Inspired by Brent June 1947

[The Fatadder]

Thanks to a very helpful member on the GWR modelling Facebook group (which I cannot recommend highly enough) I have some transfers en route so will finish the TPO next week.  Hopefully HMRS will find a solution to their current supply difficulties and get this very useful range back in production. Thanks 

 

after a family day trip the plan today is to finish building the slip, hopefully complete with adding the tortoise motors.   Must fix the switch wiring on the London end slip motor on Brent as well as I really want to run the first train from Brent to ‘Kingdbridge’

 

[The Fatadder]

Still need to add the right hand tie bars, along with the linkages between them, but the slip is starting to come together 

[The Fatadder]

Continuing with small steps, the other side of the slip was completed this afternoon.  It now needs the sleepers to be drilled for a 0.8mm rod which will attach to a pivot connected to the Tortoise actuator wire. I’ve found the required bits , so should have it sorted tonight.   I have also added the plastic chair to the first sleeper, this was a mistake (and should have been metal) as it is the joint at which the Vee isolation will need to be cut. I only noticed  long the point of no return.  In theory it should be fine with careful cutting with the Dremmel...

 

the twin moving sleeper as a tie bar is not ideal, but seems to be the best compromise I have found.  As the single tie bar for both switches caused no end of problems, I really don’t get on with under baseboard linkages, and didn’t want to use 4 point motors.   I think should it go ahead, the double slip on the Wheal Imogen extension will probably end up trying an under baseboard linkage, with two above baseboard tie bars connected under the board with a similar linkage (with 4 motors being the backup).   However here, the visual is less critical seeing as it is just a fancy fiddleyard.  

[The Fatadder]

I am having a bad case of déjà vu with the double slip, without motors connected it all works perfectly.  I made a slight mistake in that for various reasons I built the slip on the board, this resulted in being unable to mount the linkage between the two moving sleepers underneath.   So instead I tried to replicate it above the sleeper.

 

Unfortunately it just wouldnt apply enough force to close both tiebars,   I also tried a solid linkage, which again worked fine by hand but the tortoise couldnt apply enough force.   (I have already beefed up the actuator arm to a thicker gauge of steel wire.   I am not sure what the next step is, I had originally planned to drill holes under the sleeper tiebar as a failsafe (that I could if necessary use 4 motors).  But i didnt, so I am now struggling to find a solution.

 

I think the problem is the stiffness in one set of switch rails which is needing a lot more force to move than the other set.  In particular I think the issue is in one of the two spots marked in red on the photo below.

 

Other than that I did finally finish off the L25 for the TPO and move it out to the rest of the rake, it now just needs the remaining gangways adding and buffers for two coaches. 

 

 

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by The Fatadder

[St Enodoc]

2 hours ago, The Fatadder said:

I am having a bad case of déjà vu with the double slip, without motors connected it all works perfectly.  I made a slight mistake in that for various reasons I built the slip on the board, this resulted in being unable to mount the linkage between the two moving sleepers underneath.   So instead I tried to replicate it above the sleeper.

 

Unfortunately it just wouldnt apply enough force to close both tiebars,   I also tried a solid linkage, which again worked fine by hand but the tortoise couldnt apply enough force.   (I have already beefed up the actuator arm to a thicker gauge of steel wire.   I am not sure what the next step is, I had originally planned to drill holes under the sleeper tiebar as a failsafe (that I could if necessary use 4 motors).  But i didnt, so I am now struggling to find a solution.

 

I think the problem is the stiffness in one set of switch rails which is needing a lot more force to move than the other set.  In particular I think the issue is in one of the two spots marked in red on the photo below.

 

Other than that I did finally finish off the L25 for the TPO and move it out to the rest of the rake, it now just needs the remaining gangways adding and buffers for two coaches. 

 

 

 

I suggest you try flexible (e.g. Norman Solomon-style pins) joints between the blades and the tiebars. The soldered joints might be too stiff for the motors to move two sets of short switch rails.

[kandc_au]

On 26/04/2021 at 01:43, The Fatadder said:

 

 

the twin moving sleeper as a tie bar is not ideal, but seems to be the best compromise I have found.  As the single tie bar for both switches caused no end of problems, I really don’t get on with under baseboard linkages, and didn’t want to use 4 point motors.  

