Jump to content

EHertsGER

Members
  • Content Count

    682
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

657 Good

Profile Information

  • Location
    New York

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I cannot recall if Jim's material was card or plasticard (not to be confused with Teddy Francis, who did use plasticard extensively). Similarly, 40 years ago seems too recent, if you can imagine such a thing. My memory takes me to the late 60s/early 70s (and so may rightly be considered inaccurate) and the MRC. The feature that distinguished Jim from Teddy was the minute detail that I imagined to be impossible - but there it was! This is not to denigrate Teddy's beautiful work, but Jim's seemed 'beyond reach' whereas Teddy seemed to give us a fighting chance of reproducing it. I do recall the mention of such mysterious substances as Cerrobend (I still use it, though after 40+ years I have actually got to my third 1/4lb block, it lasts that long!) and Shellac, so, in the latter case, there may have been card involved somewhere (roofs?). Alas, a quick ferret through my magazines (a lot!) failed to turn up any of his articles. A pity, I was hoping to find some and read once again - they are very good!
  2. ‘Good grief!’ twice over - once in astonishment that such a work is available and secondly that is the work of Jim Whittaker, whose work used to intimidate me as a young modeller. Thank you!
  3. On the subject of underframes, is there any source reference covering the ‘arrangements’ down there; battery boxes, vacuum cylinders, reservoirs, pipework.a
  4. Ha! The elusive numbering missing from my effort. Out with the decals!
  5. Once again, Mike comes to the rescue with his etched set of door hinges - installed easily with a small hole to secure. Certainly bits of plasticard will do it for a Kirk body, but Mike’s hinges come ready made. Have at it, chaps!
  6. I have a spare set of Schools deflectors you can have gratis if you still need them
  7. For those contemplating cutting washers from tube, I find mounting the tube in a pin vice with the washer thickness plus blade thickness protruding and cutting them off flush to the face of the pin vice works well - for me, anyway. I use a fine, taut fretsaw.
  8. Paul I am going along with Clive for two reasons - for now, unless I find out more. I agree that the GER vehicles were 8’6” as opposed to the GNR 8’0” (don’t start me on 8’6” inner and 8’0” outer combinations) and (as I said, for now) this will lay the bogie issue aside while I get on with actually building the things. Fortunately they come off easily (unlike undergubbins) and I will never waste them - there is always a vehicle that can use whatever I am not going to fit as the ‘final answer’. Onwards... best, Marcus
  9. I am assuming, Richard, that having conjured up such an idea you are prepared to volunteer for the task using the photo in Harris’s book on p139, then...
  10. Here we go, once again... Photographic evidence, particularly with the camera-shy Hertford Quads, is woefully hard to find. The enjoyable part of that is spending a quiet hour or so poring over Harris/Campling and Banks/Google. Very relaxing! I have only seen one photograph - of set #159 - in Harris’ book (p139). Alas close inspection has revealed that the brake vehicle, built to diagram 102 was fitted with only two battery boxes, not the four supplied (but replaced by me) in the kit. I think it would have been an easy mistake to make as diag. 102 is only one compartment different to diag. 119 and the ones I found have four boxes. Oh, well, off they come and will be replaced with the etched single boxes from the kit.
  11. Now, I do like this approach. The whole idea of turning the bolt upside-down makes for a much easier solution. The MJT solution is a good one, and I may just resort to that if my tinkering fails, but as one who absolutely must have it looking like the real thing, I reserve my space in the workshop of fruitless pursuits. I take the point about curves - but in my case there aren’t any worth worrying about.
  12. Well, here we go again. Photographic evidence now tells me there were four turnbuckle braces under the quads, and they appear to be even, so that needed to be addressed. Yes, I suppose I have been making mistakes, but the dearth of specific instructions (what? You wanted an Airfix kit?) left me adrift and searching for clues. So, taking a deep breath, the undergubbins had to come off completely as a fresh start seemed a better approach than bastardising what was already ‘wrong’. Another set of MJT bits bites the dust. In doing so I fitted the four braces, this time spliced in the middle and reinforced with some fine p/b wire for rigidity (copper? Nope). Attach them while the brace is in the flat and turn it using pliers at both ends - avoiding stressing the joint - to put the wire on the inside where it can’t be seen. I was also able to relocate the vacuum cylinders to make room for the reservoir tanks that did not fit in the original configuration as marked on the original floor etch. Similarly, the articulation assembly was removed pending further thought, as above. Photos to follow. So, what seems to be a series of blunders is actually me making the mistakes for you, so keep the comments on the positive side, please! best, Marcus
  13. Indeed - I have a couple to play with, but looking at the actual prototype (see attached) I am beginning to form the idea of a more robust screw over the head of which a 'cup' fits in much the same way as the prototype. There will be some tinkering on the bench to see if this is a viable solution in the hope that the end result looks exactly like what it is supposed to be. Stay tuned... Best, Marcus
  14. So, here is the object of my attention so far: My apologies for it being grubby still. Points to note are the 00.15” partitions. In the passenger coaches the divider is very slim, so anything thicker would make glazing complicated. The underneath has been built out using the MJT 61’ 6” turnbuckle kit (see the above notes). There are one or two things to sort out. The articulation coupling does not seem as strong as it could be, so some thought needed there. I don't mind trying the 'kit' solutions first as they should have been thought out by somebody already. In this case, the theory was fine but the execution - to my clumsy hands at least - impractical. A new solution is in the works, somewhere. Having removed the centre queen posts, they need to go back, but as the turnbuckle needs to clear the vacuum mechanism, they will be a little longer. There is enough metal in the MJT post mounts to drill out and fit new posts a little longer than the outer ones. The turnbuckles - according to the isinglass Quint diagrams, anyway) ran parallel but lower as a result. That takes care of the other two 61' 6" rods, making sure to mate the two halves in the middle this time! The reservoir tanks have yet to be fitted - they would have been in the way if, as it turns out, I was to re-fit the turnbuckles. The rest is just bits and pieces; remaining ventilators and hinges that came loose during the teardown, door handles and grab handles (nice selection in the kit). With that all cleaned up the roof can be fitted. The plan is that the interior will be fitted out with basic seats and some people. Windows will be microscope glass slide covers (the only windows that are actually glass!). Once the interior is done the roof will be secured with white PVA - secure but easy to break open. The finish has to be teak and for that I will follow Mice Trice's method (it has been tried and is very easy! No, really. And fun. Go on, get an old Kirk body and have a go. You'll be surprised. I was. Very.) Only three more to do after this. More anon. Best, Marcus
  15. On from Richard’s comments, above, my plan is to laminate all the ends and replace all the floors; the heft of the thicker material was just so much easier to work. Inspection of Harris' book (p138) shows Quad set # 159 quite well, revealing four turnbuckles, so that needs to be sorted out. Bogies, I believe were 8' 6" heavy duty at the points of articulation and 8’ 0” at the outer ends.
×
×
  • 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.