staples shaped to form the safety loops. Lanarkshire buffers finish things off nicely as usual and brass tube chimney re-sited on the roof. This will be painted unfitted grey and will join the Caia Road roster. Cheers for now. David

I have finally finished the first B set for Cheddar. Little did I know that this was going to be quite so involved when I started, what now seems a very long time ago. The origin was a set of sides, roofs and ends from the Ks kit, kindly given to me by Tim Venton. These coaches were prevalent in the Bristol division after nationalisation so I was always going to have a set on Cheddar. When it came to start, I’d lost one of the ends so ended up making a blank from plasticard. The sides were glued together and married up to a Comet under frame and Bill Bedford sprung bogies. Under frame detail is a mixture of Comet and MJT. The bogie sides were originally the incorrect 9ft pressed steel type before I swapped to the 9ft fishbelly bogies and added lots of extra step details. I also made the mistake of painting carmine and cream before being corrected and advised that this wouldn’t have been applied to non gangway stock. Easily rectified and painted chocolate and cream to match the photos in Russell. Lining is HMRS. Numbering and end lettering is from Railtec. Seating is Ratio, handles Comet and an unmarked bag of unknown origin. Glazing… Hmm. This was individually flush glazed with perspex and yes it did take an age but I’m out of therapy now. I’m never, ever doing this again. Thank goodness for Rapido’s E140/5. I’ve an E129 and E147 to do from Comet kits but at least they’re brass. Whether I’ll ever use the shawplan extreme etching flush glazing on the Airfix b sets remains to be seen. At least they’re pre-cut. These coaches have taken over a year to complete and yes there are plenty of things I could have done better. Apart from some weathering they’ll have to do for now.

By the end of Part Two , I had modelled all the most visible parts of the engine and felt tempted to stop there but many of the peculiarities of these engines were below the platform, so I had to keep going ‘down there’. Photo by Snell of B&ER 4-2-4T No.42 Although I have collected quite a number of drawings and photos, there are still some difficulties in determining the layout of all the parts, especially since some drawings omit features and others show some profiles, without indicating their locations in three dimensions. Well Tanks I decided to start with the two well tanks, once below the boiler and the other below the coke bunker, since these are well displayed in the three-view illustrations from ‘The Engineer’ supplement, 1910, which I showed in Part Two. I sketched the profiles by using the ‘Rectangle’ tool in ‘Fusion 360’ to trace over the end elevation illustrations. I then extruded the profiles to the lengths indicated on the side elevations. These steps are shown below: Locating model well tanks against ‘The Engineer’ illustrations The above drawings show the internal bracing struts inside the tank under the bunker, which served to reinforce the mounting for the ball on which the rear bogie was pivoted. While I have not modelled these completely concealed structures, they provided me with useful guidance on the placement of similar-looking braces at the font-end of the engine. The drawings show that there were two upward extensions from the tank under the bunker, leading up to the filler caps. These structures also served to separate the crew footplate from the coke bunker itself, behind them. A tool box and brake handle were also placed above the footplate. According to Ahrons: “An arrangement of angle plates, 2ft. deep, was fastened to the side of the fire-box and to the front of the well tank. From this point to the back buffer beam there was no frame at all.” I sketched the outlines of the tank extensions and the toolbox by tracing over the plan view from ‘The Engineer’ and extruded upwards from the sketches to match the illustration of the elevation. The results are shown below: Coke Bunker with Toolbox and Tank Fillers Front Bogie Mountings Having secured the rear bogie on its ball and socket joint, it was time to turn to the front end. According to Ahrons: “The ball of the leading bogie was secured to the underside of the cylinders by means of a casting with wings, to which two horizontal tie rods were fastened ; the other ends of the latter were secured to the bogie side frames, and prevented the bogies from slewing round across the track.” I attempted to identify these features from the front-end elevation shown in ‘The Engineer’ illustrations. Front Elevation from ‘The Engineer’ I assume that the casting for the ball is the part I have coloured blue, while the ‘wings’ are the parts coloured orange. The tie-rods to the bogie frame can be seen extending outwards from pivots on these ‘wings’. Where, though, is the brace coloured red to be placed? It is shown crossing in front of the tie rods so, perhaps, as at the rear end, there were two braces – fore and aft of the tie rods. I have enhanced the relevant area from the photo of No.42 above: Detail from Snell’s photo of No.42 The photo clearly shows a reinforcing bracket on the bogie side fame and what looks like the end of a tie-rod just above the frame. It appears that there were bracing plates either side of the tie-rod, which may be what is represented on the front-elevation drawing. Unless anyone has any more information or I find another drawing, I have to go with this assumption. I created the following support structure by first tracing the profile of the ball and the casting immediately above it, followed by using the ‘Revolve’ tool to create a cylindrical ‘body’. Then I sketched ‘wings’ either side of the central body. For the bracket, I traced the front-elevation profile and extruded it, initially with a rectangular profile. I then used the ‘Cut’ tool across the extruded width to create the sloping sides seen in the photo above and the central slot through which the tie-bars pass. My result is shown below, with the component parts coloured as in the illustration above. I also show the completed model, assembled above the front bogie: My interpretation of the front bogie support frame With the well tanks and bogie attachments in place, the underside of my model now looks like this: My model underside with well tanks in place As an aside, I think this underside view demonstrates why Dean failed in his attempt to create a narrow (standard) gauge version of a 4-2-4 tank engine. There was no room for the large well tanks so he had to resort to large side tanks, which were a source of severe instability. I have previously modelled Dean’s experimental No.9, as described in my Pre-Grouping blog. There’s a lot more detail still to be added to the underside. To gain an overview, I ‘mirrored’ one half of the split plan-view from ‘The Engineer’ and then colour-coded various elements – blue for frames, orange for crankshafts, green for valve gear, and red for wheel bearings. I made a couple of ‘corrections’ to the ‘mirror’ process by moving the cranks on one side to represent ‘quartering’: My Colour-coded plan view, derived from ‘The Engineer’ illustration As I began to examine this underside view in conjunction with the various elevations, I realised that the complex array of brackets and plates was not going to be easy to unravel! On this engine, the motion is very visible in side views, so I cannot escape modelling its main features. It has become clear that it’s going to take me some time to work out how all these parts fitted together in three dimensions, so I’ve decided to take a break before starting on modelling the motion and various underpinnings. This will a new area for me, since I have neglected any detailed representation of the motion on the engines I have designed previously. Mike

I decided to have a think about making track. I have a number of reference photos, including the excellent one of Corsican track kindly uploaded by 5&9 models earlier in the blog. So, timber sleepers, medium weight flat bottom rail held down with track screws. Firstly sleepers. These are cut from some old mahogany, pretty hard but it saws well. A scale 2.1 m long which seems like a reasonable average from the info I can find. Track screws next. Sometimes called rail screws or screwed spikes. These are still manufactured by several companies so I was able to get dimensioned drawings. Some experiments later I came up with the idea of using a peco track pin with a 0.5 mm cube of styrene glued to the head. This is the first batch with a coat of primer. Some rejects but enough to play with. Peco trackpins are 0.4 mm dia. There is no chance of them going through mahogany that tough without a pilot hole. However using any sort of hand held drill is a recipe for snapping drill bits at a rate. So I made a drill machine consisting of a linear ball slide mechanism from the bits box with a flexible mini drill drive clamped to it. Here it is sat on the sleeper drilling jig which makes sure that one inner hole is accurately drilled as a reference point. I painted a bit of scrap 10 mm ply as a test bed. First sleeper fixed with a track screw on the inside. The rail is peco code 83. Intended for HO that represents a fairly heavy flat bottom rail, but at 1/50 scale it comes in very close to the drawing I have of typical metre gauge track. The drill can then make the outer hole and a track screw inserted. The curve is 1 m radius marked out using the bit of string tied to a pencil method. With the inner rail fixed roller gauges are use to position the outer rail for drilling. Some pictures of the test track. I have tried a bit of ballasting and rail painting at the lh end. Not particularly happy about those, but I will do tests with other ballasts a few sleepers at a time till I find one I like. Overall I feel that was a worthwhile test. The track looks right to my eye and the wood sleepers have a more natural variation than plastic ones. Similarly the slight positional variation of the track screws adds to the realism. Price wise it isn’t much more than standard OO track, certainly cheaper than O gauge.

'Hello. Welcome and Good Evening' as a well known TV presenter who once lived in Raunds, Northamptonshire might have said. Sat on my workbench for a number of years have been two partially completed Dapol/Airfix Prestwin wagon kits. These kits stem from Airfix, being released in 1964. However, Rosebud/Kitmaster originating from Raunds had been taken over by Airfix in the early 1960's. From memory the current incarnation of this kit from Dapol has soft recycled plastic. Thankfully they still go together nicely. Originally, I was batch building four of these kits. Two were for good friends and were completed. With a recent week off work I decided to clear out a number of outstanding wagon projects including the two remaining Prestwin's. Both kits had Alan Gibson wheels fitted. In addition to this Mr.Franks finest Lanarkshire Model Supplies (LMS) cast buffers and coupling hooks were fitted. Sprayed with Halfords grey plastic primer Revell and Valejo acrylics were brush applied. Once dry a light coat of Halfords Satin Varnish was applied. Transfers are from Fox and sealed with Johnson's Kleer. Once more a light dusting Halfords Satin sealed everything. Weathering and couplings await. These old Dapol/Airfix kits build up nicely, and once more show a cost effective means of acquiring new wagons. What with the Kitmaster and the Sir David Frost connection, as well as the shoe factory famous for the 'Kinky Boots' musical, Raunds should certainly be on the map. Cheers, Mark

After dissecting the workings of the extraordinary 9ft. Pearson 4-2-4T engines in my previous four posts , I was interested to examine how these engines compared with William Dean’s later attempt to create something similar for the standard gauge. To make the comparison on as level a playing field as possible, I looked up information on the slightly later Pearson engines fitted with smaller 7’ 6” driving wheels – similar to those on Dean’s standard gauge engine. I have previously modelled the Dean engine, as described in my Pre-Grouping blog . Thee were eight of the original Pearson 4-2-4T design, with 9 ft. driving wheels, all built by Rothwell & Co. and delivered in 1853-4. There must have been difficulties arising from their novel features, as they were all rebuilt, with the usual form of inside frames and conventional springs, in 1868-70. In between these batches, two more 4-2-4T engines were built for the Bristol & Exeter Railway (B&ER) in Bristol. These were similar to the 9 ft. engines but with smaller driving wheels of 7’ 6” diameter. No. 29 was delivered in September, 1859 and No. 12 in April, 1862. These engines survived into GWR ownership and, as GWR No. 2005, the former No.12 remained in its original condition until broken up in about 1887. Ahrons, in “Locomotive and Train Working in the Latter Part of the Nineteenth Century”,Vol. Four, 1953, reports seeing No. 2005 frequently at Swindon and Bristol sheds. GWR No.2005 formerly B&ER No.12, built 1862 and broken up 1887 Taken together, these facts suggest that there may have been a closer relationship than has been recognised previously between Dean’s standard gauge 4-2-4T and the Pearson broad gauge 7’ 6”, GWR No.2005. Since I have already created a model of the Dean engine , I wanted to see how it compared with No.2005, by placing two models ‘side by side’. Creating a Model of B&ER No.12 (GWR No.2005) No.12 has been described as being similar to the earlier 9 ft. singles, although many of the ‘exotic’ features of the earlier engines had already been abandoned by then, even before the original engines were re-built. I found a fairly detailed description of the smaller engines, including an outline drawing, in ‘The Locomotive Magazine’, Vol . III. No. 36. Dec.1898 According to ‘The Locomotive Magazine’: “Their driving wheels were only 7ft. 6in. Diameter…. The diameter of the bogie wheels was 4ft, and the total wheel base was 25ft. 2in, the leading bogie having a base of 5ft. 6in., whilst that of the trailing bogie was 5ft. 9in., the driving wheels were 9ft. 4in. behind the leading bogie centre, and 10ft. 3in. in advance of the trailing. The boiler was 9ft. 9in. long, its maximum external diameter being 4ft. 2in., and the height of its centre line above the rail level 6ft. 11in.” This information was adequate for me to create a 3D model, which I based on my existing model of one of the 9 ft. engines. It was actually an easier modelling task, since these engines had conventional inside frames. Some peculiar featured remained, however, such as the water tank underneath the ashpan! Following my usual method, I created the boiler-smokebox-firebox assembly by reference to the above drawing, imported into ‘Fusion 360’ as a ‘canvas’. In addition to the driving wheels being smaller, the boiler was 1 ft. shorter than on the earlier engines. I used the ‘Move’ tool in ‘Fusion 360’ to modify faces of the original models of the 9 ft. engines, so as to match the profiles taken from the drawing. Creating 3D Boiler Assy with reference to Drawing I had to make new driving wheels, by my usual method, but re-used the bogie wheels and then assembled all the wheels around a new pair of full-length inside frames Creating 3D Chassis with reference to Drawing I took advantage of the way in which objects can pass through one another in the virtual world, by creating the two cylinders as complete ‘bodies’ that were then largely enclosed within the smokebox with parts of the sides protruding. The coke bunker only needed slight modification and the chimney and safety valve cover had to be re-profiled. One item which I have not modelled before was the curved handrail, which is such a prominent feature as it loops above the driving wheel splasher. This feature is easy to create in ‘Fusion 360’ by using the ‘Sweep’ tool. The path to be taken by the handrail is first created as a sketch, using the ‘arc’ and ‘line’ tools. Next the circular profile of the rail has to be created in a perpendicular plane. The ‘Sweep’ tool then causes the ‘profile’ to be extruded along the ‘path’, as illustrated below. Using the ‘Sweep’ tool to create a curved handrail in ‘Fusion 360’ So, it needed surprisingly little re-work before I had another model, representing the smaller-wheeled version of Pearson’s 4-2-4 tanks. My 3D model of Pearson’s 7’ 6” version of his 4-2-4T in GWR livery There’s a lot more detailing that could be added but I think this gives a good impression of the overall appearance of the real locomotive. Comparison with Dean’s standard-gauge version In parallel with developing this 3D model, I have also re-modelled the Dean standard gauge 4-2-4T in ‘Fusion 360’, so that I could place both versions together, to make some direct visual comparisons: I describe creating my 3D standard gauge model in in my Pre-Grouping blog. Pearson (broad gauge) and Dean (standard gauge) 4-2-4T Engines compared Looking at these two together, I think it is fairly obvious why the Dean engine had difficulty in staying on the track! With Dean’s inflexible bogie design and the excessive overall length, the lateral forces on any slight curvature must have been considerable, not helped by the large masses of water sloshing about in the long side tanks. It is possible that the two engines did actually come together at Swindon, since No.2005 was still around when No.9 was built and, according to Ahrons, a frequent visitor to Swindon. Dean 4-2-4T meets Pearson 4-2-4T Mike

