Jump to content
 

Dr.Glum

Members
  • Posts

    250
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Dr.Glum last won the day on May 27 2010

Dr.Glum had the most liked content!

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Location
    Cheshire, UK
  • Interests
    Landscape photography, preferably somewhere warm, but I can't afford that at the moment. Oh, and railways of course!

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Dr.Glum's Achievements

293

Reputation

  1. [Disclaimer: later Class 108 models may have different pickup arrangements.] During the years of the loft layout I had not experienced good running from new with either my 2 car set (32.900 bought 2007) nor 3 car set (32.911 bought 2008). Having got them out now for the first time in some years, it was time to find out the reason. The 3 car set was worst, only intermittently picking up properly. The photo shows the electrical arrangement of an unpowered bogie. The power car seemed to pick up reasonably, but this unpowered end was giving nothing. The wheels/axles transmit voltage via (over-large) holes in a brass strip behind the axle boxes. The strips extend through the bogie frame giving a prong each side with a bent over end. These ends are supposed to run on slightly sprung flat plates attached to the body. I burnished everything and bent the ends of the prongs to extend slightly (as they had never touched the plates: no marks) and slightly increased the shallow angle of the plates away from the body. This improved continuity a lot, but the outer wheel set was not making a circuit if the bogie was ever so slightly tipped by a high rail end at a joint, or a stretch of rail with a slight cant. To improve matters I swapped the non-driving bogie with the one from the other end car which was making better contact judging by the marks on the sprung plate. All the other (non-powered) bogies seemed to have better connections between the plates and prongs, so I just burnished them. All those bearing points were given a tiny drop of RailZip. I need to run in the dark with their lights on to see if there’s still a problem. Has anyone else had these problems and done something different?
  2. So thank you all, Gentlemen, both here in RMweb and on the L&NWRS FB site. The consensus is: 1st Caledonian D2 meat van 2nd LNWR D88 10T 3rd LNWR D88 10T 4th GW wooden Mink pre-1900 5th GW 4 plank open with Williams patent sheet supporter (lying towards us) 6th GW wooden Mink pre-1900 7th LNWR D88 10T The following wagons are all opens, liberally covered with tarpaulins, fading into obscurity with distance. Thank you again. Calendar "Aspects of the Old North-Western" should be on sale from the L&NWRS by June-ish.
  3. I've been shown a page of Caledonian Wagons (author Mike Williams), and I'm now certain van 1 is a D2 meat van. Van 4 has also been suggested to be a GER D15 van, very similar to a wooden Mink. If it's any help, here's a blow-up.
  4. This image is part of ECL0005 (in the L&NWR Society on-line archive, the DMS) which may be a candidate for the L&NWRS 2025 Calendar. I have been asked about the first van (which is non-LNWR) - I have no idea! Nos. 2,3 & 7 are obviously LNW D88s. Initially I thought 4 & 6 were Midland 8T & 10Ts, but the framing is wrong AFAIK. Any thoughts? Many thanks.
  5. Footbridge construction continued The overhead view below shows the complication of one staircase (the left hand one) being at an angle which needed a landing extension. Otherwise the foot of the steps would have been almost at the platform edge. (The camera makes the right hand one also look skew, but partly its lens effect and partly the steps were not attached at this time.) I was reading “Scenes From The Past no.42 (Part Two) The Oldham Loop, New Hey, Milnrow and Rochdale to Manchester Victoria” by Jeffrey Wells and on page 94 there was a wonderful footbridge sign. I wasn’t going to try to exactly match it, but I was in love with the wording and the style. I created my text in Adobe InDesign to model size, made duplicates and exported as a PDF so that printing would preserve the size. The font I chose was Artifakt Element Black. I was concerned about how to make a sturdy model and considered soldering up a frame. In the end I found some bullhead rail left over from building track in 3mm finescale. The board is card and the idea was to slot it into the rails. However, it didn’t fit well enough, so as per the photo below I glued a backing piece to both the sign and the rails. Once glued, I could trim the edges flush. Below is my sign and the original at Newton Heath station. The 1956 photo in the book shows the whole footbridge with the two signs. Interestingly the RH one appears to be wooden letters, but the left hand one seems to be painted on and designed to match. [Below] the ‘finished’ footbridge. Some weathering to apply, sometime. Views in place on the layout, below: and and
