Jump to content
 

Steve Smith

Members
  • Posts

    130
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Steve Smith

  1. Very pleased with the look of these, though apparently the supports for the roof need another attempt. The original etched superstructure has been removed and the running plate rebullt 2.5mm shorter. Width of running plate at a shade under 35mm (s/be 8'7") is something that I can live with. The overall wheelbase of the Mercian chassis is 60mm when it should be 58mm, as someone on WT said, a 'rubber ruler' job!
  2. My Mercian Models kit was purchased from Trevor in about 2006. When built up it came out about 4mm too high and 2mm too wide and 2.5 mm too long. The biggest problem was the way it towered over any box van. It's a perfectly reasonable kit just not quite the right size! With no obvious way forward it was parked for a long time, but a fortnight ago I realised that I could produce a 3D printed model of the superstructure that could be fitted to a cut and shut of the etched running plate to correct the width and length. Thus I could retain the etched steps and other detailing that was rather good and very robust. The Roche drawing was used as a starting point, checking everything I could carefully against photos to winkle out any errors in the drawing. In the absence of detailed drawings it's an artists impression of the finer detail, but that to some extent is what all modelling in smaller scales is. The roof is a separate part and the running plate is just there for context. The light grey bits and glazing will be minused out for the final print to leave holes for metal fittings and pockets for glazing. 3D prints for roof and body have been ordered and are eagerly awaited. For anyone interested there is more detail here: https://www.westernthunder.co.uk/threads/mercian-models-armstrong-whitworth-0-6-0-diesel-electric-shunter-in-em-gauge.12512/
  3. And then there's those two strange 'tunnel' bridges in Cannards Grave cutting: This one is in 7mm scale on YMRG's 'Evercreech New'. All the structures on the Bath Extension have subtle differences depending on where they are. Around Shepton big clay bullnose coping bricks and zig-zag wing walls definitely a 'thing'. The (widened) up side walls lined in brick, and down side walls in stone.
  4. . That really looks the part, and I'm impressed that the footsteps are nicely lined up - that's a Maunsell feature. One of Dave Ford's Dorset Walks (filmed last year), shows him returning from Swanage to Corfe Castle behind a gleaming 31806 running with a 4000 gallon tender - a prototype for everything! https://youtu.be/srwfnCJ5pZc I'm planning on modelling 31614 which had the same sort of tender. This was a Bournemouth and later a Yeovil engine, and was photographed at least once in the Salisbury bay platform with what is described as a Bournemouth train.
  5. The Ex-Wills Finecast kit was my original intention for an as-built U and I did pick one up off Ebay. Dave Ellis sent me a U/U1 chassis kit for it after I re-typed the SR Mogul instructions for him. He very kindly added a few improved mouldings from the River kit. The Wills kit expects larger wheels to be fitted to the Triang chassis raising the whole thing by 1mm. Parts are only provided for an N or N1 Class running plate so the rise measured at about 5.3mm will be too low if used to make a U. The instructions state that "Very small splashers should be made from card for the U and U1, it is not necessary for the driving wheels to recess into these however." This would leave cab and buffers 1mm too high, and perhaps higher if those 6' wheels don't touch the thick cast running plate! The running plate drop position under the cab seems to be something of a compromise between U and N. There is a cast left and right running plate each incorporating a cab side making modification of the drop difficult. The higher running plate gives the as-built U something of a 'Baby Arthur' look that I would definitely want to capture in my model. Interestingly the cast spectacle plate provided is for a U rather than an N. I can PM you a copy of the re-typed instructions if it would be useful. Needless to say the Triang 2-6-2 chassis originally intended for this kit can't be correct for both N and U, and as this is a 'Bodyline' kit may not be correct for either (see T9 etc.). I'm of the view that the DJH kit (modified DLT style with an SEF chassis) would be a better route to a new-build U to modern standards of accuracy. This should be the link to the page of DLTs SR loco build thread with the start of his U Class build: DLT's U Class Build Of course what I'm contemplating for my spare Bachmann N Class body and tender might also work, but that remains to be seen, and seen to be believed!
