Castle Aching

[Compound2632]

I'm not aware that the LNWR repainted any existing NLR coaches when they took over, but they did build some new 4-wheeled stock for that line and the new coaches were in lake, not varnished teak. There's a photo on another thread of RMweb.

 

But aren't those the carriages built for the LNWR Broad Street - Mansion House services (as pulled by the eponymous Mansion House Tanks), dating from before the LNWR took over the running of the NLR? I can't find that the LNWR built any carriages for NLR services between 1909 and the grouping. Certainly I've seen a photo of a Devons Road-allocated LMS standard 3F 0-6-0T on a train of old NLR 4-wheelers on the GNR line in the 20s.

[Edwardian]

 

 

Coaches with axleguards outside the solebars are OK if you are building them rigid in 4mm scale, as the journals were in the usual position. Standard pinpoint bearings and axles should work. They are the very devil if you want springing or compensation. The LRM kits for NLR coaches (and for similar LNWR vehicles, like Mansion House stock) have inside bearings with compensation. I've designed, but not yet built, an alternative suspension with inside bearings and springs. I'll post about this when I have it working.

 

 

 

That is good news, but I might need it explaining. 

 

One thing I know I can do is mount a bearing cup in a brass 'W' Iron and sit my pin-point axles in them.  If the 'W' irons are on the outer face of the solebars, won't they be too far apart for me to do that?

 

(probably being a bit thick, but I am a relative novice in such matters)

 

BTW, another 5 sets of your excellent GE 6-wheel coach fittings now ordered.

[Nearholmer]

You will need to put the solebars closer together, if that permits sufficient clearances, which it might well in 00, or use longer axles.

 

Does anyone here know why some rolling stock was built "inside out"? As Notthroader says, it was common in Ireland, on both 3' and 5'3", which I think was an 'archaism', but there must have been a logic to it originally.

[Compound2632]

Londontram's built Caledonian wagons with axleguards outside the solebars - described here. If I've understood correctly, he's built up the thickness behind the axleguard (in fact where the bulk of the axlebox is on the prototype).

[Edwardian]

You will need to put the solebars closer together, if that permits sufficient clearances, which it might well in 00, or use longer axles.

 

Does anyone here know why some rolling stock was built "inside out"? As Notthroader says, it was common in Ireland, on both 3' and 5'3", which I think was an 'archaism', but there must have been a logic to it originally.

 

 

Londontram's built Caledonian wagons with axleguards outside the solebars - described here. If I've understood correctly, he's built up the thickness behind the axleguard (in fact where the bulk of the axlebox is on the prototype).

 

Good suggestions.  Less accurate than either, but perhaps simplest given my relative lack of practice, might be to build conventionally using fold-up brass 'W' irons inset with bearing cups, but then lay springs, cosmetic 'W' irons and axle-boxes on top.

 

I realise that one will see both sets of 'W' irons from most angles, and, so, aesthetically it is a far less satisfying solution that Steve's. 

 

Alternatively, brass fold up strip with holes for the axles, as often used on the centre axle of 6-wheel coach models. 

[Caley Jim]

If you cut away the diagonals and most of the W-iron below the bearing hole, it will hardly be seen, especially once the cosmetic W-iron is fitted. You can also slice the axlebox vertically, putting the main part under the spring with just the face on the W-iron.

 

Jim

[Edwardian]

If you cut away the diagonals and most of the W-iron below the bearing hole, it will hardly be seen, especially once the cosmetic W-iron is fitted. You can also slice the axlebox vertically, putting the main part under the spring with just the face on the W-iron.

 

Jim

 

Clever.  Like the sound of that, thanks!

[PeterR]

Hi,

 

What is missing re the above are the (cosmetic) outside 'W' irons; is there a supplier of 4mm scale ones?

 

The GNR and the NBR and I am sure others used them, they I would suggest be available in (multiples?) of 2 so should not be expensive?

 

As they are really cosmetic, the inner (standard) one does the work, and to the outer one a (plasticard) block, with a dimple for the 'top hat' bearing, can be fitted between them so the outer, and basically cosmetic, one can even be plasticard?

 

Possibly sold in 10's?

 

Could it be an exercise for an owner of a 'Silhouette' cutter to be a small supplier?

 

 Yours Peter.

Edited September 12, 2017 by PeterR

[Edwardian]

Hi,

 

What is missing re the above are the (cosmetic) outside 'W' irons; is there a supplier of 4mm scale ones?