  6. I have mixed views on the stability of foamboard when it is used as a base and card (greyboard) is glued to it. I made a scenic roadway module years ago, two sheets 5mm foamboard about 20mm airspace with criss-cross of spacers and over the years it has bowed upwards slightly. I am careful to work on a flat surface and weight everything down when gluing, but some of my recent scenic modules do want to curl upwards (e.g. a lift of 5mm at the ends, over a length of 600mm) when cold (unheated conservatory), but will relax when its warmer. Matters are complicated by the fact that I suspect that gluing printed paper (e.g. platform tarmac surfaces and the dampness associated with that) is what is driving the process. On the success side, I have made and used for a year now, a big lightweight lift-out section that has a wood spine and foamboard box girder construction. The only snag is I forgot to allow for the thickness of cork under the track (so there isn't any) and the trains make more noise running over it. The details are:https://www.rmweb.co.uk/forums/topic/172987-large-lift-out-section-made-of-wood-and-foam-board/
  7. In reply a post a little way above, the history of Riverside Station is covered (with photos) in “Gateway to the West: A History of Riverside Station, Liverpool: MD & HB - LNWR” (L&NWRS Premier Portfolio) by Colin Reed, published 1992. Contact the Sales Officer via sales@lnwrs.org.uk to see if he can find you a copy.
  8. Update on L&NWRS Journal contents: June 2023 Issue vol.10.9 "The LNWR in and around Nottingham" p332 By Simon Fountain "Lecture on Superheated Steam" p339 Transcribed by David Bond "The Premier Railway History – say the investment advisors" p346 By Neil Fraser "The Huddersfield Canals under early London and North Western Railway Ownership - Part One" p348 By Melvyn Smith "Passenger Brake Vans – Part 6 – 45ft 0in Clerestory Brake Vans" p357 By Bob Williams "How Welsh Newspapers reported on the LNWR in 1848" p364 Compiled by David Bond Letters to the Editor p366 Press Digest No 94 p367 September 2023 Issue vol10.10 "George Aitchison (1792—1861)" p373 By Tom Nicholls "The Huddersfield Canals under early London and North Western Railway Ownership - Part Two" p386 By Melvyn Smith "George Frederick Aveline" p394 By Paul Scott "Strange Prince of Wales liveries" p400 By Bob Williams "Foden Lorries by Train" p403 By David Brandreth and Bob Williams Letters to the Editor p405 Press Digest No 95 p406
  9. It didn’t take much testing of the four couplings (that I list above) to find that the 647 has been located far too far in towards the bogie pivot, i.e. it doesn’t stick out far enough. See last photo above. The others also had problems. In daylight I found that two of them were happily travelling with a 1mm gap between magnet faces with a further five carriages in tow. Gosh! The buffer faces were together on the straight, which is fine for carriages with springs on the coupling carrier, but these are rigid. On a 30 inch radius curve there were prototypical graunching noises (from the buffers) such as you might hear on preserved lines when carriages or loco tenders negotiate small radius points. All very amusing, but not conducive to reliable running. I did comparative running with the original rake which had the T-bar couplings glued on (see head of this thread). This gave me the dimension on the straight for the gap between the buffers: nominal 3mm. Previous attempts had shown me I was not able to install the couplings in a consistent manner. I took the time to build a jig, as I have 12 carriages to deal with. The white card is just under 1.5mm thick and the buffers rest against it. The carriage above is one that has its coupling set back too far – see the gap between the magnet face and the brown card cradle. My plan is mark any holes for drilling with the coupling lying on the bogie while in the cradle. I will report back.
  10. Now back to the old Bachman Mk1 suburbans. I’m trying two solutions. Now they are done I will put them into traffic and check if there are any issues under tension in a train or propelling, how they behave through curves and pointwork, and coupling with a variety of other types. Will report back in due course. In both cases I remove the nearest wheel set so I can saw off the ‘tab’ to which the original screwed coupling was fitted. Part of the upstanding end of the bogie is removed (saw cuts, paring off with sharp knife, then final filing to polish). The plastic is very tough. I have used 8BA bolts (normal or screw-headed) and make a tight fit hole so that the bolt of screw can self-tap. I had spare UltraClose Hunt couplings which call for the hole to be 11.5mm from the bogie edge, which puts it half under the axle. That’s where I use a screw head without a washer. With the 647 Clip fit coupling, the hole is 3.5mm from the edge and a bolt (with the bigger head) can be used. In both cases, for safety I do fit a nut, part off the spare length of the bolt with a slitting