Almost 10 years ago, I wrote a post about Dean’s experimental 4-2-4 tank engine , which made a brief appearance in 1882 before being hurriedly rebuilt as a more conventional 2-2-2 tender engine. Very little information has survived about the original engine, except that it had a chronic inability to stay on the track. With so little prototype information available – and even less that could be considered reliable – I felt justified in taking considerable liberties in the design of my model. The most glaring divergence from received opinion is my arrangement of the bogies, with the longer one at the back. I arrived at this decision after considering the layout of the rebuilt 2-2-2 version, which indicated that the outside Stephenson valve gear could not fit, if the longer bogie were at the front. I illustrate this point in the following diagram: Bogie arrangements compared to photo of Rebuilt No.9 Other aspects of my model that are entirely fanciful are the extended cab roof and the decorative ‘fake’ wheel arch. So the following photo is my own interpretation, which may or may not have some similarity to Dean’s prototype. My representation of Dean’s 4-2-4T at North Leigh Station More information about the construction of my model, which was built by traditional methods, using brass sheet, and was powered by a Tenshodo SPUD motor in the rear bogie, was given in my original post . Coming to more recent times, the extraordinary 4-2-4 tanks that were designed by Pearson for the Bristol and Exeter Railway have entered my sphere of interest. I have modelled these recently, as described in my Broad Gauge blog . One fact that has emerged is that two examples of a version of the Pearson engines, with smaller 7’ 6” diameter driving wheels, survived into GWR ownership, when they were numbered 2005 and 2006. GWR No. 2005, which was built at Bristol in 1862, remained in its original condition until broken up in about 1887. The point here is that this date is after Dean designed his standard gauge version! Furthermore, Ahrons, in “Locomotive and Train Working in the Latter Part of the Nineteenth Century”, vol.4, reports seeing number 2005 frequently at Swindon and Bristol shed. Taken together, these facts suggest that there may have been a closer relationship between Dean’s 4-2-4T and the Pearson 7’ 6” GWR No.2005 than has been recognised previously. In order to examine this relationship further, I decided to create 3D models of both No,2005 (broad gauge) and No.9 (standard gauge), so that I could place them side-by-side and consider the similarities and differences. In this blog, I shall describe my creation of a 3D model of No.9, while I shall tackle the other engine in my Broad Gauge blog. Creating a 3D Model of No.9 As I mentioned above, my existing model of No.9 was built by traditional methods, using brass sheet that I cut out by hand over paper templates. I still have the drawings, made using ‘Autosketch’ software, so I started by importing these drawings, as a ‘canvas’, into ‘Fusion 360’. I then followed my usual process of extruding the various components – boiler, firebox, frames, etc - from the drawings, to create 3D structures. I have previously described my methods in a blog post about creating a 3D model of a GWR ‘Sir Daniel’ class engine. For my current model, the initial layout of the components looked as shown below: Outlines of my Model Components over ‘Canvas’ in Fusion 360’ I added various details such as the outside Stephenson valve gear and the bogie side frames, to bring the 3D model up to a similar stage of detail as my brass model and then rendered the computer model in appropriate colours. After taking a screen shot of the 3D model, I added some more livery details in 'Photoshop' to give ‘character’ to the result. Remember that most of this comes from my own imagination, as we know very little about how the prototype was finished. I have tried to make it look like a ‘prestige’ express engine, which was apparently the original intention. My 3D model of No.9, rendered in ‘Fusion 360’ If the prototype really looked anything like this, I can understand why David Joy recorded in his diary, following a visit to Swindon in 1882 “I saw all about a mighty 'single' tank engine Dean and Charlton were building—8 ft-single and double 4 ft. - wheel bogies at each end. I saw drawings and all, and she looked a beauty. She was intended to do Paddington to Swindon in 2 min. under time," Comparison with Pearson Broad Gauge 4-2-4T I have described my 3D modelling of Pearson's engine in my Broad Gauge blog. Pearson (broad gauge) and Dean (standard gauge) 4-2-4T Engines compared Looking at these two together, I think it is fairly obvious why the Dean engine had difficulty in staying on the track! With Dean’s inflexible bogie design and the excessive overall length, the lateral forces on any slight curvature must have been considerable, not helped by the large masses of water sloshing about in the long side tanks. Dean was faced with several problems. He wanted to emulate the boiler capacity of Gooch’s 8 ft. ‘singles’, which would soon have to be replaced, so he had to increase the length to compensate for loss of width possible on a broad gauge engine. According to the RCTS booklet Part Two, “The domeless boiler was itself a. phenomenon, for it was one of the first in this country to be made in two rings and withal had a barrel length of 11ft. 6in.. not destined to be repeated for another ten years.”. The firebox also had to be lengthened, to maintain a grate area comparable with the wide firebox that was possible on the broad gauge. Another problem was how to accommodate large diameter cylinders, like those used on the broad gauge, together with their associated valves and steam chests within the narrower space between the frames. He tried placing the valves above the cylinder, operating them through rocking shafts from outside Stephenson valve gear. Most authorities agree that this engine was a complete disaster and must have been a considerable embarrassment to Dean - it’s not surprising that he didn’t want it talked about too much!. But he got over it and eventually came up with his own ‘singles’, which moved the valves below the cylinders in the ‘Stroudley’ arrangement and provided a much improved design of front bogie (after a pair of leading wheels proved insufficient) to keep the machine on the track. The long side tanks had to go and greater water capacity was obtained from a lengthened 6-wheel tender It is possible that the two engines did actually come together at Swindon, since No.2005 was still around and, according to Ahrons, a frequent visitor to Swindon. Dean 4-2-4T meets Pearson 4-2-4T Mike

Recently Hornby have released their 6 wheeled Sentinel in the guise of L81 which represents the first of three Sentinel's acquired second hand to replace the venerable LT Pannier tanks. Unfortunately with the prototypes their wheelbase was insufficient to operate track circuits on the main line. To address this a tender was attached fitted with a trip cock. The tenders were manufactured from 'Q' stock bogies. The tender and Sentinel carried conventional coupling gear as well as Ward-Lock couplings. This allowed the shunting of other Underground stock. Difficulties in fitting the Ward-Lock couplings made fitting of normal buffers to the Sentinel's problematic. To address this wooden buffers we're fitted to the Sentinel's front end with a Ward-Lock coupling. The tenders were able to accommodate Ward-Lock couplings as well as standard hinged oval buffers. CDC Kits have come to the rescue with a 3D printed tender. A choice of buffer positions are available. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/225753447991?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=0CsmXNqgQWK&sssrc=4429486&ssuid=MNMqJGNPSxi&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY I chose the buffers down version. On arrival other than paint and couplings the kit is ready to go. Unless... If you look at prototype pictures of these tenders coupled to the Sentinel's you will see tender runs at the same height as the Sentinel's buffer beam. The CDC kit is supplied running on 12mm Dapol wagon wheels. This then gives a stepped appearance between tender/Sentinel. To address this holes were drilled out for brass axle bearings. Then Gibson 10mm Lowmac were fitted which lowers the ride height of the tender correcting it. In using tension lock couplings, lowering the tender then ensures coupling height is the same as the representation of the Ward-Lock coupling housings on the tender. As you can see from the photo below markings have been set out for drilling holes for Bachmann NEM fitting tension locks. Finer handrails will be soldered up for the tender as well to match the Sentinel. Livery wise on the prototype the tender was finished in black with a red buffer beam, white handrails and collector shoes. More soon once I've fired up the soldering iron. Cheers, Mark

This is the new page for my County loco build. This blog will describe the build of a Great Western County 4-4-2 tank loco. The chassis is by SE Finecast which will sit under a body from a Dean Sidings / Phoenix kit - the latter being a Resin based model. The instructions suggest you use the chassis from a Hornby 4-4-0 County loco, but by going for the SE Finecast option, I am hoping for a better loco. As an aside the Hornby County 4-4-0 loco is going for something like £70 on eBay - of course it needs to be the loco driven model, not the tender drive. The prototype: These locos were built around 1904-1912 in 3 batches, with only 30 built in total. They were built around the same time as the County 4-4-0 tender locos. Both had driving wheels of 6ft 8 1/2" and were reputedly rough riders. This is from the site: http://www.gwr.org.uk/no4-coup-tanks.html its about 3/4 way down the page. Swindon 2221 Class Built between 1905 and 1912 with Standard No 2 boilers, these were tank versions of the 4-4-0 Counties, and were therefore known as the 'County tanks'. They were built to work the growing number of faster suburban services from Paddington. The first two batches had square dropdown frames at the front, the third (and last) batch having the later curved style, and cylinders set lower. They were fitted with bi-directional water scoops. The initial shape of the brake hangers on the driving wheels was curved, following closely the perimeter of the wheel, but was soon changed for a 'straight down' style as seen in the pictures here. The class was an early recipient of ATC, the first locos being fitted in 1908, with most of the rest of the class in 1915–1916. (At that time, the equipment was still known by its original name of 'Audible Cab Signalling', a term remaining in use, and latterly supplemented by 'Automatic Train Control', well into the 1920s.) The last loco was withdrawn in 1934 This photo is from the Russell vol 1 loco book and shews 4-4-2T no 2237 at Reading in the 1920's. This loco was based at this time at Reading and regularly worked the branch to Henley-on-Thames. There is a new build project for a full size 4-4-0 tender loco: https://www.churchwardcounty.org.uk The loco is being built at Tysley and will be based at the Gloucester, Warwickshire Railway when finished. Why build this kit? It will be something different to the usual Collett standard GWR locos and will be another case of stretching my skills. This will be the second loco I have built. The loco build: These are the etches for the frames, with the resin body behind: At this stage, it's a case of reading the instructions and identifying the parts. (There is a lot of surplus etch here, as the spacers are also for EM and P4). When cutting the parts from the etch, do not cut on your trusty cutting mat. Instead use a piece of plywood. As can be seen, my ply, also has holes drilled through the wood. In the photo above, you can see the frames and the holes cut out for the axles. These need to be opened out a little to get the bearings to fit. The tool in the foreground is a 5 sided broach reamer (Squires sell them as a set of 5) I thought I would only use them once, for my Metro loco build.... when in fact I use them all the time. Place the required hole on the plywood and over one of the drilled holes (in the ply) and gradually work the reamer round until the axle bearing fits. Note: Please do not file or drill these holes - you will possibly end up with a distorted hole. Only use the broach reamer. I now use this method when making up my bogies for my carriages and it is making a huge difference to the way they run. ________________ The black art of Soldering: Practice makes perfect.... I use a 25w iron, nothing fancy... together with DCC concepts solder and DCC concepts flux. I have soldered seemingly for ages and connecting wires together hasn't really been an issue. But soldering up a Brass carriage can take a lot of practice. I still have my first carriage kit (from about 30 years ago) where I struggled to heat the brass, piling more solder onl which became an unsightly mess. The only solution at that time was to get someone to make it for me, which is what happened. The jury is still out with regards to the "Poppy's jig" in the photo below. During the Metro build, I found it a bit of a nuisance and couldn't initially get the frames square. However, the first frame spacer that was soldered in for the County tank was the spacer that sits under the front running plate. (The screw-in spacers were already in position). At that point the loco was put into the jig. (For this loco, the front spacer brings the frames together, almost into a bow shape, like a boat!) With the frames in the jig, I could solder up all the various spacers with relative ease. I started work around 1:30pm and put the loco aside about 5pm or so and couldn't resist putting the wheels on. The next step will be getting the wheels to run freely and for this, they will be placed on a section of track which gets lifted at one end, whereupon the chassis should easily run down the elevated track. Day 2 build - 21st December 2023: With the chassis complete, I needed to ream one axle position only. Note: In order to have consistency, from this point on, keep all the wheels together, only remove one side and mark the wheels up so they always go back into the same axle. (When working on the loco, I always keep it in the same direction as the instructions.) The front wheels spin nicely, the rear wheels didn't, so need to be reamed. This is the reaming tool in action. It didn't need much to get both sets of wheels spinning nicely. They were then tested on a short length of track, which was supported at one end by a pair of pliers - they happily free-wheeled down the track. Its not a great photo, but you can see that the incline is minimal: Next I made up the bogie - I've got pin-point wheels in at the moment - the correct wheels were out of stock at Wizard models. The whitemetal sides were superglued to the metal frame - however, with the fixing bolt and spring in place (The spring is a bit tight), it's going to be very difficult to get the nut onto the thread.... I think for the time being, I will force a piece of plastic sleeving onto it. At least that way when I am working on the chassis, it wont keep dropping out! This is what it looked like at the end of the day - it felt as if there wasn't much to show and progress was slow. edit: Friday 22nd December 2023: Today I have been working on the cylinder parts - the photos are self explanatory: The Brass items still need fettling before they can fitted: Final shot for today shows the loco loosely placed onto the chassis. It needs fitting at the back properly. I now need to retrace my steps and continue working on the chassis, setting the cylinder details aside for the time being. However, I will do the modification with the bogie fixing that discussed in the comments below. I will then move onto the gearbox assembly (Roadrunner Plus) and also look at the rear fixings and the fixing of the rear radial truck. Continued Thursday 28th December 2023: A quick 5 minute job today 😄 It was going to be very easy and straightforward.... Re: Brake rigging The County etch is set up with brakes at the rear of the wheels.... which seems to be the way the County 4-4-0 tender locos were set up. The County 4-4-2T always had the brake blocks on the front face of the wheels. In trying to check the details; it was obvious the tank locos always had their brake rigging on the inside of the frames, with the County tender locos having a mix of brake gear on the inside and outside. (Its seemed to change at will.) Out came the TD set and with the aid of the dividers, I marked up the points to drill. On the drawings for the kit, the two sets of brake gears are shown as having a different height... but this is now looking wrong on the model. I need to check it again before carrying on. Friday 29th December 2023 Progress has been slow over Christmas and no doubt will continue to be slow over the New Year period as well. I marked out the brake rigging (for the brakes to be in front of the wheels) and drilled 4 holes in the correct place - it later turned out that, 2 were not in the correct place. 😠 But sometimes, that is just the way it is - its only 2 holes in the wrong place and no-one will know 😎 This is the chassis being marked out for the brake rigging, using the existing holes as a guide: It turns out that the pilot holes for the brakes on the front wheels are set lower than those on the rear drivers. I faithfully copied the holes on the frames and put them into the new position.... I then trawled through all the photos I could find of both County tank locos and County tender locos and can not see any that have a differing height for the brakes. Whilst brakes changed position during the respective locos life, they were always in the same plane. Not to worry, I just need to drill 2 fresh holes. I then turned my attention to the coupling rods: These were adjusted by use of the 5 side reamer broach until they ran smoothly. At each stage, they were checked on my elevated piece of track to see if they moved of their own accord. It's a fiddly process, but worth taking time over. For this test, I used a piece of track that was higher on the left than the right - It was longer for this test, so the elevation was gentler. The other side of the loco was done, until eventually I was happy with the movement. I will put together a short video shortly to show this working. Checking how the loco looks: Inevitably in a project like this you want to see how its coming along, I can never resist the temptation to put the body on the chassis. In checking it over with the drawings I am working from, I reckon its about 1mm too high... (Looking at the photos, it also seems to be higher at the front). I've recently been looking at the pony truck at the rear and need to do a side-by-side comparison. The one that comes with the kit is a whitemetal item - whereas Wizard do a lovely etched brass kit: https://www.wizardmodels.ltd/shop/locomotive/ls2/ It will come down to the mounting point and the space that I have. (I decided against as the white metal will have a bit more weight.) By the end of the day, I had made good progress - but something still bothered me. Namely parts no A13 (see drawing below) - I couldn't work out how they fitted onto part B6. A13 should be the sides of the firebox, with a gap inside for the power pick-ups..... I have soldered B6 into the frames as per the diagram - however - What I have now realised is that B6 shouldn't go where I have got it, it needs to go to the bottom of the frames. Unfortunately the way the lines are drawn, it looks as if they need to go into the top aperture, but clearly they don't! I will therefore fettle up a piece to go at the bottom of the frames to solder in the firebox and the pick-ups. Then at the same time, I am going to fettle up a piece to fix the pony truck into. I then need to fettle up the brake rodding in it's new position..... Happy New Year Wednesday 3rd Jan 2024 update: Yesterday the brake rigging was finally drilled into the correct position... meaning a few extra holes were drilled in the frames - check before drilling etc. The old holes have been filled to avoid confusion when everything gets sprayed. Work then moved onto setting up the cylinders and slidebars, with the last job being soldering the connecting rod together. Issues: 1. In folding up the cylinder block to go onto the frames, the instructions say don't solder - why? It's all held together with slots in the frames that then slot into the cylinder block. The sliderbar supports, also slot into slots in the frames - likewise surely they should be soldered.... The last section supports the vacuum pump and is always falling off! - so that is definitely going to be soldered. (The pump itself has a rod going through to the crosshead and that will need to be superglued as its small whitemetal casting.) 2. In fitting the slidebars on, obviously they don't get painted, so need to be masked when spraying - but that means the area behind them on the frames wont get sprayed. In typing this, I realise that I will probably need to finish off as much as the chassis as possible. Then once that is done, I need to bring the chassis into the lounge for a couple of days to warm up, then give it a couple of coats of primer, then black. Then re-assemble and paint the body as a separate entity.... 3. Or start work on the body, so that can also be sprayed. Thursday 4th January 2024. Work has continued on a few fronts today - I have soldered the cylinder etch / box square - but not soldered it to the frames yet. The sliderbar support has been soldered to the frames though, plus, I have soldered up the gearbox. At the same time, I soldered onto the frames the support for the vacuum pump.... only to find that it fouls the body and in fact you cant see it in any of the photos I have! (It has been removed). Saturday 6th Jan 2024 I have moved the position of the motor, originally, I set it from the front driving wheels, with the motor projecting into the boiler: Unfortunately, this put the weight onto the front bogie, lifting slightly the rear drivers. Eventually this will be cured with extra weight. By deciding to change the motor round, I had to move the angle / position of the gearbox: The advantage of using the Roadrunner plus gearbox is that you can set it at (almost) any angle you want. Essentially by changing it round, whilst changing the weight distribution, I was able to set it in such a way as I avoided a cross-bracing section on the underframe: With this change, I powered the motor up to 12v DC and reassembled the wheels and valve gear and for the first time, we have a running model: The wheels rotate nicely at all power levels. This is how the motor sits - the right way round! At this stage, in testing the wheels etc. everything is held on by the use of small plastic bits of tubing. Hence the white ends! Saturday 13th January 2024: It's been a bit quiet with the County 4-4-2T project over the last week or so. That changed this afternoon as I started work on more of the body detailing items. Whitemetal items, together with the handrails were all applied: The smokebox dart is from Comet models. The front steps are being glued to the front running plate and at the same time I have found a couple of buffers in the spares box. the ones with the kit are correct for the Dean loco, but one of the heads is smaller than the rest. I have seen photos of the larger buffers on County locos. Next to it is the backhead - recently @MAP66 has been working on a backhead for his 48xx project at Tyteford Halt. You wont be able to see this detail, but we will all know it's there! The detail will be picked out once its had primer applied. Wednesday 17th January 2024: It's coming together nicely.... electrical pick-ups have been added today. The wires were as supplied in the chassis kit. These have been soldered to a PCB, which in turn has been soldered to the frames. The loco was then tested on 12v DC and it successfully ran up and down on a metre of track. The remaining items have been added to the body; which has included forming the handrail round the smokebox. It's not perfect, but it's not bad. Lamp irons have also been fitted (I've forgotten to put the lamp irons on for the spare lamps - tomorrow!). The front running plate has not been fixed in place yet. Tomorrow, I will solder in the rest of the electrics and sort out the DCC decoder and stay-alive. (edit 16/2/24 I have just found this video on the Missenden page about forming handrails: https://www.missendenrailwaymodellers.org.uk/index.php/virtual-missenden-bending-gwr-handrails/ Thursday 18th January 2024 - a minor setback ☹️ Today see's a minor setback... that is a nuisance! Yesterday in running the loco, one of the pins holding the valve gear in place caught on the motion bracket and everything stopped for a while. Unfortunately, the two halves of the Roadrunner plus gearbox came apart and have been glued overnight. With the motor removed, the two gears in the above photo should rotate freely - they don't. Individually they are fine, rotating freely. At first I thought I might have bent the rod on the topmost gear, hence the larger rod pin there at the moment. It's not that, it makes no difference. Although that top gear in the photo looks a bit wonky - but thats not it as I have poked and prodded them, they don't want to move :-( I have emailed Highlevel kits to see of they can suggest anything. I might have to remove the glue between the two parts and see if that makes any difference. (27th March - at this point, I still have not had a reply.) To be continued..... On the positive side: I have now fixed the running plate back to the main loco body. There is a small piece of brass folded in 90 degrees under the plate, that goes up behind the cylinders. Currently all being glued together.... It's a new impact adhesive that allows movement for 3 minutes and cures completely in 24 hours. There is a small piece of electrical tape underneath to (hopefully) avoid it also setting to the chassis! It was a b*$*$r to get together and it looks like I have moved the handrail again! The backhead has had a paint - yesterday it had a coat of white primer - today it's black. Then obviously onto detailing Brass; Copper; White and Red in hopefully the right places. When it's in the loco, it seems to be set so far back from the cab doors, you wont see any of it.... (27/3/24 - it's now had to come out to get more weight into the loco!) Saturday 27th January 2024 update: Today, we start with how we finished last Thursday - with the backhead - now with the pipework picked out. Plus the first wheel with painted rim, all of the wheels will be done before the loco is finished. I have had a few issues with the gearbox..... to cut a long story short it turned out one of the gears had got some superglue on it - not recommended. It's all fixed now and I am pleased to say the gearbox and motor are working very well now. Seen here under test with a screwdriver playing the part of an axle! Compare this set-up with how it was originally done - its all reversed, which puts the weight of the motor over the driven wheel. Seen here in place - more testing - more fettling and finally we get the gearbox and motor in the chassis. Finally - it's getting there! It has taken a lot to get it to this stage in trying to get the chassis to fit into the loco body, then the addition of the front running plate to try and get that right. At this stage the loco isn't wired.... the pickups are done and the motor is wired up, but at the moment they aren't connected as I am waiting until I spray the chassis and I will then wire in the decoder. I had it happily running up and down on the layout, holding onto a 9v battery! There is a short video of the testing phases of the loco build on Youtube: Testing process for the loco: Running the chassis up and down on track set to a slight incline. Checking weight distribution - in this case, it was obvious that the motor was lifting the rear drivers. Only slightly, but enough to be an issue. The combined chassis and loco body are still very light (@150 grams) so will need a lot of extra weight packing inside. I will try to cram as much weight into the void within the chassis around the area of the drivers. I am hoping to get it up to 200grams or so. Run for a while on the rolling road, testing the slower speed steps. The complete loco was then tested on the layout using a 9v battery. At this stage it is not wired up for DCC. The completed loco will have a Zimo decoder and 10,000 uf Stay-alive. The McKinley video is here: Tuesday 13th February 2024: The loco has had a spray of black inside, together with the chassis etc. Previously it had all had 2 coats of white primer. Sunday 18th Feb 2024: The loco had it's first coat of Railmatch green yesterday: This afternoon it has had it's second coat. The reveal: Friday 23rd February 2024: Whilst work has been progressing on the body, the chassis is being put back together. The motor and gearbox are now back in; the wheels have had their rims painted (primer & two coats of black): Transfers have now been applied to the loco. The buffer beams needed another coat of red and will have their numbers applied tomorrow. The Great Western is from Fox, with the plates being Railtec. Update mid-March 2024: The County tank and SRM are seen together at Henley-on-Thames and then today the loco is posed outside the signal box at Henley-on-Thames: edit: end of March 2024. The loco is running, but still struggles to pull its own weight. I am trying to increase the weight inside the loco to push it down onto the track. I have other stuff going on at the moment, so its been a bit sidelined - I will get back to it soon... To be continued!