Rich,
I'm still trying to get my head around why one would need 4 point motors for a double slip and how it would work!
The very first ordinary point I made was done with soldered joints and within 10 mins of moving it back and forth the joint failed.
I have used track pins, suitably cleaned of paint and bent through the tie bars ever since for all points and slips.
(One word of warning though, if using double sided pcb make sure you isolate the underneath side as well with a cut.
I don't need to tell you how I know that......took me a bit to work out where the short was occuring)

Khris

[St Enodoc]

9 minutes ago, kandc_au said:

Rich,
I'm still trying to get my head around why one would need 4 point motors for a double slip and how it would work!
The very first ordinary point I made was done with soldered joints and within 10 mins of moving it back and forth the joint failed.
I have used track pins, suitably cleaned of paint and bent through the tie bars ever since for all points and slips.
(One word of warning though, if using double sided pcb make sure you isolate the underneath side as well with a cut.
I don't need to tell you how I know that......took me a bit to work out where the short was occuring)

Khris

To get all four switch rails at one end to fit up properly, it is often easier to use two separate tiebars/stretchers. Because these don't move parallel to each other you can either use separate motors or connect the tiebars with an equalising link driven by a single motor.

 

I use C&L ply timbering strip and brass lace pins for the blade pivots.

[The Fatadder]

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

I suggest you try flexible (e.g. Norman Solomon-style pins) joints between the blades and the tiebars. The soldered joints might be too stiff for the motors to move two sets of short switch rails.

I was wondering if the stiffness was coming from having a single rail forming the switch rail on both sides (hence thinking about cutting the rail at the red point) I hadnt thought about the stiffness being at the switch end.  The only issue is that I have never had a whole lot of luck with the pins on the blades approach, I never end up with the holes in the right place so it never ends up working properly. 

 

But I think it may be the only way forward as I have to find some way of reducing the stiffness, as I cant see any way of adding sufficient power to the tortoise.  The only other thought that I did have, was to add a fixed linkage between the right hand tiebar (ie the problem one) and a flexible linkage to the left hand.  That way the power of the point motor is being applied to the area which needs to most force, while the linkage should pull the second across (I think the left hand tiebar reaches its limit first).

 

Or i end up soldering the thing up solid so at least I can use the station road / runaround loop which along with the goods shed line at least gets me a working fiddleyard.  

[St Enodoc]

21 minutes ago, The Fatadder said:

The only issue is that I have never had a whole lot of luck with the pins on the blades approach, I never end up with the holes in the right place so it never ends up working properly. 

I set the blades to the position I want them, by putting some packing between the blade and adjacent rail on each side (in my case I use scraps of 1.2mm copperclad), then mark the positions of the holes direct on to the tiebar. You could probably also drill the tiebars in situ.

[The Fatadder]

It’s been a while since there was any progress on the layout, a combination of being distracted with 1998 resprays and disenchanted with the issues I was facing on the slip (and the general mess with the Wheal Imogen move.)

 

the plan is to get back on with it, hopefully a few recent purchases should help get things moving.   First up I now have the plasticard for the platform slabs, so as soon as I can reach the board that’s top of the list.  Getting the other platform painted will make a huge different to the look of the layout. 
 

the other purchases are for stock projects, with a set of Dreadnaught brake third etched ordered from Worsley Works and a O13 milk brake for a reasonable price from eBay (which in turn will free up the full brake for my parcels train).

[Ravenser]

13 minutes ago, The Fatadder said:

It’s been a while since there was any progress on the layout, a combination of being distracted with 1998 resprays and disenchanted with the issues I was facing on the slip (and the general mess with the Wheal Imogen move.)

 

the plan is to get back on with it, hopefully a few recent purchases should help get things moving.   First up I now have the plasticard for the platform slabs, so as soon as I can reach the board that’s top of the list.  Getting the other platform painted will make a huge different to the look of the layout. 
 

the other purchases are for stock projects, with a set of Dreadnaught brake third etched ordered from Worsley Works and a O13 milk brake for a reasonable price from eBay (which in turn will free up the full brake for my parcels train).

