Jump to content

gr.king

Members
  • Content Count

    2,615
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,489 Excellent

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. And once this lazy slacker here, who has been squandering his time on other matters, gets on with casting more boilers and fittings for the locos, as well as making the moulds and casting some necessary fittings for the tenders, the supply chain may run smoothly.
  2. I fear that some people do like to use as much code and jargon as they possibly can. I once upset a very keen, self-important speaker at one of our (often pointless) local professional committee evenings by stopping her in mid-flow and asking her to start again using full names to refer to organisations, conditions and procedures, rather than a mass of acronyms that I could not decipher...
  3. But surely, you'd love to do load of fancy, scrolled lining, crossing various beadings and cappings, all so fine as to be barely visible on the model unless very closely inspected?
  4. Okay. I shall watch to see how you get on. We'll be learning together. I remember struggling initially with instructions for GNR Fox bogies. Things such as references to "up" and "down", which are ambiguous if one has previously been told to turn the item upside down on the bench, especially in conjunction with an etch that seems to have some of the minor folds lines on the "unexpected" side.
  5. D & S Models. I have kit DS 58, a Parker corridor third. I've had it, untouched, for years and have only just broken the seals on the box after seeing your post. It contains the same bogie etches as your top picture, but none of the others. I can scan and send the kit instructions if you wish. They may be a challenge to follow, especially as your kit has different details.
  6. Wire pick-ups: I don't dispute the relative virtues and drawbacks of the different metals, but I do find that the precise shapes and lengths of pick-ups, including the key question of whether the general line of the wire is tangential (good) or radial (probably noisy) to the wheel, with suitable rounding of the contact area, make big differences to results. I've never used phoshor-bronze wire (nor beryllium copper) but I seem to have achieved qiuet pick-ups. Of course, I may be driving local dogs and bats round the bend... My late 1970s chemistry teacher had quite a cavalier attitude to danger, although he did point out that beryllium, if ingested, makes all of your hair fall out, amongst other unpleasant effects. Presumably not a problem if you don't eat or inhale the stuff, or its dust, don't dissolve it and then drink or absorb the solution, and so long as you add another hand washing session to the twenty five hand washes daily that you're already doing. For thick injection moulded or 3D printed coach sides with flat backs and thus no provision for anything like flush glazing, has anybody tried taking a really well sharpened wood chisel of slightly greater width than the depth of the windows, and drawing this several times over the inside face of the side so as to shave thickness off the area where the glazing later has to fit? I know that those with fancy equipment could mill out material, but the chisel might work as a method for the ever cost-conscious Messrs. Bodget and Scarper, a firm with which I am proud to be associated.
  7. Sorry, the adjudicator's stop watch is still running until it's painted, lined, fully decked out with transfers, varnished, weathered, coaled up and provided with crew. Have those coaches got interiors, non-brass carpets and insignia on both sides now?
  8. I currently make routine use of Railmatch satin varnish, sprayed wherever possible, although I am assured that Ronseal satin works well too and is much better value if you use a lot of it, providing you store the tin in right conditions if you keep it long term. There will no doubt be those who swear by acrylic stuff too, but I prefer to stick to substances that behave like proper oil based or solvent based paint.
  9. If one light coat of satin varnish on everything doesn't have the necessary unifying effect, you can always try a bit more satin varnish on any bits that have stayed too dull, if the definition of detail is still good enough to stand the extra layer of varnish. Who says that all parts of locos were equally dull or equally shiny anyway? There must have been instances of a patch painting job after a light repair, or even only one part of the loco cleaned during a light repair, or perhaps times when the cleaner was called away before finishing to tackle a "more prestigious" loco instead...
  10. I'm deliberately saying nothing about the way to produce teak-effect painting. My own method tends to involve an inconvenient number of stages, and following the withdrawal of one of the products I liked to use some years ago, I have repeatedly been annoyed by inconsistent final shade of colours and less than perfectly smooth finish. It does at least tend to look good enough once the lining and transfers are applied. Plenty of trials on test pieces before committing to a cherished model would seem to be a sensible plan for anybody to follow, regardless of proposed methods.
  11. If you stick, as you properly should, to one set of wheel and track standards, then it is easier to follow pure principles. The trouble with OO, despite its many advantages, is that it is a family of standards rather than a single standard, and if you want to try to run guest stock on your layout, or run your stock on a friend's layout when you don't use exactly the same standards, then it becomes rather difficult to apply pure principles successfully. Slightly impure, or downright rough and ready methods may be more practical. I suppose that properly executed springing ought to allow a loco with fine wheel standards to cope more effectively when traversing unexpectedly large crossing gaps, while keeping all wheels on uneven rails as much of the time as is possible, but springs can't possibly keep exactly the same load on a wheel at all times, irrespective of their degree of compression, so presumably that method fails the test of purity too. On another matter, we don't see many 'Ull and Barnsley locos on here do we? Might we see more in due course?
  12. An Isinglass drawing that endeavoured to show three different variants of a small family of ECJS & GNR carriage designs on the same single set of main views, with some small scrap views thrown in too to show additional variations due to rebuilds, was "fun" to work from. Two different possible bogie types, three different possible spacings of bogie centres, beadings on the carriage sides not all in the same places as those in the only photograph I could find, plus one or two other little quirks...... BUT, it was the best drawing I could obtain, from sources known to me, without going to a lot more trouble and possibly spending significantly more money, and it did include information in the notes that I had not seen elsewhere. Where that information came from originally seems to be something that was only known to those who are no longer with us. An authentic, fully dimensioned, specific works drawing would have been preferable, but what if none seems to exist? It would be wonderful to know in every case where official drawings now reside, although I gather that even some Doncaster Works drawings for certain items, such as rebuilt older classes of locos that were not originally all of the same type, and various rebuilt tenders, were somewhat sketchy, with new (and not always tidy) lines or figures superimposed on older drawings and the same general diagram sometimes meant to cover locos or tenders with slightly varied dimensions. Perhaps other works were just the same, or worse in some cases?
  13. Compensated, sprung, rigid, raised middle axle, or some mixture of arrangements? It seems to me there is no "right" or "wrong" way to do things, as the method that gives the best result is highly dependent on the kind of track over which the model is to run. There's no sense at all in anybody insisting that their method is "correct" because the their theory (with its inherent assumptions) says so. Full, unrestricted compensation relies on the assumption that the track will always support the wheels. Fine if all of your crossing gaps are small, not so good if your locos have to contend with large crossing gaps. Rigid chassis are fine so long as your track is flat enough, but if it undulates and twists excessively then derailments or interrupted electrical pick-up become a problem. Build to suit the need. Mike Edge's method looks like a reasonable compromise for many applications, but like any compromise it won't suit every situation perfectly.
  14. All without tuition fees too!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.