It's too easy, isn't it? Still, I find it fascinating; a smooth, quiet running Dapol Class 50 was a pre-owned bargain and another piece of luck enabled a body-swap to pre-TOPS Blue, just like I remember tearing past the swings and slides at our Rec'. I'm now in the habit of using Digitrains sound files, but they didn't have a Zimo Next18 small enough at the time. I nearly went with Legomanbiffo as his projects are sublime, but didn't want to confuse myself with ESU and Zimo protocols! Luckily Youchoos had the hardware and Digitrains did a reblow. And here it is on speed step 4 with volume at 40/255, turn the volume up and enjoy.

Some folk may be aware that I recently bought two whitemetal kit panniers from @Tony Wright, which he was selling on behalf of the builder and previous owner, Peter Lawson. I understand that the ex-GW locos listed on Tony's thread are only a small selection from a much larger collection, most of which (if not all?) I gather are to be sold, due to the unfortunate ill health of the owner. Anyway, the two panniers arrived here at Kernow Towers a few weeks ago and were posed on the layout: I understand that the right-hand loco was built from a K's kit, albeit with more a more modern etched chassis, a decent (open frame Anchorage) motor and Gibson wheels. The left-hand pannier was built from a NuCast kit (which was probably derived from the original K's moulds, I think) and also has an etched and compensated chassis, Romford wheels and another Anchorage motor. Both locos were numbered as examples of panniers that were allocated to South Wales sheds at the time that Bethesda is set in, so I decided to renumber them. The K's one was to become 9629, allocated to Oswestry for a while (Pannier Papers) and the NuCast one will become 9741, allocated for a short time to Shrewsbury (Pannier Papers). I have also decided to add a small amount of extra detail, such as lamp irons, sand pipes and injector overflow pipes, which were not originally featured on either loco. Both locos were also single manned at the time they arrived here, both with a fireman, clearly awaiting the driver to turn up from the mess room, so a driver from the ModelU agency has also taken up duty on the footplate. Both locos are extremely well built and run well. Peter Lawson certainly knows how to build a loco kit properly. It is my intention, however, not to alter Peter's work any more that I need to and importantly, to retain the original character of the locos. So far, I have worked on the K's one, which has now become 9269. I am extremely pleased with the result and the loco is now officially listed on the roster for Bethesda Sidings. I've also uploaded a short piece of footage of 9629 working in Bethesda yard today: These locos are probably around 50 years old and whilst it is true to say that they don't have quite the level of detail that their more modern RTR counterparts have, I do think they still stand up very well. What they certainly have is a definite presence (they are heavy when compared to a Bachmann one, especially one of my Bachmann bodied panniers with an etched chassis) and loads of character.

In a comment on my previous post @Mikkel wrote “I never know what's next on your blog Mike”. Actually, I feel much the same – I never know where a whim will take me next! A week ago, the thought of a Bristol and Exeter Railway (B&ER) engine was nowhere in my mind and then @Annie posted some splendid photos of Pearson’s magnificent 4-2-4 Broad Gauge tank engines. B&ER No.42 4-2-4T designed by James Pearson It wouldn’t be true to say these engines have never crossed my mind but they were always rapidly consigned to the ‘too difficult’ box. Now, having built a few of Brunel’s so-called ‘freaks’, I have learned a lot more about 3D design and the capabilities of 3D printing. So – time to have a go ? … Back issues of the Broad Gauge Society (BGS) journal ‘Broadsheet’ provide a wealth of information, including both drawings and photographs of several versions of these engines. There is also a lengthy biography of James Pearson in ‘Broadsheet’ No.78 (Autumn 2017) which, in addition to providing useful career information, also busts a few myths. Before his appointment as Locomotive Superintendent, at age 34, on the B&ER, Pearson had a spell as the engineer responsible for operations of Brunel’s ill-fated atmospheric system on the South Devon Railway. That system has been the subject of another of the many deviations followed by my Blog. Almost all references to Pearson suggest that he was a Quaker which was supposedly the reason behind his adoption of black as the colour for his locomotives. The BGS biography found no evidence to support that assumption and reports that Pearson was Christened at his local Parish Church in Blackburn. It seems more like that the livery arose from the well-known concern for economy, which characterised much of the B&ER operations. There are also many stories of his 4-2-4 engines that do not stand up to close examination. According to an article in ‘Broadsheet’ No. 48 (Autumn 2002), they were originally ordered specifically for duty on the Yeovil branch and not, as often reported, for the Exeter expresses. Clement Stretton in his book ‘The Development of the Locomotive 1803 to 1896’ (published 1896) stated that he remembered a 9 foot single tank running smoothly at 60 mph and that “Mr Pearson many years ago informed the writer that his engines had been officially tested at 81 mph,” Sadly, many of Stretton’s claims have subsequently been shown to be inaccurate, so these statements should be treated with caution. Towards a Model I have commented before that making a model is a very good way of learning how the original engine was constructed. In this particular case, even a cursory examination shows that this engine had several very unusual features. For example the boiler carried a ‘yoke’ to which suspension rods from the driving wheels were attached. There were other brackets between the boiler and the very light frames, which only extended from the back of the smokebox to the front of the firebox. Thus, the boiler itself had to bear many of the forces associated with a locomotive engine – a practice that would not be approved now! I had to start somewhere and, with so many peculiarities, it was hard to choose. As a ‘gentle introduction’, I decided to start with the two bogies, which were attached to the rest of the engine by central ball and socket joints – no side-play allowed! I found some old frame drawings reproduced in ‘Broadsheet’ No.49 (Spring 2003) so, following my usual practice, I loaded these as a ‘canvas’ into ‘Fusion 360’. The collection of drawings included a plan view of the bogie and elevations of some of the main members. I started by tracing over one of the diagonal members and creating a solid ‘body’ in ‘Fusion 360’. I then made a sketch of the profile of the central pivot mounting and used the ‘Revolve’ tool to create a socket to receive the ball suspended below the engine itself. The next step was to align the diagonal members and the central bearing over the plan view, included in the drawings, as shown below: 1. Tracing the Bogie components 2 Arranged over Plan Drawing The rest of the frame comprised a very lightly built rectangular arrangement of plates, with the horn blocks attached at the four corners. I traced and extruded these components into the structure shown below: Bogie Assembly extruded over the ‘Canvas’ in Fusion 360 I have made plenty of 4-foot diameter wheels before, so it was a straight-forward task to create these and fit them into the horn-blocks for a rendered portrait of the complete bogie in ‘Fusion 360’. According to Ahrons, in a lengthy description of these engines in his book ‘The British Steam Locomotive 1825-1925’, each bogie wheel had an independent india rubber spring. My 3D model of one of the two bogies That’s one small step* – or, perhaps, two, since there will be similar bogies at each end of the engine! It seems that I am now committed to working out how to fit together all those brackets and levers that hold together the complete engine. Mike * or one bite of the elephant as @Mikkel once described it

It would be January 2021 when Bachmann introduced their 94xx models. I bought the basic version. It had a lovely copper cap to its chimney and it ran perfectly without any trace of a wobble. Three years later and I have just purchased a sound fitted version. Bachmann 9479 – 32-27SF I have titled this Post ‘The Long Haul’ in recognition of the time that I have spent in recent weeks changing CVs to enable the engine to run on analogue. It would help if I knew what I was doing! The 94xx has a coreless motor which is super efficient. As a result the engine needs a whole different range of CV values to the ones I would usually apply. I would say it is still a work in progress. However I would say work is sufficiently advanced that I would give the engine a run around the layout. Hornby Bow Ended Colletts What carriages might be suitable? I had rake of Hornby Bow Ended Colletts parked up in a siding. These arrived on the layout in June 2021, so not long after the Bachmann 94xx. Why were they parked up? Ah well a quick trip around the layout reminded me that one of the coaches had a tendency to leave the track. After exiting a section of curved track the leading bogie was reluctant to rotate and would jump the track. The offending Bow Ended Brake Coach These Hornby coaches are super detailed models. Perhaps a little light weight. I have close coupled my set using Roco 40270 couplers. Now why don’t they stay on track? Hornby Coupling Mechanism Exposed! Removing the suspect coach from the track confirmed that the offending bogie did not always rotate smoothly. With the coach upside down on the kitchen table the bogie could be popped out of its housing with the blade of small screw driver. To fully investigate the close coupling mechanism it is then necessary to remove the keeper plate which is held in place with two screws. Bogie and Keeper Plate How straight is your Keeper Plate? On first inspection my keeper plate was bent in the middle and rubbing against the underlying close coupling mechanism. A quick massage to straighten the plastic and ‘all sorted’ – so I thought. Well it was nearly very good, especially after I had smeared it all with Vaseline. Sadly a little later and the leading coach was still leaving the track. The coach and the Close Coupling Mechanism was given a further closer inspection. Studying the mechanism at the opposite end of the coach suggested a possible cause. Stepped Close Coupling Cam Operation of the close coupling mechanism relies on a ‘Cam’. I have retrofitted such a mechanism to a Mainline Buffet car and simply cut a Cam shaped opening in the coach floor. Home Made ‘Cam’ for Mainline RB Hornby however have made a stepped cam to accommodate the protruding ‘tooth’ which is used to hold the mechanism up against the coach floor. Hornby Mechanism with tooth. Comparing the two mechanisms from opposite ends of the coach showed that the faulty mechanism had a much larger tooth which was presumably interfering with the smooth rotation of the bogie. A few quick cuts with a craft knife to shorten the ‘tooth’ and the issue was sorted. Now how does the 94xx perform with its rake of Bow Ended Colletts on analogue? I would say rather well!

Last weekend we held another FREMO meeting in our habitual venue -- should you have seen my posts on earlier meetings tehn you may recognise the various doodads that are usually found on the walls of school gyms in many of the photos. But that doesn't detract from some really good modelling. We agreed it was a good weekend. As a newish group and because we're quite isolated from the more expert groups in mainland Europe, we're putting a lot of effort into getting the planning right since it is only possible to operate things in a satisfying way if many potential questions already have answers. FREMO meetings are essentially railway modelling combined with a sort of role playing game. I can't photograph the role playing part since it has no physical expression, but here are some photos I took. As usual they're a bit pointilliste. Smartphone cameras are wonderful things, working close up in relatively low light and smoothing away the awkward details and the 12 inch to the foot background... I confess these photos are a bit biased towards my station (Wasserbach) which I was running all weekend. Showing photos publicly, like bringing out the models for the meeting, is an incentive to sort out some of the details that give away the fact these are not pictures of anything full size! Ben

My intended period for the model will eventually be March to July 1959.This will allow the majority of locomotives seen on shed to be steam but also allow me to run a few of the early Diesel shunters and Hydraulics. This made me wonder about how they would have refuelled the diesels. Penzance didn't receive its first allocation of diesels until Sept 1958 when they allocated three Class 08s for training. In November of the same year, they reallocated two of the three, leaving one (D3514) which remained at Penzance until June 1968. The first Laira based Hydraulics started to appear at Penzance in 1958. My understanding is that D600 and D800 Warships carried a fuel capacity of 800 gallons. If this is correct, they would not have needed refuelling at Penzance for the return working. The Class 08 would still need to be refuelled. This would seem to indicate that Penzance’s diesel facilities may have been very basic in 1959. All photographs I’ve seen for the 1959 period do not show any diesel refuelling points. So have to assume that refuelling was very rudimentary, either direct from 50 gallon barrels or direct from rail or road born tanks. Further information I've gathered from Diesel Depots, The Early Years by Irwell Press indicates that shed staff initially treated the first allocations of diesel locomotives with a modicum of disdain. The Class 08s being stored on sidings away from the main running shed roads. In taking a look at my track plan, I realised that there was no such siding to accommodate locos away from the main running shed roads. I wanted to include some sort of diesel refuelling, so added a very short siding at the front. There will be room for some barrels of diesel fuel between this siding and the running shed. Track plan v.4 (including siding for Class 08 storage) In adding this siding along with some slight overall modifications, I’ve managed to increase the scenic area to within the last square inch of the 2711.52sq ins. Scenic area 2710.5 sq. inches I have purchased and cut the baseboard tops to the new dimensions. The next task is to decide on how much plywood from version one of Rospeath Lane can be used in the baseboard construction. I believe slow progress is better than none…