 

The GNR and the NBR and I am sure others used them, they I would suggest be available in (multiples?) of 2 so should not be expensive?

 

As they are really cosmetic, the inner (standard) one does the work, and to the outer one a (plasticard) block, with a dimple for the 'top hat' bearing, can be fitted between them so the outer, and basically cosmetic, one can even be plasticard?

 

Possibly sold in 10's?

 

Could it be an exercise for an owner of a 'Silhouette' cutter to be a small supplier?

 

 Yours Peter.

 

Mike Trice (of this parish) does components for GNR 6-wheelers on Shapeways, the central axle of which has the 'W'' irons mounted externally to the solebar.  I don't think that they are available separately.

 

However, there are a number of very skilled and helpful people here whom you might ask.

.

[Tom Burnham]

A 4-wheeled brake 3rd built by the L&NWR at Wolverton in 1911 for NLR services is preserved on the K&ESR - http://www.preservation.kesr.org.uk/coaching-stock/l-nwr.

 

Also, I believe the last ever Model Railway Constructor had an article about building a model of the ex-NLR passenger brake van which ended up on the original K&ESR.  This addressed the issue of having springs inside the W-irons.

 

Cheers,

Tom

[Caley Jim]

If you cut away the diagonals and most of the W-iron below the bearing hole, it will hardly be seen, especially once the cosmetic W-iron is fitted. You can also slice the axlebox vertically, putting the main part under the spring with just the face on the W-iron.

I sent the above post from my phone, so didn't have access to any of my photographs.  Those below show how I modified a standard 2MM Scale Association chassis to one with outside W-irons.  The body is an Association kit for the 1887 RCH mineral wagon.  The outside W-irons were etched for me some time ago by a fellow Association member.

 

 

This one has also been converted to dumb buffers and cupboard doors.  Apologies for the crude strapping on the latter.  I subsequently had some strapping for this etched for other conversions..

 

The finished wagon.

 

The livery is purely fictitious.

 

Jim

[Compound2632]

A 4-wheeled brake 3rd built by the L&NWR at Wolverton in 1911 for NLR services is preserved on the K&ESR - http://www.preservation.kesr.org.uk/coaching-stock/l-nwr.

 

Also, I believe the last ever Model Railway Constructor had an article about building a model of the ex-NLR passenger brake van which ended up on the original K&ESR.  This addressed the issue of having springs inside the W-irons.

 

Cheers,

Tom

 

These cove-roof 4-wheelers seem to have eluded Jenkinson (LNWR Carriages). Millard & Tattersall (LNWR Non-Corridor Carriages) give them a passing mention (p.47). Did they share the same diagrams as the equivalent 19th-century arc-roofed carriages? No mention of livery!

[Guy Rixon]

That is good news, but I might need it explaining. 

 

One thing I know I can do is mount a bearing cup in a brass 'W' Iron and sit my pin-point axles in them.  If the 'W' irons are on the outer face of the solebars, won't they be too far apart for me to do that?

 

(probably being a bit thick, but I am a relative novice in such matters)

 

BTW, another 5 sets of your excellent GE 6-wheel coach fittings now ordered.

 

 

My suggestion (which I haven't actually tested, so feel free to ignore): put the bearing into a hole in the back of the axlebox, independent of the axleguard. I suggest that the back of the axlebox is probably going to be where the axleguard was on conventional stock. Of course, it's a tricky fitting job to get the end-float correct on the axle and even harder to get all four wheels level. Probably inside bearings would be easier.

 

Bill B. suggests hiding a functional axleguard inside the solebar, suggesting that it won't be any more obtrusive than inside-bearing suspension. I measured my Mansion-House coach and found that I didn't quite have room for that, so I'm doing minimal-profile inside-bearing springing.

 

Ta for buying the coach bits, much appreciated. Do let me know if they are working out OK, especially getting the springs of the sprue and onto the solebar; the springs are probably a bit fragile when their hangars are not joined by a sprue. I had in mind to rebate leave a section of sprue in place between the hangars of each spring and to set that into the solebar. You would need to rebate the solebar for a 1mm x 1mm section to do this. Note that the plates of the spring hangars overlaps the sprue on one side and this "ledge" would sit on the bottom of the solebar to set the height. If the solebar was made of a plain section, with the 1mm-square rebates, faced by a cosmetic sheet with the detail pressed or etched in, then it would be about right. The overlap is 4 scale inches less 1mm so should have come out at 0.333mm, and the solebars would be, I assume, 5" wide.