  6. The partially completed model is of a Rebuilt River, whilst the drawings compare a 'new build' U Class to an N Class. The new build U and rebuilt River U are the same apart from the rebuilt Rivers having a much wider cab and running plate which is set quite a bit lower necessitating larger splashers, and of course that very different arrangement of cab windows. The cab front of N and rebuilt River U although sharing a similar arrangement of windows differ as the rebuilt River cab is wider. My purchase of the DJH kit occurred before SEF brought out their kit for the River Class tank engine, and that I'm sure would have been a better starting point for a rebuilt River. The intention of SEF at the time was to go on to do the U Class to a much better standard than the old Wills Bodyline kit, but Bachmann bringing in their N Class stopped them taking it forward. As to how easy it would be, it really depends on whether or not the River tank kit components were designed with a rebuilt River kit in mind, and only Dave Ellis will know that.
  7. The DJH kit isn't really sure whether it's an 'as built U' or a 'Rebuilt River U'. The running plate and cab have the width of the 'as built U', but the height of the running plate more like a Rebuilt River. Built as per instructions the buffer beam, cab and footplate are likely to be 1mm too high - though that's not a lot in the grand scheme of things. I turned my DJH kit into a Rebuilt River with the addition of scratch built cab and running plate, and although a runner I'm also stuck on building the valve gear, in my case for an SEF chassis kit. Rebuilt Rivers are wide and the cab is very clearly cut down from the enclosed cab of the tank engine. This one will be 31792 when it was a Yeovil engine with a fairly regular turn on the Salisbury & Dorset.
  8. The Bachmann N is a much better candidate for conversion to an 'as built' U Class rather than a 'Rebuilt River'. The conversion would benefit from a replacement chassis due to the wheelbase difference, and the SEF chassis with Bachmann valve gear is what I will use. It will also need a new running plate because the U Class running plate is higher and runs under the cab further than the N Class. The cab looks reusable with a new front. To try to illustrate the differences, I've scaled and traced an Eastleigh Weight Diagram for the U Class, and superimposed it on one for the N Class. The N Class happens to have a rebuilt front end, so is longer. I've started a thread on Western Thunder to collect the changes that would need to be made ready for my own conversion: https://www.westernthunder.co.uk/threads/converting-a-Bachmann-n-class-to-as-built-u-class-in-em-gauge.11833/
  9. For my Bachmann N Class, my initial approach was to re-wheel to EM Gauge, but that wasn't entirely satisfactory, and I eventually fitted an SEF etched chassis with twin beam compensation reusing the Bachmann valve gear. I'm planning a U Class conversion using a Bachy N Class body and will use the same approach for that chassis. I'm also planning to fit the Hornby valve gear to an SEF chassis to convert a Hornby Schools to EM. Fitting the Bachy (or Hornby) valve gear to the Comet chassis for the LN could be the way to go for you too.
  10. Courtesy of National Library of Scotland, this link to the OS 25" map from a survey 1882-3, published 1888 shows you to be correct! https://maps.nls.uk/view/106019255 On that basis NE part first, then as it's quite different the SE part fairly soon after in a more 'economical' style. I wonder what the signficance of pink (Midland Shed) vs grey (S&D Shed) was? The obvious difference being masonry vs. timber construction, and I think that interpretation would work for the other buildings shown. Steve
  11. Those photos show that the east end of the north shed had a large clerestory which included the chimney vents that was a doppleganger for the one on the Midland shed - I hadn't realised that. That large clerestory is still visible in my 'tenement' crop from 1966. Steve
  12. Someone was asked why it hadn't caught fire, and the answer was that it had several times, but they'd always managed to put them out. It's very likely that we're also seeing fire damage, and the resulting repairs. Steve
  13. A crop of the shed roof in 1966, with some Bath tenements behind. If we think the front looked rough....!
  14. ...and tidy. My mate lacked ambition and space, just as well really as it saved me worrying about the changes down the length of the d**n thing, not to mention those interesting stone bits at the end! If only there was a scale between 7mm and 2mm that represented the best of both worlds...!
  15. Very nice! On model railways what you see are roofs, lots of them, and yes I'm inclined to obsess about them and their funny little ways. I did find photos of the roof, and there were flat areas between the pitches that would have allowed access. If they were leaded gulleys they would have 3" steps at no more than 8' intervals - the limit for code 8 lead stepping up from each drainpipe the outlets of which would coincide with a column internally. The limit for Code 6 is 6' and so on. The photo was taken before I put the steps in. The slates are 3D laser etched, and show a lap, which is pretty cool. I really liked the chimney vents, but they didn't make the final cut as they'd gone in BR days.
  16. That looks fantastic - great to see it all done. That's about the same length as my 7mm one that had just seven bays! As I understand it the shed had been extended several times and photos show at least two variations of the bracing along the top, although I could never tell which bit of the shed was shown in any photo. A change of framing style half way down could be a happy accident!