It’s that time of year for the annual visit to the York Model Railway Show, which is the local show to visit. The show was ok, but personally disappointing at the lack of BR sector period layout representation. The most interesting layout was O gauge set in the BR blue period. However there was two key forthcoming products of interest in the Bachmann Class 31 and Realtrack Class 142. Bachmann Class 31 Bachmann had their stand and I was particularly interested to see the Class 31. My initial impression is there is something just not quite right about the cab front. It’s feels a bit flat or slab like. Maybe the side pillars don’t have enough curvature in profile, thus making the front feel slab sided? I’m not sure but just doesn’t feel right. I’ve not seen the Accurascale Class 31 close up yet, so the jury is still out for me. Although personally I don’t see a lot wrong with the Hornby Class 31, it’s dimensionally accurate (except the roof fan) and I do like the opening cab doors - a controversial view point. As the price of models march ever higher, while wages aren’t keeping pace it makes a me quite careful as to what I spend my disposable income on. I’m sure many are in the same place. These are some more photos. Realtrack Class 142 The other model of interest is the Realtrack Class 142. A key model for my period of interest and my interest in second generation DMUs. I could potentially buy many of these. Although it still surprises me why Bachmann or Accurascale didn’t pick off the Class 142, especially considering the popularity of the EFE Rail Class 143 and 144 (I’m still looking for the weathered Regional Railways 144 with the very suitable York - Leeds destinations). That said Accurascale haven’t produced a DMU yet as far as I’m aware. From my experience with the Realtrack Class 144, which I’ve one set where the circuit board has failed in the dummy car and detailing parts have been lost, but aren’t available to replace, I’m a little anxious to spending nearly £300 per set on a Realtrack 142, if it’s a similar experience to the 144. At this price point my expectations is for good spares support and availability, much like Bachmann provide via the spares web site. Anyway here are some photos of the latest samples. They do look good, wish the Skipper destination was St Ives / St Erith because I remember riding these when brand new on the Carbis Bay Branch in 1985. Note the GMPTE livery example has the body from a 142/1! Bachmann Class 69 Although out of period for me, the Class 69 has a passing interest because of its Class 56 heritage. Here are a few photos of the EP sample Interesting N Gauge Tower Light Thought these might work well as tower lights on a future N gauge project I have in mind Finally a few photos of an O gauge layout I particularly liked

I’ve eventually been able to get my new hobby room organised. I have eventually organised my new hobby room, transforming it from a storage room, filled with furniture and boxes, to a space where I can begin building a layout. First task was to take a proper look at the original Rospeath Lane baseboards. The damage was not as bad as I originally thought… Hmm…it would have been an excellent layout with potential for expansion in the future. Despite building it in two baseboards, it would be very large and difficult to transport to exhibitions. The two baseboards were more for movability during construction and also in case a house move. Even though it has moved house, with now what seems to be minor damage, I’m sticking with my decision to replace it with a more manageable size layout. Last view of version one before being dismantled Today has been the day I embarked on dismantling v1 baseboards. The intention is to repurpose as much of the plywood as possible for version 2. The baseboards had been designed to accommodate tortoise motors so had a frame a depth of 110mm. Version 2 will not require a frame with the same depth as I’m proposing to use Makeit Miniature’s turnout actuator. This will mean I can tidy up the cross members to a uniform size. It's now just a pile of plywood None of the baseboard tops seem suitable for the new layout. This gives me a choice deciding to go with 6mm plywood as the baseboards tops or going with 5mm FoamX Board. Before I dismantled the baseboards, I salvaged all the sleepers and rail. With the plywood tidied away in a corner of the room for sorting later, I made a start on cleaning up all recovered wooden sleepers.

Just received this lug in the mail from TMC. If anyone remembers, I have a penchant for ugly locos. I lucked out, though. Built, running, painted not only in the right color for my collection, but numbered correctly as well. About the only disappointment is the builder made absolutely zero provision for a rear coupling. I have ideas. Main problem is that there is no substructure behind the rear tender axle. Nothing to drill into, nothing really to glue to. My first thought was to add a block. I've had bad luck with such arrangements before. Even 5-minute epoxy doesn't quite grab well enough against a train. Second thought is an L-bracket, soldered at multiple points. That then brings the issue of my lack of talent at soldering. Third thought is running a long bolt up through the footplate. Probably the best cross between strength and simplicity. Problem there is how to disguise the top of the bolt. I thought of fabricating a toolbox to cover it. I've seen no evidence from what few pics I can find that such a toolbox was ever carried by the class. She runs OK on the test plank. Won't have access to a layout until next month for a good run, though.

At the outset, the primary concern of mine was fitting Rospeath Lane v.2 in my car. Rule 1d of the Scalefour Jubilee Challenge stipulates "The layout has to be portable and capable of being transported by a single car or similar size vehicle and exhibited by two people". I'm surprised it dosen't state that both operators have to be transported in the same car as the layout. As a cost saving exercise for exhibition managers, I feel it would be prudent for both operators to travel with the layout. The problem I face is Tredethy Wharf fills my car including the passenger seat. I've been relying on help at exhibitions from friends having their own transport. Also Rospeath Lane's footprint is larger than Tredethy Wharf which means there is more to fit in the car. This is why I've been worried about how I might adhere to Rule 1d. Since committing to the Scalefour Jubilee Challenge, I've almost exhausted the grey cells in working out how to fit Rospeath Lane into the car. I have measured the car boot space and all other nooks and crannies that could be utilised. Then, I spent a lot of time thinking about how to reduce the important clutter around the scenic section of the layout. In this I mean the support structure, lighting frame, control panel, cassette boards with blanking/information panels and tool box along with the all important operators stool for thous quiet moments. The diagrams below hope to show how I visualise it all fitting in the car, including a couple of small overnight bags for multiple day shows. Hope you can make sense of the drawings... One way I'll be saving space is to use the storage box tops for the lighting frame. This, along with the back screen, will help to create an enclosed space to minimise external light flooding the layout. I'm also planning to include the control panel within Baseboard 2. The current support structure for Tredethy Wharf has improved the stability at the expense of taking up more space in the car. My concern has been how to create a rigid support structure while reducing it's mass. I may have a solution in two trestles supporting and U girders, the proof being after it's constructed.

Our planned house move is now likely to happen in the Summer. With more time to get ready, an Easter update makes sense. There's a new challenge to report on, as well as some modelling progress. I'll start with loose ends being tidied up: Loose Ends: Left over from my American HO project last year was my incomplete Walthers' Grain Elevator Kit. I've been keen to build this for a good while, so even though my plans have changed it was nice to get it finished. First task was to weather the head house and loading / unloading shelters. As I use brush weathering, it made sense to do this before assembly: I added some styrene card strengtheners to the head house when I assembled it, and a false floor at the elevator end to hide the curve of the silos: The finished model is as impressive as I'd hoped, even if it would still be small by prototype standards: (Some of these images also appear in my Narrow Gauge HOn30 thread) Question is, what to do with this now? We're having a big clearout, as our new home will have less storage space. The Narrow Gauge mini-layout I built in 2021 has been passed on through our local 009 Society Group, and I have thrown out some of the building kits I assembled a while back but now have no use for (I really didn't need a dozen railway stations!). I wasn't sure what to do with these three American HO building kits though - all personal favourites but also now surplus: All three being Walthers meant they were designed to complement each other, with selective compression carefully managed to help them go together. When I compared them to a part-built Craftsman Kit of a single store however, the illusion was broken. All of a sudden, the Walthers buildings look smaller than they probably should, although all are 1:87: (Images above have also appeared in my HO Union Station Diorama thread) After this test, it was a much easier decision to part with the three plastic buildings, donated to the local Model Railway Club for use or onward sale through their Club Shop. This has created a bit of space on the workbench: The Craftsman Store Kit is being kept for possible use in my HOn30 project, but progress is slow. Each window has delicately cut separate upper and lower sashes. As the frames (and shutters) have 'peel and stick' backings, they aren't difficult to assemble, it's just one of those jobs I find best tackled in small stages: When completed, the model will appear in my Narrow Gauge Modelling Thread. Last Orders: My previous blog entry talked about the impact of Hatton's Model Railways closing. Largely out of sentiment, I made a last minute purchase just before the website closed, buying a heavily discounted Continental Signal Box (Stellenwerk): (also pictured on the ‘Hattons to close’ thread) But 'Last Orders' applies to some modelling too. Our current, Victorian house has a single-storey outhouse at the back which I've been able to use for spray painting and as a baseboard factory. With a couple of larger kits in my stash, it makes sense to spray the larger components now, even if I don't tackle the actual kits before we move. It's no coincidence I have two models using the same components, as I bought the Post Office as a substitute when I couldn't find an affordable kit of the station (I'd noticed the Postamt is modelled on an end part of the station): Key parts of the Post Office were sprayed first. This is now all dried and back in the box (not the box pictured): Just getting a photo of the pieces for the station proved a challenge: the box is not only large but 4" deep. In the end I took advantage of the floorspace created by ditching a bed that used to be in this room but had become surplus too: These are just the walls, having been painted and left to dry in the outhouse before coming back in. It's big: I think the photo on the box shows the station as it appeared in an earlier era, matching the postcard shared by @Mikkel below my previous blog entry, here. Over time I think it has been repainted in a lighter colour, which I prefer and which explains my choice of colour for the walls. The current version of the kit is lighter in colour. I also brush painted the impressive entrance piece for colour matching: With the baseboard factory also closing, it'd be good to place a final order (with myself) before we move. At the moment it's all just tidied up for house showings: But this brings me to: The Fresh Challenge: In previous posts for this blog, I've been refining my modelling aims and project list. But I've now run into: 'the problem.' Our new home is more modern and will be much better for us in many ways, both as a family and as my wife and I work out of the home office. But we're losing spare space and storage - not just the outhouse. As we make progress with our much needed downsizing clearout it's become possible to see how life will work after we move, and we've realised the plan we had to accommodate my modelling and layout interests isn't going to work - at all! Long-suffering readers of my contributions to RMweb over the past four years will be familiar with the regular changes our family needs have imposed upon my ideas for space to use. Now I'm having to think about modelling with no space at all. Let me explain: I'll be able to set up a workbench in a spare bedroom when the family aren't staying, but the lingering smell of paint and glue means it needs to be in a room where others aren't waiting to use the space (we won't have a garage, a cellar or a large shed in the garden either). I can look at ideas for portable layouts, but have to think about a question I was first asked about portable layouts by @AndyB in August 2020: "Where will you keep the layout?" It's a rather good question for a property without storage space: I have been here before: the first layout I ever had (but didn't finish) was a very compact N-Gauge Branch Terminus to Continuous Run that could easily have come from an early Cyril Freezer plan book (3'8" x 2'2", with 9" min. radius curves and points): I wrote about it in the Layout and Track Design Forum back in 2021 (here). When not in use, it actually went into my wardrobe! But I wasn't trying to include a station that will be 3' long or run mainline trains (or have three layouts)! If I'm going to build some new baseboards before we move, I need to get my thinking cap on again. Despite all the lessons I've learned, I've never really considered the prospect of having no dedicated space. I've always assumed I'd have a railway room one day (when the kids grew up), and never imagined I wouldn't one day be building the kind of layouts I dream about. I'd like to see trains like this running on my own layout: This was a test run to see if a six coach train looks OK for mainline running in H0 (I decided it was): But a 6' x 3' table top isn't what I'm aiming for! I know lots of dedicated modellers face this challenge, and have often posted on the Boxfiles, Micro layouts and Dioramas Forum (and back in the day contributed to Carl Arendt's Micro-Layout website). It's just not what I'd been working towards. I've plenty of modelling to keep me busy (not everything has been shown in this post), but whatever happens next may - once again - look a little different. Until then, thanks for reading, Keith.

I’ve finally completed painting my pair of six wheel coaches which have been languishing on the work bench for far too long! Readers of this blog will know that coaches are definitely my nemesis, they always seem to take me forever to complete and these two have been no different! I’m taking Sherton to the York exhibition at the end of the month and that provided the enthusiasm to get them finished🙂 Diag V8 Passenger Brake Van Diag U14 Ist & 2nd Class composite carriage I like the variation in roof heights and styles which seem to typify a branch line train in the Edwardian era. Branch train comprising of 2021 class saddle tank number 2112, D14 brake 3rd, U14 1st & 2nd Composite, Diag C10 all 3rd and Diag V8 Passenger brake van They really shouldn’t have taken me 3 years to complete, but hopefully readers will think they were worth the wait!😁 I’m thoroughly looking forward to exhibiting at the York show, it’ll be the furthest North that Sherton has been, well and truly out of G.W.R. territory! Best wishes Dave

Here I am again, with the freelanced locomotives on the Broad Gauge. Starting from the beginning how I came to this point, I'd have to tell you about @Annie's 4-2-4T freelance which started it all, and I'm glad for that because it just looked really good that I wanted to build something like it. Seeing how good it looked and it also being in a wheel arrangement I really like, I just had to build something like it. But when I did so, the results were quite... bad? mediocre? I don't know either. Maybe it was my lack of modelling experience at the time, because this was months ago. Looking back on it embarrasses me because of the many things I did incorrect. Or maybe because I just didn't put much effort in it as what I came up with was basically indistinguishable in my opinion. My first mention of it was in this blog post of my freelance designs "Kenstec" Having "improved a lot" looking back on this model just makes me laugh, to list the things wrong with the model, the side tanks are too wide, very wide sander yet no pipework, quite a modern smokebox, also a really wide door. In short, this model is basically old and looks off. Time-skip to today, neglecting and procrastinating all my school assignments due to asynchronous classes, I saw that @MikeOxon posted about his progress with building the Small Pearson Tank in the end bits of the post, he added in his 3d model of Dean's experimental single tank, which I've always found unique and beautiful in how it looked. Too bad it was a huge failure! Having reminisced on my old model, I decided that it was due for a new one. "Great Western" Featuring "Great Western" a new WIP project of mine that basically acts as Dean's single tank but on broad rails. Many parts of this freelance can be seen in real life locomotives such as the 517, Dean Single, Armstrong Class, and some other I forgot about. The process was just me loading in the old file and removing everything except for the wheels, which I turned into real ones instead of just cylinders with colors. Bunch of searching for references later and I think I've almost reached completion since as of now I think I only have to do the brakes, coal bunker and buffers left, maybe some other small details too. Really proud of how this looks like! Definitely a huge improvement if I say so myself.

A horse-drawn furniture removal van has appeared at Farthing. The kit is a reborn Gem product, marketed under the John Day Models label alongside other re-introduced whitemetal ranges. It’s all run by Daryle Toney who is very helpful (no connection). The main parts are a fair fit. As usual I used Loctite Gel to stick it together. Unlike most superglues it does not require a perfect join to bond well. Some parts did require fettling. This is the front of the van. I filed the sides a bit and shortened the supporting bracket. Coming together. It’s quite a beast. If Wikipedia is to be trusted, Pantechnicons ranged from 12-18 ft in length. That’s 49-72 mms in 1:76 scale. The kit is 67 mms long. It’s also quite tall, more so than the common types seen in photos. For some reason the parts for the end section get in the way of each other, so required a bit of work. First the brackets on the end panels were shortened, using the “Salami method”. The lower floor casting doesn’t line up with the end panels. The instructions suggest shortening the panels, but after consulting prototype photos I chose instead to saw off bits of the floor casting itself. This allowed everything to line up nicely, with a section of styrene employed as gap filler. I then entombed the ghost of Mrs X in the van. Mother of a childhood classmate, she once tore into me for spilling cocoa on her sofa. It wasn’t my fault, her son pushed me, but she wouldn’t listen. I hereby condemn her to travel forever in this empty furniture van, with not even a pillow to sit on. Two padlocks seal her fate. Goodbye Mrs X, nobody messes with a railway modeller. I couldn’t find room to fit the rear springs properly, so cut a notch in them for the axle. You can’t see the dodge once the wheels are on. I would have preferred slimmer wheels but couldn’t find appropriate replacements. Filing the spokes rarely leads to good results, so I’ll live with it. A simple piece of plastikard prevents the fore-carriage from dropping off, while still being free to rotate. The driver’s seat was filed to a more discrete size. Judging by preserved Pantechnicons, it was actually more common for the driver to sit on the roof, but I did find one or two photos with a lower seat. Bits of 0.45mm wire were added for arm rests and supports. The foot-rest was raised a bit to match the driver. Forgot to scribe it but managed it later. The shafts are fitted with bits of wire, which plug into holes in the fore-carriage. The horse is included in the kit. The driver is a seated passenger from Andrew Stadden’s range. At this point I was confronted by a delegation from United British Draught-horses for Liberty and Equine Defence (UNBRIDLED). They informed me in no uncertain neighs that a large Pantechnicon requires at least two horses. So I hastily fashioned a two-horse drawbar... ...and ordered a couple of Shire horses from Dart Castings. Fearing further industrial action, I added some steps and grab handles for the driver. Then primed the whole thing. Next, the livery. The prototypes were often extensively lettered. And colourful. I normally go for subdued colours, but it’s been a dreary winter and I felt like a bit of Rock & Roll, so took inspiration from this striking example. I spent some time drawing up various designs in Microsoft Word, which has more options for sizing and spacing text than is at first apparent. The curves were made to fit by importing a photo of the model into Inkscape, drawing the appropriate curves and then copying the shapes back into Word. I printed selected designs on paper, sprayed them with matt primer to protect the colours, and cut them with a fresh blade. Paper is of course a bit crude compared to DIY transfers, but it’s straightforward and you can test designs directly on the model. @kirtleypete has even used it for locos. The van was painted yellow and black, and the paper then mounted with a thin layer of lightly diluted PVA. Final details included a driver’s handwheel for the brakes, plus tarps, rope and other rooftop clutter. I added some chains from Cambrian Models and finished off with MIG weathering powders. The odd-looking loading flap is prototypical, if rather chunky. I also fitted chains to the Shire horses, mounted with a wire loop drilled into the harness. Looks like the Oryx wants in on their gig, probably an agent from DISRUPT (Dissident Ruminants for Progressive Transport). As usual, there are no reins. My layouts are set up and dismantled all the time, so the normal solutions – e.g. fuse wire - are just not practical. What I need is something thin yet robust enough to fit quickly with a pair of tweezers. Ideas welcome. As you can see, Bailey & Sons’ strategy was to locate their offices at railheads along the Berks & Hants line. This worked well and the company grew to become one of the major removal firms in the area. Yet for Mr Bailey, Senior - lover of all things yellow – it was a source of constant irritation that his horses didn’t match his vans. Eventually Mr Bailey proposed to dye the horses yellow. But his sons - brought up in a sickening sea of yellow - finally rebelled and said no, father, enough now.