disk (to clear the carriage body) and secure with a blob of Bostik. If I had spare standard close Hunts I’d use them as it puts the hole back clear of the axle. The 647 coupling needs a ~2mm height spacer, for which 80thou plasticard is fine. The photos below show the two ends of Crimson Compo M41006. Dunno where the buffer went! 1 bolted NEM102 + Ultra (11.5mm) 1 647 bolted 8BA (3.5mm from edge), , white plasticard spacer visible That 647 above is a bit far back maybe, but so far it has worked OK. (I was a bit slack measuring up for the pilot hole, maybe 4.5mm.) [Later edit: not OK, see later post.] I’ve also done Maroon Brk 2nd M43257 (not shown) with one fixed NEM102 + Ultra (which is less work) and the other end 1 bolted NEM102 + Ultra 8BA (11.5mm).
  11. You’d think I’d have removed the scenery for safety, wouldn’t you. Doh! They strike again! More extensive, but should be easier to repair. Faint trail down the wall went past my bait trap, which I have now moved over to straddle the trail. Below is damage along the platform. Next they/it went past the station building and had a further wander/graze. I am now (belatedly) removing all card structures into the house, while carefully checking for no hiding passengers of the nibbly sort. Below, I found the underside of the canopy has had some attention last night. I’ve now laid out new paper/glue/card bait and pellets on the baseboard.
  12. Each evening in the dark I've been on wee beastie patrol with a torch and am pleased to report no further incursions by the aliens. I think (from traces of very faint trail) they or it came from the top of the wall where the roof of the conservatory meets the house. I have made this appetising bait trap, using oddments (hence the odd shape) of the same card stock, same ink cartridge print sample and same pritstick. Come ye intruders: down the wall, creep over the edge onto the card, munch the paper and glue yum yum, then for dessert, slug pellets. Next I need one of those motion cameras (like my chum has now, having had to buy one to see if it was a badger digging up his lawn) with the threshold set to the setting marked 'tediously slow'. 😀
  13. Before doing anything more with the old Bachmann suburbans, here’s the results of two purchases at the Stafford Exhibition (a very good show). Firstly I’m trialling ‘Close couplings for Clip Socket’ (serial 647) following a suggestion by teeinox. I needed a Hunt coupling on my R2231 Duchess of Rutland (bought in 2002) and this was right for it. The first image shows the underneath. Out of sight under the bar of the coupling should be a screw holding the end of the tender’s base plate, but it is impossible to re-fit, being covered by the bar of the coupling. Seems held rigidly enough regardless. The second point is I had to take a scalpel to the moulding that the missing screw would go into, as there was a ‘roughness’ that hindered the sideways free swing of the coupling. In the image below, the gap is at least 1mm wider than it needs to be, so I should have bought serial 651 which is 15mm rather than 16mm of the 647 (magnet face to hole c/l). The other new fitting is ‘Close Coupling Stepped for NEM socket’ (on the packet, but confusingly described on the receipt as ‘Close Step NEM 00’ code HCNSSCLC). Anyway, you’ll need code 649 for Bachman Mk1 with minimum 30” radius curves. Above, with no tension on the coupling. Below, under load, with the standard weak Bachmann springs extended. Still, that is only visible on a sight line at right angles, and overall a vast improvement.
  14. Interesting concept, the waterproof spray. Yes, it should give some protection. I just plain have never seen a need, with the previous layout in the loft and now this one in a conservatory, which although without an insulated roof, is in theory sealed and like an unheated indoor room. But you've made me think. What was your original motivation and where do your buildings live? For the record, I had a search, and my spray (against UV fade) is Daler-Rowney Perfix Colourless Fixative (for Pastels).
  15. Yesterday evening I was mortified to spot this damage in the railway room (conservatory). Bio hazard. Rotten little mollusc! Slug or snail? How dare you touch my building, you blankety-blank expletive laden little S**t. In the dark with a torch I checked around but could not find the culprit, and strangely there are no tracks on the brickwork that the item was against. Nothing else has been nibbled. This is not the last card structure to be placed on the layout so fresh glue may not be the attraction. The item had not been sprayed with my usual fixative - significant? Needless to say I shall pay attention to anything that is brought in from the garden, i.e. seat cushions, gardening shoes, etc. This morning I have deployed slug bait on and under the layout. The laborious construction of this low relief item and its location on other structures is described in
×
×
  • Create New...