  17. If there's any sort of door I think you'd want a landing in front of it for safety and convenience - as seen on signal boxes. It was the same with the chimney on the Verwood box and the skylight in the platform canopy. I had to built both before I was sent the photos of how it actually was, but I'd still rather know that I'd got it wrong! :-)
  18. Going hopelessly off-topic the corrugated lamp hut (also on the Down side) at Verwood) had been tarred at some point, and this was obviously so. In fact the faded green paint on the door of the lamp hut was close to the colour of the GF hut in photos, so I opted for a faded green as best guess. On the accuracy (or otherwise) of folk memory; one of the other S&Ds that served Wimborne crossed Leigh Road on a typical LSWR style iron girder bridge that the locals all referred to as 'Leigh Arch'. There is absolutely no evidence or reason to think that this bridge was ever an 'arch' in the masonry sense, and I think that in this case there is an accurate folk memory of the original 1847 timber bridge that would have required diagonal bracing underneath each side to support the load - similar to the bracing shown on drawings of the original timber viaduct over the River Stour. Such structures could be considered to be a timber arch since the bracing members are in compression, and with the top corners cut off by these braces the opening for road traffic would look like an 'arch' to a layman too.
  19. At least one of the iron railway bridges survives on the S&D - I'm thinking of the one heading west out of Radstock. it's possible that some out of the way part of that might have evidence of prior colours. As an example of this, the panels on our Victorian kitchen door (1879) retain every coat of paint that was ever applied (about ten). The oak grain scumbling only occurred about half way through the sequence, and there's a remarkably poisonous green after that. Up in the boxing under the bargeboards and eaves, original paint survives too - the first layers being remarkably close to Humbrol 'leather'. It was a very different colour world back then, and the Forth Bridge being 'red' is a good lead. The corrugated iron ground frame hut at Verwood could have been green (within station limits), grey (but off the end of the platform) or black (if the bitumen crew had got there first). Colour photos show that it was either a faded grey-green or an algaed green-grey - so not that helpful!
  20. Thanks Ade, hopefully 3D printing capability in 4mm will eventually completely catch up with those renders - it's already pretty good in 4mm and scarily close in 7mm scale! Just a quick update to say that I have sets of 3D printed parts for platform and free-standing box to hand, and I am in the process of painting the interior of the platform box ready for assembly. The sashes have been 3M'd to some glazing material and have been left to cure. The four panel door has been assembled from the four layers of card, with the 2 layer glazing pocket working well. The delicate four pane door has been painted ready for assembly too. Unsurprisingly, the lever frames proved too flimsy; the levers have been beefed up, and I'm hoping the revised 3D prints will be here shortly. The problem now is, will my painting be up to the task? If the test build goes well, then I would like these boxes to be available to anyone interested in one - with the option of Verwood style signal box name and rail-mounted running in boards with station name of customer's choice. Sample signal box board for 'KEYHAVEN' above and the larger running-in board below.
  21. Below is the assembled bridge with the first coat of shellac in the form of some white knotting. All the arch faces and abutments were dry fitted using spring clamps, so that the joints were all nicely aligned and the abutments tight up against the bottom of the arch. I then glued the pieces in one at a time, using the neighbouring clamped or glued pieces to locate them accurately. The parapet was epoxied into place using a jig to keep everything straight, otherwise only Roket Card Glue was used. The deeply etched bricks had an inclination to spall off with heavy-handed treatment, and some repairs were needed using narrow strips of card. The coat of shellac should fix that. The suction on the MDF is prodigious, and a second coat of shellac will be applied later today. Once that is dry, the plan is to paint it brick coloured, and once that's fully dry then I'll apply the mortar paint, wiping off the surplus. After that dry brushing to restore the colour, and picking out of individual bricks, bearing in mind that the headers in East Dorset are often 'blue'. Brickwork, to mitre or tooth join, that is the question. Mitres are all very well, but laser cutters like the Trotec can't do them. They can be done in a jig, and this is OK for simple box like objects. For this more complex model, I opted for comb joints. Results for comb joints can be mixed to say the least, partly because we never know exactly how thick the next piece of MDF will be, and also due to the kerf (gap) left by the cut. The kerf for something like this can be reckoned to be 0.1mm, and we can adjust for that, but having done that, why did my joints still look wrong? My take was that the engraved joints hadn't been carried across the face of the brick and then down the ends, so that's what I've tried to do here.