It was only when I looked at the photograph of "City of Truro", which I took yesterday, that I noticed that the nameplate was missing! About half of my track is in tunnel, so there was an evens chance that it had dropped off in the tunnel. Fortunately, I have a 'search and rescue' procedure. Some time ago, I became interested in the idea of shooting video from the footplates of my model locomotive. I found that there was a miniature video camera, popular with aircraft RC enthusisats, which was both very small and gave good quality results, recording HD video onto a micro-SD card.. The camera I bought is known as an '808 #11' and it is packaged within a car key-fob, as a rather dodgy-looking spy-cam. There is now a slightly larger, but conventionally packaged version, called the 'Mobius Actioncam'. You can read loads of information about all these cameras at: http://www.chucklohr.com/808/index.shtml In addition to having fun running the camera around my layout, I also mounted it on a wagon, together with a small LED torch, so that I could view inside the tunnels on my railway. I was surprised to see several bit of debris, fallen off passing trains, and was able to recover these through the various hand-holes that I provided in the baseboard. The small torch lights the track ahead and reveals any debris, as shown below: While on the subject of video, and since there are very few moving trains on these pages, here is a tiny movie that I call, with great originality, "Arrival of a Train". It shows my Stella-class 2-4-0, rebuilt from a Mainline Dean Goods, arriving at my station with a local train of four-wheelers. An original Mainline Dean Goods is waiting in the passing loop. (sorry it's so small - I was keeping within the 1MB limit) Mike

I found a nice building on the bay-of-e that was eminently suitable for the Rectory for the church. There's one problem, its only got one door, and if you orient the building in what I believe to be The Correct Way Round, then the door opens on the side of the building opposite the church, meaning that the poor Vicar will have to walk round his house every time he Goes To Work. I had a quick check; as we know the platforms on the layout are aligned north-south, and the altar in a Church is supposed to be on the East side (so you face the rising sun as you pray), could I actually move the church round, but nope, the church's position is fixed, its the correct way around (and so we know that the rear of the layout is "East"!). So I was left with only one option, to add a door to the rectory. Luckily I have spare doors. I've got spare everythings. The rectory was also clearly chimney-less, so a cocktail stick was employed. The slice to make the door-fit isn't visible once its painted. Trust me. Fence posts for the porch-sides, spare bit of something for the roof, piece of paper for the capping. Application of some paint to the door and porch. I also painted the timber-framing black to match that of the church closer. I painted the front-door to match :) In position (although with only a few trees for effect; we'll actually have a fairly large wooded area Around The Rectory/Behind The Church

If we follow a modelling idea for many years, can we change our minds and vote for something else? In my last blog I presented my nod to Cragside house based on a plastic kit from Faller. It made me look again at the other buildings I have made from Metcalfe kits; the Faller kits "relief" in the stonework and roof tiles was very impressive. The second point I noticed was that the buildings I had chosen did not have the look and consistency I had hoped for. When I first started building Metcalfe kits they were always intended to be temporary as stated in my blog at the time and they were certainly fun to build and improved my knowledge of card building. However, now the track was down and I started placing the buildings that I have onto the layout it just looked wrong to me. So, I have now resurrected the idea of 3D printing my buildings i.e. making my own plastic kits. I know many people successfully build with other materials but I enjoy 3D CAD (computer aided design) and having worked with this most of my life I find it straightforward to use. It may surprise some of you that in my case I started using CAD back in the 1980's, at that time we worked in a dark room, the screen was black with only the lines drawn being in white and we used a mouse with a cross hair window to select functions from a drawing board/tablet affair. Remember we did not have MS Windows at that time; I only came across that at the end of the 80’s. Now we have an abundance of choice regarding software, for most things I use SolidWorks which I taught for many years and therefore feel very comfortable with, but one thing I learnt in my career was to be flexible and use whichever software was best for the task in hand. I dabbled with “3DS Max”, for more organic shapes and “Poser” for people and animals. A favourite was also “Vue” for landscapes/environments – amazing stuff (I’ve sneaked in a tiny clip I made back in the day of a pterodactyl flying over mountains as a test clip) I hope no one minds. Back to the railway: I have picked up where I left off, that is with the modelling of Northumberton Station which is closely, but not exactly, based on Acklington station. One thing I missed with Metcalfe kits is the lack of any necessary research as this is all done for you, I do enjoy tracking down details to incorporate into my models and have made many trips to Acklington station in order to get the style of the building correct. Below are some images showing my progress over the past couple of weeks – the cold and a couple of storms have kept me out of the garage so I have welcomed some time inside working on my PC. The building will be printed in 5 parts starting with the small living area on the far left - this will enable me to do a final check on the details such as stonework and roof tiles i.e. making sure the relief detail shows up when printed - I will test paint part of this to see how the gaps fill making sure the detail doesn't disappear. The doors shown will be printed separately and fitted from behind. The window bars and glazing panels will be laser cut and the bars will be pre-painted before fitting. The rear of the station has been simplified as it will rarely be seen, Acklington has another annexe and what was once a toilet block and an entrance porch - these could be added later if the building is ever re-used in a new location. So a new direction with the buildings, it will be a while before I can judge this a success or not but I'm looking forward to giving it a try. I have also started modelling with craft foam to create some tunnel portals - first time for me, I'll share some pictures next time. Bye for now!

Some while back as part of the work on the Winchester Railway Modellers Redbridge Wharf layout we decided to add smoke and steam effects to a model of a TID tug. After a bit of research we harked upon cheapo piezo electric mister units as used in humidifiers. These can be obtained in various sizes and with various control boards from all the normal sources. The unit we settled on was a 16mm disc connected to a control board that takes a 5v input. This was rigged in in an old plastic bottle, fed by a wick and supported by a 3D printed contraption underneath the baseboard. Fed with 5 volts from the layout and set on it's random setting it gives a quite pleasing effect and certainly catches the attention at exhibitions. Of course it was never going to stop there! Would it be possible to do something in a loco? Others have done it so it had to be done. I happened to be respraying a model of the A4 Mallard to create a model of Sir Nigel Gresley as running in 1967. An obvious candidate for running on a model of the ex-LSWR mainline to Weymouth! Quite a lot of space in the smoke box of an A4 so with a bit 3D printing a mounting and water tank was produced and all I had to do was figure out the electrickery bits. It's currently very much a prototype but it seems to work... The loco is fitted with an ESU loksound micro decoder but that isn't man enough to drive the mister circuit which needs 150+ mA. To get round that I've rigged up a rectifier and voltage regulator to provide enough 5volt oomph. That feeds the supplied control board but with a slight twist. Giles of this parish produced a chuffing narrow gauge radio controlled loco and poked around in the control board mechanism. He found that in order to get the mister to chuff reliably you need to trickle 2 volts or so to it all the time then when you give it a squirt of 5 volts it responds immediately. Very very useful info. In my case I have a solid state relay controlled by Aux 1 on the DCC decoder. This function output is turned on by function 4 and is defined to trigger on every sound chuff. The relay effectively switches the power supply to the mister control board from 2 volts to 5 volts. The problem at the moment is that all the control gear takes up rather a lot of space... I have my work cutout to miniaturise all this. Cheers Dave

Just a few more photos of progress on the station buildings. The roof will have to be removable to allow for track cleaning and dealing with derailments etc. Amongst other things I have added 10mm wide horizontal beams for the roof to sit on - not prototypical but necessary, I think, for the rigidity of the model. There's a bit of a gap to fill in yet between the roof and the underlying superstructure. I have tried to make the facilities at the station fairly basic, rather than a grand terminus. Work still to do on detailing the two external buildings though, which look very plain at the moment. The station will largely be open, despite the overall roof. The road side, shown below will allow lorries to draw up to the platform for loading and unloading parcels etc. Main passenger facilities will be in the single storey block on the right of the photo below.

Brunel’s great arched roof is to many people the epitome of Paddington Station but this was not built until 1854. The passengers who first travelled on the line from Paddington to Maidenhead, which opened on 4th June 1838, started their journey from a far less imposing structure – little more than a collection of wooden sheds. A London terminus for the GWR was needed in a hurry, after negotiations with the London & Birmingham Railway for a joint terminus at Euston broke down. With the line to Maidenhead almost ready, the GWR Directors desperately needed to start generating passenger revenue and, since authorisation for a route into Paddington was only agreed by Parliament on 3rd July 1837, there was no time for grand designs! A quick solution was to build the station offices into the arches of the new Bishop’s Road Bridge and provide simple wooden platforms to the West of this bridge. Goods facilities were established on the other side of the bridge, alongside the Forecourt from where passengers entered the booking office, under one of the arches. The great artist of early railways, J.C.Bourne, produced a lithograph of this façade of the station. I have annotated the locations of the passenger facilities on his illustration, as shown below: Paddington Station 1843 by J.C.Bourne (colourised Mike Flemming) I have not found any early illustrations of the layout of the platforms beyond the bridge but there are several early drawings, mostly in poor condition, that provide plans of the tracks and platforms, as well as details of the platform canopies. A selection of these drawings is available on-line, in the ‘Historical Engineering Collection’ of the Network Rail Corporate Archive (NRCA). 3D Station Drawing I decided, as an experiment, to see whether I could use ‘Fusion 360’ to create an impression of the original station by using the techniques of extruding from drawings, just as I have done for my models of rolling stock. The NRCA drawings include sketches of various alternative proposals, from which I chose the plan view in NRCA161183 as a suitable base from which to create a 3D model. First of all, I had to digitally ‘clean’ the original drawing to create my working version, shown below. My annotated ‘working copy’ from NRCA161183 There are many features of the track-work that seem strange to modern eyes. Note, in particular, the widespread use of wagon turntables and traversers for moving the small carriages and wagons of the time between tracks. Several tracks ended in carriage loading ‘shoots’ at the end of the central carriage road, between the Arrival and Departure platforms. This arrangement is shown in a lithograph of, Slough Station by J.C Bourne, of which I show an extract below: Slough Station (detail) by J.C. Bourne I also found a less detailed re-drawn plan of Paddington Station, which provided the all-important scale, in the book ‘Paddington Station - Its history and architecture’ by Steven Brindle, published by English Heritage 2013. With this additional information, I could import the NRCA plan into ‘Fusion 360’ as a canvas and use the ‘calibrate’ command to adjust it to the correct scale. I decided to work directly in ‘feet’, since these units are used throughout the NRCA elevation drawings. Bishop’s Road Bridge My first 3D extrusion in ‘Fusion 360’was from the plan view of Bishop’s Road Bridge (shaded pink in my annotated version, above). Initially, I extruded the rectangular ‘body’ to a height of 30 feet. I then compared my structure, marked with the locations of the various arches, as indicated on the plan, to check the proportions against the Bourne lithograph. (It is known that Bourne used a ‘camera obscura’ as a drawing-aid, so I was confident that his illustration is accurately proportioned.) Steps in creating my model of Bishop’s Road Bridge Once I had made sketches by tracing over the Bourne canvas, imported into ‘Fusion 360’, I could overlay these sketches onto the face of my rectangular Bridge ‘body’ and extrude the various arches. Platforms Details of the platform canopies are shown in drawing NRCA161326, of which my ‘cleaned up’ version is shown below. This drawing shows the end elevations of the canopies over both the Departure and Arrival platforms, together with details of the cast-iron support pillars. My ‘Working copy’ from NRCA161326 As before, I imported this drawing into ‘Fusion 360’ and sketched the outlines of the roof trusses. I also created a model of a single pillar by drawing over the profile and then using the ‘revolve’ tool to create a cylindrical ‘body’, as shown below: Using ‘Revolve’ in ‘Fusion 360’ to create 3D-model of Pillar Once I had a single model of a pillar, it was simply a matter of using the ‘Pattern on Path’ tool in ‘Fusion 360’ to create the array of pillars shown on the NRCA plan of the platforms. Note that I have raised the platform surfaces and carriage road by 3 feet, above the level of the track bed. My 3D-model of the Arrivals Platform with Pillars and a single roof truss I was very pleased to find that the dimensions derived from the elevation drawings corresponded very closely to those derived from the plan view, indicating that my ‘calibration’ in ‘Fusion 360’ had been successful. After duplicating the trusses as required, again by means of the ‘Pattern on Path’ tool, I added roofs by extruding from the profile set by the trusses at one end of the structure. The end result of this stage of my modelling is shown below: My 3D-model of Paddington platforms viewed from the West Of course, the advantage of having a 3D-model in the computer is that I can choose to view it from whichever direction and in whatever detail I choose, for example: View across my model of Paddington Station from above the Forecourt. The above view demonstrates the sharp angle between the platforms and the approach road, by which passengers arrived at the station. Carriages could proceed through the central arch to reach the carriage dock set between the Arrival and Departure platforms. At that period, wealthy patrons of the railway loaded their carriages and their horses onto trains and, in some cases, chose to travel inside their own carriages, rather that the coaches provided by the railway. Adding other models Once the basic 3-D model was in place, I realised that it was perfectly easy to add some of my existing models into the scene. The ‘Insert Derive’ tool in ‘Fusion 360’ allows model data to be imported into a design from other folders already held in the computer. To demonstrate this procedure, I imported my existing models of Brunel’s Britzka and of a Carriage truck. I realised that these models had been dimensioned in millimetres, as 4mm-scale models. When first imported, they appeared at their small ‘model scale’. I could, however, select these model bodies and use the ‘Scale’ command in ‘Fusion 360’ to increase their dimensions by a factor of 76, so that they conformed to the overall building model. After re-scaling, I could use the ‘Move’ tool to position them as I wished within the Station, as shown in the example below: Loading my model of Brunel’s Britzka onto a Carriage Truck at Paddington Station Taking this idea a little further, I imported some other models, including my Horse Box, a horse, and the locomotive ‘Vulcan’, to create the following scene: Brunel’s carriage and horses being loaded for travel from Paddington Station Conclusion As I wrote at the outset, this is all experimental and I have had a lot of fun exploring the possibilities of scene modelling in ‘Fusion 360’. I realise that I am venturing into the territory of digital ‘Train Simulators’, which @Annie demonstrates in her thread can be very impressive and allow you to drive the trains as well. My own modelling has allowed me to bring to life some long-forgotten scenes and I intend to continue by re-creating some of the other buildings around the old Paddington Station. Apart from the offices within the Bishop’s Road bridge, there was also a remarkable ‘round-house’ engine shed, designed by Daniel Gooch, a Carriage shed and, on the other side of the bridge, the entire Goods Station, with sheds and offices. I think all this can keep me occupied and entertained for some time to come 🙂 Mike