 

 

For what it's worth I've endured similar problems with uncertain closure of point blades in one or two places on Blacklade.

 

It has happened where points were tighter radius and blades short (and therefore stiff) - the crossover and the single slip, which approximates the geometry of a Peco slip and was bespoke Marcway.

 

Close examination suggested that the issue was the throw wire from the Tortoise bending in preference to moving a stiff point.

 

I can offer two solutions: 

 

DCC Concepts Cobalt motors are equivalent to a Tortoise, but smaller. The throw wire is shorter and therefore less flexible: it may also be thicker. Certainly it seems to cope better

 

Otherwise you can replace the throw wire supplied by Tortoise with something stiffer . I used steel wire from (I think) Eileen's . This is harder and stiffer - and it chews notches in the blade of a Xuron.

 

The one place I still have an issue is the one point where I didn't replace the throw wire because it had become awkward to do

[St Enodoc]

5 hours ago, Ravenser said:

the throw wire from the Tortoise

Tortoise wires are definitely too thin. They are 0.6mm whereas Cobalts use 0.8mm (1/32") wire.

 

You've already discovered why it's a bad idea to cut piano wire with Xurons...

[The Fatadder]

This motor is certainly running at least 0.8mm wire (it may be slightly thicker) having long since given up on the wimpy stuff Tortoise supply with the motor.  
 

It doesn’t just chew notches in Xurons, my last pair the blade failed completely!   Though I still have an even older set with a completely notched blade that I will use on the wire from time to time if the dremmel isn’t to hand....  my new set on the other hand won’t go anywhere near it (although even that took damage cutting DCC concepts rail).

 

At some point I will have another go at fixing this, but right now I’ve completely lost interest, the blades can be pinned in one position and serve as an acceptable fiddleyard.  

[The Fatadder]

Ready to start on the O13 tomorrow, though it has the same silly design for the floor and ends as the K17.   This time with a brass roof, so I am even more tempted to modify it to have a separate floor and solid roof.  Given the eBay photos were not very clear, it was a relief to see everything was there (and the etches were in perfect condition), instructions (as expected) are pretty poor, but I’m really looking forward to building it.

[The Fatadder]

A good start on the O13, as ever it’s a bit annoying forming the tumblehome on the sides when there is a fold under which forms the basis of the floor.  However eventually I got the sides and ends to shape.  At least with its short length the O13 fits in my hold and fold.

 

next up were the doors, again these were a bit odd in their design with the folds for the sides of the recess attached to the body not the door (meaning they ended up rolled as part of the tumblehome and have to be straightened).

 

the solebar was straightforward, although the rocking w iron does not have a great deal of movement.

 

 

I still need to fit the footsteps (which I think need substantial modification to clear the axle boxes), under frame trussing, along with the roof and handrails (after painting)

 

i also need to verify the under frame details, as to whether it would still be fitted with the gas tank.

[The Fatadder]

Nearly there with a little modelling before work , lamp irons and under frame trussing now added (as well as fixing a slightly misaligned floor/ queen posts part.)  it still needs brakes adding (I need to source a replacement part as the castings are rubbish), end pipes (as above) and the footsteps (lunchtimes job).  The vac cylinder is somewhere on the workshop floor (so need finding and gluing in place), and finally handrails (for which i still can’t decide if I’m fitting them before or after painting!)

[The Fatadder]

Final update for today, with the footsteps added, it has now been primed with Halfords etch primer and is ready for spraying brown in the morning.

 

the instructions state brown all over, but would it not have black ends (as per the preserved example?)

 

it’s still missing brake bits, and I still haven’t found the lost brake cylinder.  

 

[Neal Ball]

11 hours ago, The Fatadder said:

Final update for today, with the footsteps added, it has now been primed with Halfords etch primer and is ready for spraying brown in the morning.

 

the instructions state brown all over, but would it not have black ends (as per the preserved example?)

 

it’s still missing brake bits, and I still haven’t found the lost brake cylinder.  

 

The O13 looks great Rich, it’s going to look the great on the train.