  22. Verwood Station was somewhat inconveniently sited on the Cranborne road, quite a distance from the village of Verwood. When the railway was built the road, that became the B3081, was diverted over a standard design Salisbury and Dorset Junction Railway brick arch bridge. It seems that the Albion Inn was built fronting the old road with the knowledge that a railway station was planned at that location, but ended up in the station yard with the diverted road running behind it. After the closure of the railway, the bridge was eventually by-passed and the road once more runs in front of the pub. Incidentally, the sainted B3081 winds all the way from Ringwood to Prestleigh (near Evercreech), close to where I now live! Happily, the bridge (and pub) survive, and have been the subject of many useful photographs. Last year I was able to survey it as it is now in the garden of the Albion Inn, see Disused Stations - Verwood. My first excursion into designing for laser cutting and engraving was the LSWR Type 1 signal box, and that was definitely problematic, and I ended up producing a much more accurate model using 3D printing, now in test build. The problem with laser cutting and engraving is that actual material thicknesses vary greatly, sometimes in the same sheet, this is particularly true of MDF. There is also no standard for the colours and line thicknesses in the drawings used. I wished to be able to cut and raster engrave, and that proved beyond most laser cutting software, that manage to corrupt and change the files that you import. Anyway, my signal box had been cut by DCC Trains Automation using a Trotec laser, and that had proved that these things could perhaps be done, so after my survey visit, I embarked on a design for the bridge, and these are scans of two of the resulting etches. There is one other etch for the underneath of the arch, that also has filler pieces for what I'm going to call the string course below the parapet. The arch is correctly mainly in stretcher bond with some rows of headers to bond the arch. As a bit of an enthusiast for traditional building techniques, I was keen to reproduce the brickwork as accurately as possible. The brickwork sheet is in 1.5mm MDF, but MDF of this nominal thickness is quite often 1.6mm. The carcass is 2mm MDF, and this is quite often a bit less at 1.9mm! The arch liner is in 0.5mm PresspahnK, and I really wish this brilliant material was available smooth faced in the sort of thicknesses that MDF comes in! And this is the carcass built up - it's only actually glued (Rocket Card Glue) at the ends, the slots and tabs were all a lovely fit. The frame reproduces the crown of the road across the top, but not the camber without extra work. Next up, assembling the brickwork etches.
  23. Thank you for your kind words. I don't have photos of the back of Downton or Fordingbridge boxes, but to be fair, the top of the chimney at Downton is a heavier looking beast than Verwood's. By BR times, I suspect that no two ex-LSWR Type 1 signal boxes would have been the same, even if they'd started out that way. From a very small sample of signal box photos showing chimneys, the more common chimney form is a stepped gather, as at Instow. This was the reference I used for the laser cut Verwood Mk1, a mistake that inadvertently triggered this epic quest in UV cured resin for something better.
  24. All of the boxes I've referenced were in station environs within reach of facilities. There's no sign of a WC in Verwood box, and it would be interesting to know if this was true of the other two. The ground dwelling box has gained a locking room door, and I have succumbed to modelling the larger locking room window at Fordingbridge. I had to slightly reduce the length of the veranda to give the tiny bit of guttering at the front left of the cabin enough support for it to be viable when printed, but to my mind it looks just as good this way. In this form it has been sent off for a test print with the sashes and knobless cabin door in place as an experiment. A separate 3D printed door with knob and glazing pocket is on my to-do list. It eventually dawned on me that the brickwork of the chimney must have formed the wall of the cabin behind the fireplace, and this meant that my original brick bonding was incorrect in apparently stopping short with visible queen closers. After quite a bit of messing about, I'm happy with it now. The headers and stretchers inside the fireplace now align with those outside, and the now full English Bond of the back of the chimney is symmetrical. The brick bonding visible in my reference photo although indistinct does not contradict anything I've done - it's a shame that most of it at Verwood will be hidden behind that signal cabinet!
  25. After much chipping away at virtual resin, I have a render of the porch end of the tall box. There's much borrowing from Downton, as I have good pictures of it, and the porch element looked more like Verwood than Fordingbridge did. There is a photo that shows that the original arrangement had the steps at the other end of the veranda and it was without an enclosed porch. My design doesn't have the diagonal bracing on the stairs seen at Downton and some other LSWR boxes because I think it looks a bit naff. Having studied quite a few LSWR boxes for this project, it is fair to say that the porches (where provided) do vary in their design, suggesting that they were a later addition.
×
×
  • Create New...