“Towards the end of July 1837 I heard that Mr. Brunel wanted some one to take the post of locomotive engineer on the Great Western Railway, and I at once went to him, on July 20th, preferring that department to railway making.” Thus wrote Daniel Gooch about the event that changed his life when he was just 21 years old. As a result, he left Manchester and went to London, beginning his duties with the Great Western Railway at West Drayton on the 18th August 1837. Because no engines had actually arrived at that time, he recalled that his first work was to prepare plans for the engine-houses at Paddington and Maidenhead, In such circumstances, one might have expected the engine-house designs to be rather perfunctory affairs, something to fill in the time until some ‘real work’ on engines became available, but my investigations into the design of the engine-house showed this to be far from the case. For Paddington, Gooch designed a ‘round house’ shed which, I suspect, was probably the first example of its kind. He was severely constrained in both timescale and costs. The accounts show an extraordinarily low figure of £1,402 for ‘general construction costs’, plus £216 for ‘other items’. An early site plan, probably dating from 1837, shows the engine shed as below: Paddington Site plan, 1837, showing the Engine Shed. At first glance, the octagonal form seemed to match the track plan but I was surprised to see that the locations of the tracks corresponded with the vertices of the octagon, rather than being placed centrally in the sides, as I would have expected. Indeed, an illustration of the interior in ‘Measom’s Guide to the GWR’, dated 1854, appears to show such a layout – a reminder not to trust all those early engravings! Looking more closely at the plans, however, I saw that the vertices were ‘squared off’, with entrance doors, where required, or short segments of wall. Thus, I started my modelling of the shed by copying the above drawing as a ‘canvas’ into ‘Fusion 360’ and tracing the foundations of the perimeter walls. That was the easy bit but where to go from there? I had a couple of sources to draw on for guidance: An early photograph of the demolition of the original station includes a glimpse of the engine shed roof in the background. This gave me a slope of 15 degrees for the main roof. Incidentally, several of the iron columns from the original station can be seen lying amongst the debris in the foreground, while a very tall disk & crossbar signal appears to the right. The sheer-legs appear on early plans of the original station layout. Paddington Demolition works, c 1854-5 The other source was a much better engraving than the one in Measom’s guide. This one shows the clerestory roof over the centre of the shed and a rather bewildering forest of wooden supports for the roof. After studying this illustration for some time, I decided to take a ‘Stonehenge’ approach to the design of my model by concentrating on the locations of the upright pillars and hoping to fill in the rest of the details later! Engine Shed Interior c.1846 (Firefly-class ‘Ganymede’ was new in 1842) From this illustration, I deduced that there were two rows of pillars along the sides of each track between the entrance doors and the clerestory. Taken together, these formed an inner ‘ring’, supporting the edges of the clerestory, and an intermediate ‘ring’ between the perimeter. walls and the clerestory. Creating a 3D Model As I laid out the locations of all the pillars in ‘Fusion 360’, a very ingenious geometric pattern started to emerge, reminiscent of the vaults of a mediaeval cathedral. This seemed to me a far more sophisticated design than I had expected from a young man who had joined the GWR to do work on engines! It was a portent of the illustrious career that lay ahead for young Daniel Gooch. Once I had determined the locations of the bases of the various pillars, I had to adjust their lengths to correspond to a slope of 15 degrees in the roof that they were designed to support. Rather than attempting to describe the process in many words, I have made a series of ‘screen shots’ of each stage, as my construction progressed in ‘Fusion 360’ Steps in my ‘Stonehenge’ approach to Modelling Paddington Engine Shed Now that I’d worked out the overall layout, I decided to go back to the beginning and start again! This time, having worked out the geometric pattern, I used the ‘Pattern on Path’ tool in ‘Fusion 360’ tu ensure that all the pillars and their linking ribs were aligned in a regular, symmetrical pattern around the central axis. Bird’s-eye View showing Symmetrical Design of Shed The various ribs connecting the tops of the pillars, in order to support the roof, were all copied from an initial 3D drawing of a square-section bar. After placing the first pair of ribs, I could use the ‘Pattern on Path’ tool to complete the rest of the pattern around the central axis. Adding details As an initial check on the general validity of my structure, I set up an internal view of my model in ‘Fusion 360’, to compare with the contemporary engraving shown above. I couldn’t match the perspective exactly but it gave me a good idea of what needed to be done to capture the ‘atmosphere’ of the original interior. I started by adding the diagonal ties at the tops of my pillars. This was a fairly easy ‘tweak’ that I could apply to one pillar and then copy around the complete array, again using ‘Pattern on Path’ to maintain the alignment around the central axis. The result at this stage is shown below. I have included my model of ‘Vulcan’ to indicate the overall scale: Interior view of my basic model of Paddington Engine Shed I could find no information about the entrance doors but then I remembered some drawings that Gooch created for Maidenhead depot. These included shed doors (NRCA161482) so I extruded my model from the Maidenhead design and found that these doors were a perfect fit into the doorways of the Paddington shed. An early example of standardisation! My enhanced version of NRCA161482 showing Doors for Maidenhead Depot I didn’t have much to go on for the design of the interior walls, except the engraving shown above, which indicates vertical planking and window openings with vertical bars. I took some further design cues from the Broad Gauge Transfer shed at Didcot Railway Centre, which suggested diagonal cross-bracing on the large panels. I started from a single rectangular panel on which I incised one ‘slot’ to represent a single vertical plank. I then used ‘Pattern on Path’ to complete the planking of the whole panel. Next, I created the various frame pieces and attached these to the inside face of the panel. Finally, I cut the rectangular openings for the windows and added an array of vertical bars within each opening. My model Wooden Planked Wall with Bracing The result looked pleasing and made me loath to add the roof, which would hide all this from view! Nevertheless, the roof was necessary to provide an overall impression of the interior scene. Adding a Roof For the roof, I could again take advantage of the circular symmetry of the structure, to reduce the amount of design work that was needed. I had only to design one triangular roof panel and one rectangular one, which then alternated around the ‘ring’. The clerestory roof is even simpler and only involves triangular panels. I started with what seem the easiest one to draw – the rectangular panel. I checked the lengths of the support ribs with the ‘measure tool’ in ‘Fusion 360’, to ensure that panel would be a correct fit. After that, the detailing followed similar methods to those I used for the sides, with a pattern of rafters as indicated on the contemporary engraving shown above. The triangular panels were rather more difficult. I established the lengths of the sides by again using the ‘measure tool’ and I also checked the angle at the top vertex, remembering that, because of the slope of the roof, this is not simply a fraction of the circle defined in the ground plan. I then added the intermediate supporting battens and finally the numerous cross-battens towards the apex. I wanted to use the ‘Pattern on Path’ tool again but realised that, if I started copying from the bottom edge, the battens would become too long as the roof segment tapered towards the apex. My solution was to create an array of same-length battens, which I then cut by applying the ‘Splitting’ tool to the plane defined by the edges of the panel, as shown below: Applying the 'Splitting' tool in 'Fusion 360' The triangular segments of the clerestory roof followed, by using the same methods, so I now had three different type of roofing panel, as shown below: Three Types of Roof Panel for my Engine Shed Model I should probably have done lots of trigonometry to work out exactly how to place these panels on the roof, sloped at 15°, but I opted for an empirical approach and used the ‘Move’ and ‘Twist’ tools, while checking from different directions until they were seated neatly over the relevant rafters. After that, it was back to the ‘Pattern on Path’ tool to complete the circular symmetrical pattern of the complete roof. The end result is shown below: External View of my model of Paddington Engine Shed 1840 It all looks rather plain from the outside – a bit like a Victorian Gaol – but for a more interesting view, I could use the ‘Camera’ in the ‘Render’ section of ‘Fusion 360’ to look inside. Here is an internal view with ‘Vulcan’ on one of the turntable roads: Internal View of my Model Engine Shed, showing panelled walls and roof I think the overall impression is in reasonable agreement with the contemporary engraving shown above and is probably as good as can be achieved on the surviving information. Another view, which includes the clerestory roof is shown below: View into my Model of Paddington Engine Shed, through open Doors Overview of Paddington Depot c.1840 Finally, I have placed my model within the context of the overall site, as it was laid out in 1840. See my previous post for details of the other models shown. Overview of my Current Collection of Paddington Models There are still several more structures to consider, although with very little information to work from. One item, listed in the accounts, is ‘stables’ but these are not marked on any of the drawings that I have. I am currently thinking that they might be the extension on the side of the Engine Shed. I have not completed this part, except for the outer walls as marked on the overall plan. There would perhaps be a 19th-century logic in grouping together all the available sources of motive power within one overall building. Horses still played an important part in manoeuvring rolling stock between the various small turntables. If anyone has any other suggestions, I shall be interested to receive them. Mike

I've been umming and arring about what to put in the final corner. We've got a road in the front left, a field of sheep in the front right, a stables in the rear-right (although not actually fixed down yet) but the fourth corner has been eluding me. Then I saw the Metcalfe Castle Tower and I understood immediately what I needed, a Folly. Yes, I know, I've broken my Metcalfe Rule again. Luckily I'll let myself off. A chunk of expanded poly for a base, glue that on and spread some Foam Putty over it (finally using Foam Putty for its advertised use!) Brown ground; grass and some fencing. I need three more things 1) the sign saying "Lora's Folly"; just need a small piece of suitable thickness sheeting and a cocktail stick 2) the path needs to be gravelled 3) a figure - a man in a peaked cap called Arthur Roberts, known to his mates as six-pence, who will be there to collect entrance fees from the steady stream of punters. It may even benefit from Person With Small Child. I'll keep an eye out. I'm avoiding placing figures on the layout, although I've got a number of boxes sitting on the table here. I'd like to get the majority of the scenery done before I start placing people, I think I can make them look more natural if they are added after the scenery :) > These pictures are all uploaded from my laptop. I promise its not some "mobile phone" thing that's turning them through 90 degrees. Consider it good exercise for your neck muscles. Additional picture, with Arthur and sign:

For some reason fifteen years have been taken off the layout and a couple of SECR locomotives have been running round: The C Class was a fortuitous eBay purchase; the terrier was actually bought as new. I've picked up a couple of sets of Wellington Brown birdcages when the sales let them go really cheap. At this scale, If I can't see the running numbers I don't need to renumber them. Should any of the Little People's Accountants on the railway complain that there are two sets of identically-named stock running around, I'll take some tablets and have a lie-down. I recently failed when bidding for another of these C Class; probably a good thing because I'd have had to renumber it as I couldn't get away with two locos with the same number.

My back has been playing up more and more and so I decided that I'd be best off trying to find a way to avoid getting down on the ground to plug the power cabling in. I drilled some holes in the rear-side of the baseboard when it was up against the bookcases one weekend, and then I spent a week looking on the internet for "extension" cables with plugs that would fit Kato Power and Turntable controllers. Grr. Arg. Eventually found suitable cables and, with the help of a straightened-out coat hanger, fished them through the layout so that they poked out the back. Of course the cables are actually 3m long, so I've got coils of cable rolled around inside the base. I'll be able to resolve that - I've purchased suitable chocolate-blocks, wire cutters and even a set of wire-strippers; so when I get a spare pair of hands, I'll tackle that job. I may even solder the cut cable together and just use the chocolate-blocks as insulation. Working on the rear its time to deal with the road. Again a strip of plasticard along the edge and then I laid the road using "Flex Paste" which turns the wood-grain of the plywood into a smooth road-like surface. I explicitly bought a 4cm scraper, which seems a suitable width for an n-scale roadway, to do the scraping with. I'll be edging one side with Metcalfe paving. Yes, again, I know what I said, but the paving doesn't look out of scale :) The road goes all along the back from the gasworks to the level crossing. and then round the church, school and down to the oasthouse too. The tarmac will peter out at the Oast House end and turn into gravel and dirt. And Yes I'm wishing I didn't have a curve around the church. It'll be fine.. A small copse of trees has arrived between the oast house and the crossing-keeper's cottage. I've been on a Tree-Buying spree on eBay and I'm going to have a LOT of trees, especially behind the church. One thing you'll note is that all these buildings have had their roofs painted the same colour. We know that the church and school and oast house will pre-date the coming of the railway and so they would have been built from local materials where ever possible, and having roofs that look the same colour goes a long way to making the buildings look as if they fit in nicely.

One of the things I built for our coffee-table layouts was a church and surroundings ("built" is stretching it really as its another Liddle-End building) I feel this will look really good on the layout. I've got a crossing-keepers house (which is, of course, completely the wrong orientation for the position its going to be sited on, an Oast house (so that puts the layout in Kent) and a Scenecraft school. Yes, that's the Metcalfe stables buildings in the far-corner. I know what I wrote, but I think I can get away with these as they are reasonably small... I'll see. You can see some Noch "boys playing football" figures which will go great in the playground area behind the school. Lora would be asking me "what about the girls?", so I'm on the lookout for some Young Ladies models that would be suitable; just don't go googling for them - you end up with all sorts of unsuitable websites being offered. I'm avoiding a residential area and I'm also avoiding an industrial area; If this was residential then you'd expect better access to the station than "drive off in opposite direction to station and then circle round 1/4 of a mile to the front of the layout". If this was industrial then I couldn't get away without a goods yard and a more more sidings, which would have used up all the space and there wouldn't have been any space to *put* the buildings in the first place. So I've gone for three buildings which could easily be on the edge of a village/town rather than in the centre, which suits a lot of Southern stations which ended up a mile's walk from the place they were named after.

Gasworks Corner. Here's a confession. I love the Liddle End buildings. Lora liked them too - she always thought that resin buildings have a heft that makes you think of Quality (she watched Snatch enough times to understand Boris' maxim "Weight is quality"). Its possible that there have been some Liddle End buildings offered on eBay in the past year that I've not bid on but not many, So I realised I had the whole Gasworks set and also a Gasometer (I always call them that as that's what my Mum & Dad called them, no matter how silly the name sounds). The gasometer is actually an OO-scale one, but with n-scale ladders and fencing added. I bought it for the Coffee Table layouts, the idea being originally that I could use it to hold our water-jug, however one look at the water-jug sitting six inches up in mid-air brought to mind how clumsy I am and I admitted defeat and put it back on the table; but it did mean I had a nice large gasometer ready for a gasworks. Some "Gaugemaster" factory walling around it and we're in business! No buildings are being fixed down as yet, even the roundhouse is removable. I want to leave myself the option of lighting the houses. Not sure how now that I've pinned the bottom on the base, but my wife was very fond of lights in buildings. I'll have to read up to see if there is a proper way to arrange the various gasworkage items. YES I know that there should be a siding leading to the gasworks, but as we're pretending that this isn't just a loop of track on a table we can pretend that there's a siding out of sight behind there somewhere... I considered adding a siding at the rear of the layout, but I thought that would dig into the scenic areas too much, and as this is designed to play with Passenger Trains rather than Goods Trains I settled for the layout as shown. I want this layout to be (a) possible to 'complete' (b) be movable by a man with a frequently-bad back, so limiting the size is quite important. Lora bought into my railway modelling hobby, it was something she felt she could contribute to and that the end result was something *nice* to look at, far removed from her opinion of Games Workshop's models. Lora was always interested in how the buildings were arranged on a layout and was she enjoyed trawling eBay for buildings, people and railway detritus that would look nice on the railways. Our honeymoon included a trip on the RH&D, so she knew that I was a "fan" of railways, she was just finally pleased when I got down to building some. Lockdown was actually good for us, I could work from home and so we could actually spend more time together doing stuff together and her interest in the railway modelling helped make these last years a bonding experience. I hear such horror stories of people's relationships breaking down over the lockdowns, whereas for us the time together brought us closer.

First I tried out various pieces of scenery to see what would work well. Should I attempt to hide the back-straights behind a retaining wall or row-of low-relief houses... My first pack of Concrete Fencing on the corner there. I don't have room for much in the way of platforms, which could stress some people out, as the platforms and station building really should be positioned where the controllers are. Maybe if this finds a permanent position at some stage I'll extend the board. For now its a case of some Peco platform-edging, some 4mm stone-embossed plasticard and paint, in the run-round loop. It's quite a thin platform but I'm sure the passengers won't complain that loudly. Obviously an overbridge for the passengers would be nonsensical so I've added subway entrances to each end of the platform. I decide that I can actually fully-scenic one of the corners without causing me problems. There we go, a road and some roadside hedging, and some of the concrete fencing laid. The road edging is a <1mm strip cut from the same embossed plasticard I used for the platforms, then a little filler (using WS' Foam Putty) before painting brown and applying some grassage (and some foliage on the other side). I'm going to have to find a way to make the white lines better next time I do a road.

Lora's Park Why This does not pretend to be a perfect Model Railway. It doesn’t pretend to be anything other than a layout with which to Play Trains, but more importantly this is a bereavement layout, its main purpose is to give me purpose, give me something constructive to do instead of spending my time wailing at the injustice of the world. My wife fully supported my Railway Hobby and was a great one for ideas and suggestions, her pride was the Whomping Willow she constructed to go with the Hogwarts end of our Lockdown Layout. As her health deteriorated our time for modelling was reduced, but with some Kato Unitrack and a variety of rolling stock we could set out small temporary layouts on our coffee table. We managed to visit GETS in 2022, I was the man pushing a wheelchair, she was the one in a wheelchair casting critical baseboard-level eyes over the layouts – she came out of the exhibition distressed at the lack of people in the coaches and with a distaste for unlit coaches. So, over the last couple of years our coffee table was home to SR, LNER, LMS, BR and even one GWR scene – she particularly enjoyed the Kato RhB trains and I built a number of (lit) Swiss buildings to grace the table during winter months, the fact that the coffee table has a Glass Top means that it looks absolutely beautiful running a train around in the dark winter months – wishing ourselves inside the Glacier Express as it pootled round. My wife’s pet hate was cables- anytime I could hide away the wires she was so much happier! When she passed away I started work on this layout, to replace the temporary track on the coffee table – having something to keep myself busy, something that I know she would have loved to watch was a very important thing. Yes, I still spend a fair time crying everyday, but what keeps me going is adding more and more so as to make this the bestest layout I’ve done to date. The station is named “Lora’s Park” in her honour, although I don’t have station buildings, we do have some platformage. I said that this is for playing trains, to be accurate it’s for running steam-driven passenger trains round in circles, utilising the turntable to swap locomotives over and around. Nominally I set one train running around the outside loop whilst I run a succession of trains around the inside loop, swapping locomotives over at the drop of a hat. Area The layout is nominally Southern Railway but I can also concoct an LNER set of rolling stock for variety, and a multi-region BR Steam pack too if I so desire. The intention is to keep the scenery and trimmings to suit the 1920s/1930s. Being SR we have a lot of concrete fencing and buildings and luckily the Kato roundhouse is clearly of concrete construction! Construction The layout is 2’ by 6’ – the size that B&Q sell sheets of 3.6mm ply. Kato turnouts having built-in motors, it didn’t need to be deep, so I used 25mm x 25mm bracing and added a second piece of ply to the bottom to give it monocoque-style strength. It sits on two wooden trestles (Homebase this time) and part of the underside ply sticks out 5” to give a shelf for the controllers – standard Kato controllers and switches. I stuck a 5mm deep strip of neoprene along one short edge, so I can pick the layout up and stand it against the wall when hot in use. This means I must endeavour to keep the layout light in weight so as not to budger my back up any more than it is already. Caveat This is not designed to offer prototypical operation. I don't hunt rivets.