[Guy Rixon]

But aren't those the carriages built for the LNWR Broad Street - Mansion House services (as pulled by the eponymous Mansion House Tanks), dating from before the LNWR took over the running of the NLR? I can't find that the LNWR built any carriages for NLR services between 1909 and the grouping. Certainly I've seen a photo of a Devons Road-allocated LMS standard 3F 0-6-0T on a train of old NLR 4-wheelers on the GNR line in the 20s.

 

If you look at Penlan's first post (2nd in the thread), he says that the coach was built at Wolverton for the NLR. I don't know if that was for the NLR company while independent, or to run on the NLR route after take-over, but it's clear from context that it's not actually a Mansion-House coach; Penlan shows it because he thinks it had the same style of class numbers on the doors. 

[Guy Rixon]

Re NLR coaches with axleguards outside the solebar (again; I'll STFU about this soon, I promise) , remember that these are not "W-irons", in that they don't have the diagonal bars forming the W shape. They are as sort of inverted U, a bit like a fancy pickle-fork. The lateral strength comes from tie bars that go between the pairs of axleguards and from the outer side of each axleguard to the solebar at the ends of the coach.

 

It was once possible to buy these components - I have an etch that came off a second-hand stall at a show - but I don't think anybody sells them today. One could ask London Road Models if they have any scrap etches for sale as the plates are basically the same as in their kits LNWR 4-wheel coaches. Otherwise, the horn plates need to be specially etched, laser cut, die-cut or hand made. If it's only four plates for one coach, why not just fret them out of brass and press in the fixings? Or even from plastic if they are not load bearing.

[Compound2632]

If you look at Penlan's first post (2nd in the thread), he says that the coach was built at Wolverton for the NLR. I don't know if that was for the NLR company while independent, or to run on the NLR route after take-over, but it's clear from context that it's not actually a Mansion-House coach; Penlan shows it because he thinks it had the same style of class numbers on the doors. 

 

Thanks - I see now. I see that the preserved brake third appears to have the 'toplight' style panelling whereas I think the third in Penlan's photo has 'traditional Wolverton' panelling - it's difficult to tell because the quarterlights are so close together but I think the bottom corners of what looks like a separate eves panel and the upper corners of ditto waist panel are square... Presumably cove roof as well though it's hard to tell from the photo.

 

So we have:

1. The characteristic ancient NLR square-panelled carriages that were varnished in NLR days - certainly at the date when they were being sold off second hand. Were any repainted in either plum and spilt milk or claret after the LNWR assumed responsibility for working the NLR in 1909? Did any get LMS red?

 

2. The nineteenth-century 28' arc roof 4-wheelers built by Wolverton for LNWR trains between Broad Street and Mansion House, which were, uniquely for LNWR stock, varnished not painted. (Did you complete your rake, Guy?)

 

3. Circa 1909-1911 28' cove roof 4-wheelers built by Wolverton for NLR trains after the LNWR started working the NLR, painted claret.

 

Does claret = plum?

 

All of which is irrelevant to the paint scheme of the grounded body of an ex-NLR coach sold to the E&M, as photographed c. 1896!

[Guy Rixon]

 

2. The nineteenth-century 28' arc roof 4-wheelers built by Wolverton for LNWR trains between Broad Street and Mansion House, which were, uniquely for LNWR stock, varnished not painted. (Did you complete your rake, Guy?)

 

 

Me complete a train? You jest! One body and frame is done and painted but lacks its custom suspension.

 

 

I have two more kits in stock and can't even afford the rest until next year. :-/ However, since my stock is for the fictional Broad St. - Willesden - Euston - Strand - Cannon St. service (working title: the Ever Decreasing Circle), I can run short trains than the 9 coaches of the Outer circle. So I may get it running before bus-pass time.

[Nearholmer]

GR

 

The 'upside-down-tuning-fork irons' are a new one on me, so thank you for pointing out something I'd missed.

 

The Irish vans that I looked at most closely (County Donegal, IIRC) definitely had outside W-irons, and, somewhere(!), I've got a set that I bought from Brandbright. These are in 15mm/ft scale, so each set is probably bigger than one of Caley Jim's wagons!

 

I really, really must go back to all my unfinished 15mm/ft projects. I stopped work on them two days before my son was born, so it's dead easy to remember how long they've been lurking, and when I think of the hours I spent cutting carriage window apertures in plywood, for instance, it seems a bit of a waste!