 

 

 

 

[The Fatadder]

Last night before bed I gave it a coat of Halfords ultra mat camouflage brown, which after a coat of satin varnish looks a good match for GWR brown (even if it looks a little odd for now).  Just need to confirm if the ends should be black or brown now before finishing the painting tonight.

 

1 hour ago, Neal Ball said:

The O13 looks great Rich, it’s going to look the great on the train.

Thanks, certainly is a little different.  I had been looking for one for ages, so was very pleased to pick this up from eBay at a reasonable price. 

[Neal Ball]

10 hours ago, The Fatadder said:

Last night before bed I gave it a coat of Halfords ultra mat camouflage brown, which after a coat of satin varnish looks a good match for GWR brown (even if it looks a little odd for now).  Just need to confirm if the ends should be black or brown now before finishing the painting tonight.

 

Thanks, certainly is a little different.  I had been looking for one for ages, so was very pleased to pick this up from eBay at a reasonable price. 

Can’t have been easy to fix the doors behind the tumblehome.

 

It would be nice to see Peco / Parkside do a kit for something unusual like this.

[The Fatadder]

5 hours ago, Neal Ball said:

Can’t have been easy to fix the doors behind the tumblehome.

 

It would be nice to see Peco / Parkside do a kit for something unusual like this.

I’m surprised it hasn’t been done by Parkside as it fits their range rather well (and would fit the same sort of mould size as the python, beetle etc).

 

the doors weren’t too difficult to fit in place, though I’ve had a fair bit of practice on 5 TPO coaches I guess.

[The Fatadder]

As much lettering as possible has now been added, and I am working to commission the remaining Milk Train lettering to complete it.  It was a real squeeze (as per the prototype) to fit the Hawksworth coach branding.  I’m surprised they didn’t use the G W R in yellow over crest...  that was why I ended up modelling 1367 given it was the only example where there is a dated post war photo that I’m aware of (in Russell)

 

the roof is currently on the workbench awaiting drilling for vents, which will be the next main job.  There is also a slight chassis wobble that needs fixing!

[The Fatadder]

While the milk brake sits awaiting its transfers / handrails finishing, I have been looking at another long term workbench resident.  a while back I spotted what I thought was a bargain milk tank on the classifieds, in my rush to ensure I managed to snag a bargain I didnt look at the photos properly and ended up buying a peco 4wheel example of an O23 tank.   My original plan was to spend a little time adding some detailing (the missing side boards with G W branding for a start) and then sell it on (hopefully for the price of a Dapol or Hornby tank).  However now I have a slightly different idea,  after finally sourcing a copy of the Russell GWR wagon plans book.  The O23 tanks were rebuilt on a 6 wheel chassis as O44, however I was never sure what happened with the tanks.  Looking at the drawing in the book it is clear that they retained the shorter 16ft9 tank (relative to the more usual 18ft tank),

 

This has got me thinking that I should reuse the tank, ladders etc from the Peco wagon, add new end supports and either a scratch built chassis  (or Hornby chassis modified to DC brakes).  Which would get another distinctly different tank in the rake (along with the Falcon twin, and Dapol/Hornby tanks which make up the majority.)

[M.I.B]

Rich

 

Loving the O13 work.  Mine is sat in the box waiting......

 

Someone does lettering for the O13 in GW branding.  I have a set.     I have a feeling it is the same people who do the J12 sleeping car etches............

 

If it comes to me I'll let you know.

[The Fatadder]

1 hour ago, M.I.B said:

Rich

 

Loving the O13 work.  Mine is sat in the box waiting......

 

Someone does lettering for the O13 in GW branding.  I have a set.     I have a feeling it is the same people who do the J12 sleeping car etches............

 

If it comes to me I'll let you know.

I did find the suspension units a bit rubbish, still not 100% satisfied with the running.  There was not a lot of movement in the compensated end, though given I am not a fan of rocking compensation I am giving seriously thought to ripping both sets of wiron out and replacing with Bill Bedford spring units 
 

I should be ok for the transfers, one of the guys on the GWR Facebook group does custom transfers and has offered to do them (plus the ones I need for the K17 in my TPO).  He did the Star Class branding for 4025.