Some months ago I came across a fantastic website - www.britishsteelbilston.com - about the Bilston Steel works in Wolverhampton, West Midlands. This has been put together by Mr Andrew Simpson who worked there and is well worth a visit - there are some fantastic photos including a section on the Work's locomotives. In fact, I contacted Andrew and he put me in touch with a Mr Roger Deans, a chief fitter at Bilston, who has provided me with information and a lot of stories about his time there. I was so taken with Bilston itself, and is a place I clearly remember from my childhood cycling adventures down the canals, that I decided to recreate a small shunting layout based on a typical British steelworks. Bilston in its early 70s heyday - a clear shot of how close you could get to a Blast Furnace from the canals in those pre H&S days! The furnace was called Elisabeth (with an s not a z) in honour of the owner's daughter and not the Queen as often suggested. She was first lit in 1954 and closed down in 1977. Her weekly output was about 5000 tons. Canal boats would often float past even on the most busiest of days at the Steelworks. My take on part of a steelworks. Note the mirror underneath the building at the end of the canal. Like all micro layout creators I am obsessed with successful scenic breaks! Apart from the obvious join line across the canal I think the trick works rather well. The Engineering Shop at Bilston. Notice the uneven buckling of the corrugated panels - that is how they actually look in real life on all industrial buildings. I'd like to claim that I have successfully emulated this in my own model but can't as it was entirely accidental. I guess when you use the correct thickness of foil you get the same effect! The colour match is also a lucky guess and came from a discarded paint can found at my local tip. The above picture is actually from Shelton Bar Steelworks in Stoke on Trent. I was so taken with the scene that I wanted to recreate it on the layout. May take on the Shelton Bar building over the canal. I love these wagons from Golden Valley Hobbies. They are being hauled by a freelance version of a Hunslet 0-4-0. Based on the cheap Hornby mechanism I have used bits and pieces from an old Dapol Shunter kit and a second hand Bagnell. The Dapol 16T mineral is permanently attached and its wheels have been given extra pickups that feed the Hornby motor via small connect wires - whilst not a brilliant crawl type runner it works really well on the layout. Plan view of the layout - it has a fiddle yard to the right and is connected via a link to my Floodgate Street layout to the Left. I've done this for space considerations and also to allow FGS to share the new fiddle yard. More pics to follow about construction etc.

This 20-ton Ruston 88DS was sold for scrap after the ICI works at which it was used ceased to use rail traffic. It had been well-maintained by the ICI fitters and, instead of being cut up, was put on the sale or hire list at Strong's. It spent some time in use as the yard shunter and also shunting the Watery Lane works of Metal Box Ltd. It was later sold for preservation but, as is so often the case, was cast aside as soon as the railway got ideas above its station and started to run an ex-BR steam loco. The Ruston was sold back to Strong but this time it was not so lucky and became razor blades and Rover 75s.

First a bit of nostalgia :) 26043 2 weeks off the production line from BCRW and at the time was on commissioning trials, as 26043 is a series 1 class 26 it never had cab droplights fitted, we see the tablet catcher recess, and its front connecting doors, we also see that like all 26s its boiler fitted. Note it does not yet have the opening window instead it has a boiler filler hatch. 26/1s incorporated a number of weight saving measures, such as the cantrail grills being made out of aluminium instead of steel, a thinner gauge bodyside skin, and the internal radiator ducting being made from fibreglass instead of aluminium, OLEO Buffers and all coil spring suspension. By this time is was already decided that the class 26s were destined for a life in Scotland, so in order to appease the Scottish civil engineer, they needed to shed a few pounds to bring the axle weight down. Note this is probably the only time 26043 has carried the correct pattern series 1 bogies, these have the correct series 1 footsteps fitted and also are missing the link arms required to lift the bogies attached to the locomotive as the series 1 underframe was missing the bracketry required for this. Another fact is the drivers side windows are not the same as what is fitted now, they are mounted on the inside whereas at the last HGR they were changed to an outside mounted frame to try and reduce water ingress into the cab. The location of the photo is unknown its thought to be somewhere up north but not scotland. The cab as built. a lot of people when they look in a class 26 cab see exposed pipework, and think there are panels missing......as you can see...there never was any panelling the cabs were very spartan, and all that protects you from the Scottish wilderness and freezing temperatures is 3mm of steel......not known for its insulating properties! This photo shows a 26/0 as built its vacuum only and has a drop light next to the drivers seat, identifying this as a 26/0. You can clearly see the bellows for the connecting corridor. In a previous blog we saw the drivers side cut away awaiting new steel framework, this has now been applied with a coat of protective primer the lower portion of the grab handle recess has been found to be badly twisted which will affect the fitting of the new doors...this has been cur away to be replaced by a brand new fabricated section. The secondmans windscreen has now been removed to assess the extant of the corrosion above the cab windscreens. We already knew this was a problem area having exposed it a few years ago but ran out of time to be able to affect a repair before the locomotive was due back in service. A good indication of what you can hide with filler.....once again note the complete absence of any paint on the steel work. Looking towards the drivers side the filler has been chipped away to expose the base of the roof dome. The cause of the corrosion is quite simple at some point Scotrail completely fiberglassed over the join between the cab steel and the roof dome (assuming to stave off water ingress). This works as long as the fibreglass stays attached but as the body flexes....it pulls away, this means water can leak from the base of the gutter behind the fibreglass and sit there....which causes the corrosion. Moving down the right hand side of the windscreen towards the connecting doors we see significant corrosion, and also wastage around the extremities of the screen, refurbished class 26s used a clayton-rite windscreen seal, which meant the internal window frame could be removed, a clayton right seal is commonly found on classic cars and is recognised by the filler strip in the centre of the seal to clamp it to the window glass and the frame work, however...its not unusual for water to penetrate and site in the channels and rot the supporting steel ( as a lot of classic car owners will know) the reason for the change is unknown.. but its assumed it was connected with the switching of class 27 type windscreens around the time 26s had a HGR. which would have required the changing of the internal frame, so the cheap option was to the do away with it in its entirety, which left only the steel to support the window which required a different type of seal. the reason for the change of windscreens was an attempt to cut costs by standardising parts accross the fleet. The chipping of the filler and its thickness indicates "further bodgery" is present! this was found to be a 2 inch overlap with the steel above. As a result we decided to cut the entire panel off!!! You can clearly see where the water tended to sit (at the bottom right hand side of the screen). Here we see the front with the panel removed the corrosion around the centre doors extends to the shelf in the cab, it can also be seen that the supporting framework is also missing for the front panel! At the rear of the removed panel we see...what survives of the framework! You can also see that while this is a BR panel its not the original.... And you can see the original light has been gas axed from the original front and welded to the new panel! you can also see the red-oxide primer likely applied during preservation...which means the lower portion of the frame has been absent for a very long time! Work starting to re-instate the frame work first a piece of horizontal steel is inserted and welded below the shelf to the correct front profile. Then a front pieced welded on to strengthen the framework and give a surface to weld new panels to at the top. The curve is quite complex and the next stage is to fabricate the sill, there is no room for error here if the sill is slightly misshapen then windscreen will not fit! You can see the internal window shelf, this is quite badly corroded and will be removed. if we look again at the rear of the removed panel you can see the complex curve at the top and its sill which can be made out (just) by the shadow! The replacement repair panel being "fettled" before being welded in. The panel being fitted! Also being repaired if that unsightly corrosion at the side of the connecting corridor, the welds will be cleaned up shortly. At this stage the curves for the windscreens can be fitted, as can be seen here... And finally the welds cleaned up! A lot more steel will have to be removed to get the correct hole for the screen.

When you do the amount of bodywork we are doing, you almost go back through a locomotives history, like rings on a tree....and its interesting when the casual observer thinks something is a lot better than it really is. 043 on the turntable at minehead, everything you have seen....looks alright doesn't it...doesn't seem to show anything untoward with the bodywork.....everything you have seen....is there....everything your about to see.....is there....waiting to be discovered... We saw in the last blog the crash pillar removed, it was badly corroded and the crib plates were missing, when you take apart a loco in this manner you can easily get an idea of its history, and the reason for the corrosion is actually quite simple....at some point the loco has suffered sideswipe damage on this side, and this is evidenced by the patches on the grill uprights for the radiators and the cut in the handrail recess, the problem then becomes when these repairs are sub standard, because the depot needs to get the loco out as soon as possible....and if it was a "hush hush" job hide the locomotive from the sight of management! Particularly when the accident was due to someone being "under the influence". The new crib-plate and side plate have been fitted and welded. Here we see the original pillar (can just make out the lamp bracket at the front) we see at the base a old repair going up we see a large chunk removed by gas axe and again several attempts to fix the grab handle we also see plug welds (which are not original) indicating a replacement to the side skin at some point. The front steel has Anti asbestos paint on it indicating this was original steel, the paint was applied to seal residual asbestos fibres when the locomotive was stripped of asbestos during one of its works visits. After the second-mans side is complete the centre has now been cleaned and fully welded to the correct profile of the front, in the previous blog you saw heavy corrosion as a result of fibreglass matting which has a remarkable water retention capability, coupled with the fresh brand of paint that BR used...the rot present was inevitable. The air pipes to and from the drivers brake valve have been cleaned and undercoated and trial fitted to make sure we don't weld up something we shouldn't. Moving to the drivers side we see the removal of the crib plate and the extensive corrosion to the cable ducting this will all need to be tidied up and new conduit installed before the locomotive re-enters traffic, you can clearly see the 1/2" rivets that hold the crib plates waiting to be hammered out the underframe so new bolts can hold the new plates firmly in place. Also evident is significant crash damage, like no1 end this corner of the buffer beam has at some point been cut off and rewelded into place (likely after the chassis has been jacked up to straighten it, note the wooden spacer behind the buffer being "unique" to suit the dent behind it...this is 3/4" steel plate, a significant impact would be required to deform it in this manner! the secondmans desk had to be removed as it was found the brake pedestal in the centre of the picture was only held in by the pipes, the sideswipe collision had ripped it from its mountings these are being straightened and firmly attached to the floorplate. Drivers side crib now welded in place and a repair section made to the drivers side crash pillar. Final side plate removed and surface prep underway for the final plate at the floor level. The final plate in the process of being welded and secured in place. Unfortunately BR spend years customising the loco to fit its rather bodged metal work, and now we are fixing that...things start to well, not fit....as a result the lower section of front skin now protrudes over an inch further forward than the lower framework......you can see further up a depression where the metal work goes in and then out again... to correct this cuts have been made which allow us to reshape the front, this will allow us to have completely level plate work when the new steel is welded to the front. Further cuts to the side indicate that the framework will need to be complete renewed all the steel inwards of the crash pillar will be cut away and replaced with new angle iron, significant. issues are present in the upright pillar corner. nasty.....again note the complete lack of paint! fully refurbished secondmans desk fitted to No2 end