 

Kevin

[Edwardian]

Some humour in the context of a grim subject.  On R4's PM programme earlier this evening was a report on the 3 individuals prosecuted for belonging to a proscribed far-right organisation. 2 of them were servicemen; 1 of whom was a member of "the Royal Anglican Regiment".

 

Nearly crashed the car.

 

I've heard of the concept of the Church Militant, of course,  but the idea of the Church of England having an armed wing .... 

 

It's the equivalent of suggesting that John Betjeman planned the modern motorway network.

[martinT]

Some humour in the context of a grim subject.  On R4's PM programme earlier this evening was a report on the 3 individuals prosecuted for belonging to a proscribed far-right organisation. 2 of them were servicemen; 1 of whom was a member of "the Royal Anglican Regiment".

 

Nearly crashed the car.

 

I've heard of the concept of the Church Militant, of course,  but the idea of the Church of England having an armed wing .... 

 

It's the equivalent of suggesting that John Betjeman planned the modern motorway network.

... so my ears didn't deceive me when I was driving back from the L&BR Assoc's carriage rebuilding workshop, now recently moved to near Colchester. Thanks for the confirmation.

 

Martin

[Caley Jim]

Does anyone here know why some rolling stock was built "inside out"? As Notthroader says, it was common in Ireland, on both 3' and 5'3", which I think was an 'archaism', but there must have been a logic to it originally.

I think you will find that in the early days (prior to the 1870's-80's?) most, if not all, rolling stock was built this way, so the question is 'why did they change to putting the W-iron inside the solebar'?

 

I don't know the answer, but I suspect that it may have something to do with the increase in both wagon size and maximum load capacity.  Thinking of the mechanics (I'm not a physicist!), having the W-iron, and thus the support for the wagon on the axle, so far out from the line of the wheel will produce a flexing moment on the W-iron.  Moving the support so that it is as close as possible to the wheel will greatly reduce that.

 

As I say, I don't know if this is the answer, but is just my theory.

 

Jim

[Compound2632]

I think you will find that in the early days (prior to the 1870's-80's?) most, if not all, rolling stock was built this way, so the question is 'why did they change to putting the W-iron inside the solebar'?

 

I don't know the answer, but I suspect that it may have something to do with the increase in both wagon size and maximum load capacity.  Thinking of the mechanics (I'm not a physicist!), having the W-iron, and thus the support for the wagon on the axle, so far out from the line of the wheel will produce a flexing moment on the W-iron.  Moving the support so that it is as close as possible to the wheel will greatly reduce that.

 

As I say, I don't know if this is the answer, but is just my theory.

 

Jim

 

But... the W-iron isn't a load-bearing component. The load is transmitted through the springs to the axleboxs, bearings and axle journals. Journal centres were typically 6' 6", so this dictated the longitudinal centre line of the springs and solebars. With solebars typically made of timber 11" high x 4 1/2" thick, this gives inside faces of solebars 6' 1 1/2" (24.5 mm in 4 mm scale) and width over outside faces of solebars 6' 10 1/2" (27.5 mm in 4 mm scale). The W-iron's function is to keep the axlebox in the right vertical plane - hence the alternative term axleguard; it's not apparent to me that it makes any difference which side of the solebar it is. Axleboxes had groves that meshed with the W-iron; these grooves would be in a different place if the W-iron was in front or behind the solebar - so axleboxes wouldn't be interchangeable between the two different types. See for example the end views in this drawing.

 

So - no explanation. Sorry!

[Guy Rixon]

When an axleguard is outside the solebar, the part of the axlebox that engages the axleguard is at the front of the box. It would tend to interfere with the openings for topping up the lubricant, and possibly makes the shell of the box harder to cast. I have no evidence, but I suspect that axleguards inside solebars made the vehicles slightly cheaper to build and maintain. That being the case, I can't explain why the LNWR carried on with the old style.

[Compound2632]

I can't explain why the LNWR carried on with the old style.

 

For 6-wheel carriages, and also the 42' 8-wheel radial carriages, might it have something to do with providing room for side-play? I'm sure I saw a good drawing of a 42' radial underframe recently but I can't find which book it was in just now.

 

Or it could just be Wolverton inertia. Earlestown was using the 'modern' arrangement for wagons from at least the late 1860s.

[Caley Jim]

So - no explanation. Sorry!

Point taken.  As I said, I'm not a physicist, nor am I an engineer!

 

Jim