Hold on to your socks - this is going to be a lengthy one! (In fact it's so long, I've now split it into 2 separate posts - the next will be up soon...) I think it's fair to say that you are all long overdue an update on Coastguard Creek. Due to other commitments, no real progress has been made since the last post way back in March 2021; almost 15 months ago! If anything, things went backwards for quite a while, as I kept finding more and more inspiring locations that I really wanted to model, and I couldn't stop myself from sketching ideas! I've probably gone through hundreds of sketches and ideas since this layouts' inception. The vast majority of which I was so focused on what I wanted each scene to look like, that I stopped thinking about the practicalities in terms of turning them into a manageable layout. Being sketches, it of course also means that they are far too optimistic in terms of fitting everything in in the space available. Nethertheless, rather than them never be seen, I'm posting the sketches that are most complete; in order to help show the sort of layout I'm looking to build, and also in the hope that perhaps someone might have a sensible suggestion or two! What follows are just some (yes, really!) of the sketches I've drawn... Note: I have retrospectively numbered the sketches so that you (and I) can use these numbers for reference when talking about them from now on. One such early 'what-if' scenario is seen below: Above: (CC0) A sketch of what I imagine Lepe might've looked like with a rudimentary station built from local buff Exbury brick and wood. Note the (relocated) D-Day embarkation hard in the right foreground. In reality, the planned station would've been further to the right, and at 90 degrees or so to that shown above; actually terminating on a 470 yard south-easterly pier into the Solent! Above: (CC1) The first redesign came soon after my second blog entry about the layout, when someone reminded me about Eling Tide Mill. I just had to fit this on the original layout plan, so at first it was sqeezed into the position shown here. Note that it is drawn far too small on the plan on the left, so it would actually need more room; which brings us onto the next sketch... Above: (CC2) As it felt a little too 'squeezed', I then shifted things around a fair bit. The result is a rather strange trackplan, with two sidings ending on the beach that have no real use! I do like the new position of the tide mill and pub, though! I then tried, rather than creating a fictional location, to 'imagineer' a line to Lepe, using the once-planned route of going via the Dark Water Valley; modifying the original plans and history, and adding in locations from other areas of the New Forest and beyond. This made for an interesting exercise, but the topography meant that in model form it would be difficult to produce, as the creek section (where all the shunting would take place in my world) would not only be behind the 'main' running line, but also beyond the creek itself. This would result in both an incredibly wide board, and also be hard to see - not least because of the escarpment on the nearside edge. It would've been a cool concept looking up the Dark Water Valley (it reminds me of the 'Stealth Bomber' layout, Crumley & Little Wickhill), but it would also take up too much space: Above: (CC3) Starting with the right-hand image, annotating a Google Maps screenshot shows one possible route that the real railway might've taken (I should've coloured the line to make it obvious, but it runs from the hashed line (demolished pier) at the bottom, and curves left, then back to the right and around to the top middle). To fit in a much-desired bridge across Dark Water, I changed things around until I came up with the sketch on the left. Note that it was planned to make the shipyard board able to be removed from this large layout, and have the traverser fiddle yard split into two to service each end for exhibitions. This would, however, mean a different backscene would be required for exhibitions. Note that the hill on the right (where it says 'The Dark Water Valley') would severely limit viewing not only of the boatyard, but also the mill, the adjacent halt, and also the wharf with the dual sidings on board 2. Looking back, the only way it would work (at least in terms of being able to see everything) would be to widen the estuary and bridge area, and narrow the scene towards the fiddle yard. That would, however, create a much sharper curve for the 'main' line. Above: (CC4) At some point, things took a turn, and I designed a few variants of this multi-phase plan. It shows two modules back-to-back, with a cassette fiddle yard. Not a horrendous plan in terms of space required, but it would be a nightmare to exhibit! I also had a version whereby it was turned into a roundy roundy; with the rearmost siding in the shipyard joining up, via a cutting, with the station at the top. The more I look at it, the more I like the plan - and it does make the best use of the space out of all the designs (I think). I just don't think the double sided layout is a particularly easy thing to exhibit, particularly as action will only ever be happening on one side at a time. Above: (CC5) I then reverted back to CC2, albeit now on two (more manageable) boards. However, the creek and the coastline are at too similar an angle. I also feel like operation-wise it wouldn't be that fun, and it doesn't really look very prototypical; I don't like the way the boat yard sidings come straight off the loop.. Above: (CC6) This whale-shaped layout(!) is definitely a bit 'off'. I know I like unusual board shapes, but this takes the micky! The reason for it was to try and angle the coast away from the creek, although I'm not sure I quite succeeded. There's definitely more of a focus on scenery here than on operation. For some reason I didn't include a board join; it would likely be in a similar place - with the concrete breakwater marking the join, bottom middle. The fact that there are only two sidings to shunt now makes this a comparatively dull layout. Note the tidal road on the far left - this is inspired by Bosham Quay. Above: (CC7) A refinement of the 'whale' idea was this plan. At last, I'm starting to try to set the angle of the creek perpendicular (or near enough) to the coast. The trackplan is still quite simple and a bit clumsy; any passenger service would seriously put a spanner in shunting maneouvres, and there are still only two sidings! The random double creek is also a bit bizarre, and a waste of space. Above: (CC8) A further variation. Operation is still hampered by any potential passenger services, and the tide mill at the top is not in a very suitable spot; it's a bit crammed-in. Again, we seem to have a double creek going on, with the nearest one being far too close to the coast to be so muddy! Above: (CC9) A bit of shifting around leaves the tide mill in a much better spot, but we still have a double creek going on; again with the bottom one not really quite right. It might've been OK if the beach was more 'vertical' as we look at the plan, and if we couldn't see the end of the breakwater. A loco shed has also randomly appeared at the back again. The mill wharf siding is at least accessed via its own headshunt, but that only leaves two sidings to shunt. Above: (CC10) I became quite interested with the thought of producing a triangular layout (I think inspired by a dockyard design in Paul Lunn's book of micro layouts (I forget its proper title)). I still quite like this concept, but I feel that too much of the layout, when photographing/viewing, would not have the backscene in the background. That's a dealbreaker for me! Otherwise, it's certainly an interesting layout; both in terms of operation and scenic potential. Note the coal yard at the bottom, with it's ridiculously short headshunt! Another problem is that I would imagine this would be a huge layout... Above: (CC11) I then became, for some considerable time, obsessed with producing a roundy-roundy. These are still some of my favourite designs (the only real difference between the two here is an extra siding in the boat yard), but I just feel it would take up too much space. That said, I liked the idea so much that I even built it in Train Simulator, and I think the idea certainly has a lot of appeal: Above: The initial version of this plan required that any loco running around its train at the platform would use the sharply curved line on the swing bridge. I later swapped things around, and turned the siding on the front left into a loco release headshunt (you'll see a glimpse of this later). Above: A really pleasing scene looking towards the platform, and further afield to the tidal mill in the background. The platform would likely be a spindly SR concrete precast halt, rather than of solid construction as shown here. Above: The Peckett runs around its train. Note the wooden crossing linking the end of the platform with the coaling area (barely visible on the left). A path would also go up the hill towards the phone box. Oh, and don't judge my signalling - I have no real clue if it's right or wrong! Above: My favourite scene of all is the road crossing adjacent to the tide mill, with it's little ground frame, and the road climbing up behind to the coastguard cottages. The road being framed by the two tall trees works well, too. Above: Building a virtual version allowed me to operate the layout. As a result, the model evolved as I found that certain things were either missing, or didn't quite work. The line in the foreground was added as somewhere to park the brake van prior to shunting. Above: The shipyard also evolved slightly, but all versions featured tight curves, as would be expected. The crossing above does seem a incredibly condensed - in reality, there would need to be more separation from the points to the crossing itself. It may well be that I would have to scratchbuild not just the crossing, but the points themselves; that would be a new challenge! P.S. the 16t mineral wagons were the only suitable rolling stock I could find. Above: A higher view showing the ridiculously condensed points of the crossing! Another problem I had with this plan is that I highly doubt that the railway would build a swing bridge just so that a boat can access 2 slipways - but I'd love to be proved wrong! Note the line at the top left curving sharply around the pub - that's the roundy-roundy aspect. For non lazy running, this would be used as a headshunt for the rightmost siding. The line going into the boatshed on the left also meets up with the fiddle yard. Those with beady eyes may note that the passing loop (top right) has had it's points swapped so that a 'main' line loco no longer has to run onto the tightly curved section on the swing bridge. Something that I think is missing is a lean-to engine shed for the yard shunter. Above: (CC12) I then realised the previous plans were all far too big, certainly if they were to be transported in my car, so I set about making a series of modules of the inland (creek) sections. I didn't feel that the coastal area would offer enough operating interest, nor fit in such a small footprint, although I did leave the Pitt's Mill Wharf module with an additional scenic exit, just in case. Anyway, these modules were all given tentative names based on local industries and placenames. As self-contained scenes, I think they could all look quite nice, but operating them together would prove challenging at exhibitions. On a personal level I'm not quite sure how I'd feel about seeing modules, which are technically individual scenes, running together as one layout. I really admire cameo layouts that form a standalone scene, but I couldn't imagine putting two together and it being particularly effective. I suppose the shorter the gap between them, the more effective it might be, whereas having large non-scenic gaps would ruin the effect somewhat. I've seen a few modular layouts online set up in the latter format with large (often black) bridges/fascias separating them. Without wishing to sound too critical, I don't think it really works unless the modules are vastly different in style/subject. My plan above was to soften/hide the gaps between modules by always having trees of similar style and colouring on every join; on both sides of the track. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this sort of set-up, purely out of curiousity! Personally, I'm not 100% convinced, but perhaps a '3D' sketch or model might persuade me otherwise... Above: (CC13) I then felt like I should give the coastal section another chance; coming up with this three board (but single backscene) design, with a fiddle yard wedged behind the middle board. To provide intrique, I moved the platform on the coastal board into the centre of the loop, with a walkway across the nearside track leading to a separate small station building/cafe set into the cliffside. I think this is quite a nice idea for a layout, but the fiddle yard looks pretty small, and the 'Leape' board would probably have to be split into two boards. I'm not quite sure about the station layout - I would think it would make far more sense to have the point that goes into the loop in the cutting (i.e. reverse the hand), rather than as shown; where the loco would need to swing sharply around to the coast, and thus the short branch line to the boatyard, rather than simply going straight back onto the 'main' branch. Above: (CC14) Taking the previous design, removing Leape, and adding a loop to the wharf board gives us a more compact design, although operation is more limited. It does however give room for a much larger fiddle yard (ignore the fact it says 'traverser' - it clearly isn't one; I forgot to remove the text when I copied it across!). Above: (CC15) My two favourite scenes are the shipyard and tidal mill, so I began to focus more heavily on these two areas; especially allowing the latter more room. I also wanted to add typical New Forest features like a ford (top right). I must admit, I really like this design, although the glaring problem is the lack of run-around loop. It would also likely have to be split into two boards. It's basically an inglenook (if you treat the rear loco shed headshunt as a third siding), so not hugely exciting to operate, but it could be worse. Above: (CC16) This is a rather simple alternative, this time mixing the mill with a halt and the brickworks. It's a cute scene, but operation is severely limited; with just one siding to shunt! I think I intended to add another module on the right (presumably the shipyard); that would certainly create a more interesting layout to operate, albeit one that is very long. It certainly gives off the rural branch line feel, and I like the snaking form of the trackwork. Above: (CC17) This wide triangular design was one of my favourites (hence why it received annotations and a title card), but it is far too big to be just one board as shown! I really like the flow and sight lines created by the tidal mill causeway and its pond; causing the line from the 'main' line to sweep around the latter. As this corner would otherwise be too sharp, note how a two further reversals are needed into the fiddle yard (lower track) in order to shunt two of the sidings! I suppose this is wildly unprototypical, and the stream is too narrow as depicted for it to make much sense (surely they would just have a point and a small bridge slightly further up the line that would directly lead to these sidings). Regardless, the shipyard is therefore a sort of inglenook; albeit with extra shunting required. Note that, rather wierdly, there are two run-around loops right next to one another at the top of the plan! The leftmost is there to serve the shipyard and jetty (i.e. freight), the right one solely serves the station. This is another design that I ended up recreating on Train Simulator, and then further developed: Above: After a few revisions, I came up with this simplified version. The main difference is that there's now only one passing loop. Having two didn't really look right, and worse still, the leftmost was disected by a road. That would cause traffic chaos whenever a local freight arrived! Another modification was to move one of the boatyard sidings (to provide more room for the headshunt, and also to avoid having too many sidings perpendicular to the baseboard edge. You'll note that there's now a random 'fork' (in yellow) surrounding the brickworks - that would be a (probably disused) narrow gauge line. One thing this plan is missing is a place to easily park the brake van - the siding by the mill could be used as such, but it would involve considerable shunting. Note that a promenade, a pier, and some beach huts have appeared! In reality, whilst I dislike half-relief buildings, there's no way I'd model the entire boat shed, as shown here. Above: If the ticket office looks familiar, it's because it's a copy of the one found on the I.O.W steam railway at Havenstreet (if you look closely, you'll also note that the running-in board says Havenstreet - I'm using assets from the IOW line expansion on Train Simulator). Names aside, whilst I was thinking more along the lines of a concrete precast platform (Stourpaine & Durweston style), I do love that ticket office design, and I'm also now thinking about the set-up at Havenstreet with the island platform as an interesting alternative. Anyway, note the (unpainted) beach huts on the right - I had to use garden sheds as I couldn't find the right asset/3D model! Up on the cliff (if you can call it that), as well as the coastguard cottages, we have a phone box and a bus shelter. You may just be able to tell that, because I'm shunting with a tiny 0-4-0, I can leave the brake van in the loco release - that's certainly one possibility, providing the siding in the foreground doesn't then become un-shuntable due to the smaller headshunt! Above: The slipway on the left is actually an embarkation hard leftover from the D-Day landing preparations some 10 years earlier. At strategic points along the New Forest coast and also in So'ton, many concrete slipways were built; including one at the real Lepe. Stone Point, to the east, also featured a colossal worksite; where huge floating concrete caissons were built and launched, 'fitted' in So'ton, and then towed across the Channel to provide a floating harbour for the invading forces. Along the roads in the area today, you can still see concrete laybys used to park up the military vehicles under the cover of trees, and away from spying enemies! Above: The lack of much in the way of passenger facilities can be explained mostly by the fact that in my (semi-)fictional history (which I will post at some point), the railway used to continue onto the pier on the right. One fateful night, as has often happened elsewhere, a vessel struck the pier in thick fog, causing irreperable damage. As the pier had been in decline for a number of years beforehand (due to competition from So'ton and Lymington and their ferry services), it was not deemed appropriate to rebuild the gap; so the rest of the pier was demolished. Equally, as there was no longer any possibility of running a ferry service, it was therefore not deemed that Leape would require anything more than a small halt and minimal facilities. Another deciding factor was the limited space available on the shorefront on which to locate the new station. Above: Below the chimney, we can see the ground frame (another I.O.W asset). I've assumed that this would only control the passing loop, crossing gates, and signal(s), and that all other points would be worked by hand. Note the brickworks peeking out behind the trees; this will be a copy of Bailey's Hard Brickworks, which still exists today (albeit as a holiday home, I believe). Above: The brickworks would be an imposing building, especially with its tall chimney; but by screening it with significant foliage, its dominance in the scene has been lessened and it starts to blend into the background. It helps that this, after all, is the New Forest - so one would expect there to be copious amounts of trees. That is certainly the case along the creeks (where the prototype sits), but it is actually the comparatively barren heathland that makes up the majority of the National Park. Still, luckily for me, that's something I don't need to worry about; as although the Dark Water valley is so-named because of the nutrient-rich run-off from the heath, the heath itself is some distance away - which means I don't have to worry about a lack of trees in the background. Above: Swinging to the left of the mill, and looking up the creek, we see the pub on the right, and the boat yard branch in front. The creek at this point on the layout is narrow (although I'd prefer it to be quite a lot wider), and the line crosses it via a small fixed girder bridge. The large boat shed can be seen in the background, with a lean-to loco shed in the middle distance for the resident shunter - note the locomotive hoist. Above: A view that shows a bit more of the boat yard. I really liked this angle looking up one of the sidings and the approach road, and seeing the glimpse of the pub in the distance. The winch shed (minus winch as, unsurprisingly, there isn't a suitable asset for that in-game) is to the left of the siding, with the office on the right. At the far left, we can see a brick stores building. Note the lamp post in front of it, and the use of corrugated metal for fencing elsewhere. There will also be a boat being worked on (perhaps in place of the brick store building), but again, there wasn't a suitable 3D model (and to be honest, I'm struggling to find a suitable 1:76 kit!). Above: Another neat view would be looking up the creek branch from the far left of the layout. Here we see a Peckett back up some wagons onto the coal wharf. Wait? What coal wharf you ask?... Above: ... this one! It's inspired by Dibles Wharf, So'ton - which a B4 tank named 'Corrall Queen' used to shunt. I would imagine the thing with the white railings would be a coal tipper, albeit a single, not a double one like at Dibles Wharf. This scene arose from not just looking at inspiring locations, but also wanting to add more variety to the freight. Above: Another interesting view is looking up the access road (that serves the shipyard and coal wharf) up to the mill and its causeway. I'm all about those sight lines! Above: A final screenshot shows an overview of the layout; hopefully showing how it all fits together. I must admit this is probably one of my favourite designs, but I believe it will be too big, and I worry about not being able to reach across. All the above might make it sound like I'm planning to build this plan, but in reality there are a lot of things to iron out! I still like the general concept, but the logistical issue of a plan this big means there is a lot to think about. Just to finish off this long entry, here's what this plan originally started as on Train Simulator before I went back and added the creek line at the back of the mill pond: ...the next blog entry will deal with further development, and also look at things from a more... practical standpoint! Stay tuned...

For some time, I have been feeling dissatisfied with the shaping of the frames on my model of the broad gauge engine ‘Rob Roy’ but couldn’t think of any ways to improve them, with the limited tools that I have. The construction of my model is described earlier in my blog. Recently I started to think about whether my 3D-printer might be able to help. I do like engines to be made of metal, so a complete plastic print wasn’t my favourite option, although I did find it a useful exercise for testing my modelling skills. I had the idea that it might be possible to make a tool or template, to help in forming brass sheet to the correct curved shapes. I couldn’t work from published drawings because I have modified the frames to suit some slightly over-size Tri-ang wheels, which I chose because they have the correct number of spokes for the GWR ‘Waverley’ class. These wheels are a very prominent feature of the prototype. My starting point was a JPEG image of the frames that I made for my model, which has some compromises in dimensions, to accommodate the wheels. It proved quite difficult to turn this into something that I could ‘extrude’ into a ‘solid’ model by using my 'Fusion 360' software. Rob Roy Frames (modified) – JPEG image Different software packages have their strengths and weaknesses. For this application, ‘Silhouette Studio’ has an excellent ‘trace’ function but has very limited export capability. My first step was, therefore, to open the JPEG image in ‘Studio’. One pitfall is that the image had be scaled to 72px/inch, which caught me out because I usually use 300 for printing. I was initially puzzled because the image appeared 4.2 times too big! Once I had a correctly-sized background image, I use the ‘trace tool’, with the various filters turned off. The result was an outline drawing, which I saved in ‘Studio3’ format. To get this drawing into ‘Fusion 360’, it needs to be converted to SVG, which proved tricky.There is, however, a website that will do an on-line conversion of ‘Studio’ files to SVG format, so, by using this, I now had the drawing in a format that I could insert into ‘Fusion 360’. In principle, the extrude tools in ‘Fusion 360’ can be used to transform an imported drawing into a solid object. In practice, however, my drawing turned out to have tiny gaps in the lines, which did not create the closed areas that are needed for extrusion to work. There is an ‘inspect’ tool, which identified a very large number of places where such gaps occurred but I don’t know of any easy way to close gaps in ‘Fusion 360’, other than on a point-by-point basis. Since the gaps are very tiny, it is difficult to find where to apply the editing tools such as ‘extend’ and ‘join’ and, in some places, they did not seem to work on the imported drawing. Failures seemed to occur where lines met some types of curves and would not connect . I needed another piece of software, to try and resolve the problem. So, I opened my SVG drawing in ‘Inkscape’ and explored the various ‘repair’ tools in that software. The ‘edit paths by nodes’ tool revealed that there was a very large number of nodes in the traced drawing. The ‘simplify’ command on the ‘path’ menu did a good job in reducing these to a more manageable number. By zooming in on the drawing to look at the detail of the nodes, it was easy to see where some nodes did not link up and it was easy to move node points so that they ‘fused’. I re-saved the drawing and inserted the new version into ‘Fusion 360’. Overall, the situation was now much better in that the main area could now be selected as a closed object. The ‘inspect’ tool revealed just a few problem areas and it was now feasible to give these points individual attention. In some cases, it was quicker simply to delete a short section and replace it with new lines. This method was sufficient to ‘close’ all the separate areas. It was only when I came to transfer the design to my slicing software, ‘Cura’, for printing that I realised that the scale had somehow changed during the transfer from ‘Inkscape’ to ‘Fusion 360’. In my previous work, I had always used DXF files from ‘Autosketch’ and these transferred correctly to scale. As a check, I tried saving the file in DXF format from ‘Inkscape’, which solved the scale problem, but the other problems of ‘loose ends’ appeared again and, in the end, I found it easier to re-scale the printer file within my ‘Cura’ software, before finally converting the model to ‘gcode’ for my E180 printer. The printed tool is shown below. For my purpose, the most important part is the curved top surface, which provides a firm base on which to construct my curved splashers. My first step was to glue a sheet of 10 thou (0.25 mm) brass sheet to one face of the tool. I used ‘UHU’ adhesive so that, after processing, the brass could easily be removed by immersion in hot water. I then used my Dremel ‘Moto-Saw’ to make a rough cut around the main features. This wasn’t as easy as I had hoped, since the saw operates with a vibrating motion and tended to pull at the thin brass sheet. It was, however, adequate for making a rough outline, which I could then refine by means of jewellers’ snips.. I found it easy to use the snips, now that the brass sheet was firmly attached to the tool, which I could hold comfortably during cutting. For the final trimming, to match the edges of the tool, I used a selection of needle files. Although the tool is, obviously, very soft, it was sufficiently firm to provide feedback when the brass edges had matched the tool surfaces. Once the frames had been shaped to my satisfaction, I started to add the curved top surface to form the splashers. For this, I used lengths of 5 thou (0.125 mm) brass shim. I used separate lengths for each section of the splashers, as I had done in my original model, but I feel it would be possible, with care, to fold the whole top as a single sheet. I provided a series of tabs along the back of the splashers that I folded down for attachment to the frame. Because the tool is plastic that melts easily, I could not solder these tabs in situ but, once everything was correctly shaped, I could remove the components from the tool, by immersion in hot water, and solder the parts together subsequently. I treated this as a ‘practice run’ and propose to try it ‘for real’ on some future engine builds that are in the pipeline. In fact, having looked at my ‘Rob Roy’ again, it doesn’t look nearly as bad as I thought and I shall finish it in its present form, while using the new techniques to build different designs. Having got this far, I decided to see how much extra work was needed to create a complete 3D-printed frame. The answer was not a great deal and, as a training exercise, I made a complete set of frames and splashers with ‘Fusion 360’, as shown below. It was necessary to extrude selected parts of the drawing by different amounts to create the 3D structure. I took the opportunity to add sand-boxes and rudimentary springs to my original drawing. One advantage of using computer-aided design is that producing a pair of right and left handed frames is simply a matter of pressing a ‘mirror’ button! So, here’s a pair of frames, straight from the 3D-printer, with Tri-ang driving wheels in place on one side. Although the splasher tops are rather ‘thick’, to allow successful printing, they are also surprisingly robust and this would be a feasible method to use … providing you are content with plastic engines. I intend to continue with brass construction but with the assistance of 3D-printed tools, to help in forming complex shapes. Mike