Jump to content

Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

@Caley Jim, on this Caledonian trolley, do you know if there is a single axle with four bearings or is each wheel on its own stub axle? I'm just wondering how the bearing was accessed for maintenance. A stub axle would mean that standard axleboxes could be used inside and outside, rather than special inside bearing boxes being made.

Mike Williams' book states that it is thought to date from 1868 when three drawings appear in the drawings register relating to boiler wagon, trolley number 1, but none of them have survived.  The diagram shows the axle as being continuous, but I suppose that doesn't signify anything.  It survived until 1917.  Mike states 'In comparison the the buffer height, the wheels were probably 4ft in diameter.'

 

In 1876 a 40T trolley (No.2) was built with totally enclosed bogies of 3'6"wheelbase and inside bearings. so I suppose that it is possible that No.1 had inside bearings too.

 

Jim

  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think having stub axles would create more problems, particularly keeping the wheels to gauge. The wagon bearings are semi circular, and rest on top of the axle, so could be changed by taking the weight of the spring, and the lubrication would be grease trickling down from above, so all that’s really needed under the axle is some kind of cover to keep the journal clean.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if an item of rolling stock had both outside and inside bearings it very probably had through axles. Quite a few early locomotives had four or even five bearings on an axle to spread the load; the main drawback was that the near impossibility of aligning them accurately when the frames were likely to move, even if ever so slightly, resulted in strains being set up that led to axle failures, the elimination of which was, of course, the primary aim of multiple bearings....

 

Dave 

  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, blow me @airnimal! All your builds are educational and enjoyable to follow, but this really is shaping up to be something special. Thank you so much for taking the time to lead us through them, and to demystify the process a bit. As with anything, it is not magic but skill and dilligence that makes your wagons (and loco!) so brilliant...but bug***ed if I can tell the difference sometimes!

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Schooner, you are very kind and I am glad you enjoy my ramblings.  A couple of photos showing the method of glueing the boltheads in the plates. The bolt heads are picked up with tweezers and just touched in the superglue before pushing in the holes. Once dry the stems are cut off and the back filed smooth. 

image.jpeg

image.jpg

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

  • Like 14
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny how other people see your work and what you see yourself. I see myself as a bodger who can't make kits so just blunders on scratch building. I make so many mistakes when building something like this wagon but I try to carry on and overcome problems as they arise. I also only notice details after I am half way through that would have been easier had I noticed earlier on.  A case in point are a pair of tie rods behind the headstock that would have been better had I not clad the outside with the riveted plates. I didn't see these until recently but how to reto fit them ?

 

First I drilled a couple of holes through the headstock to take some .6 mm wire and pushed it all the way through till it touched the back wall. I then very carefully placed the tip of my soldering iron on the wire as close to the end and melted the wire in the back plate. This leaves a raised bead around the wire which was withdrawn and the bead filled flat. I will add the cosmetic bolts to the outside when I do all the bolts on the ends of the wagon. 

I have used this method before when I made my tank wagon. I drilled a hole through the tank end restraining bar at 45 degrees before pushing the wire through until it hits the tank cradle where I place the soldering iron and melt it all the way through until it comes out at the correct angle. This does produce a large burr, but that's easy to remove once the wire is removed.

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

  • Like 9
  • Craftsmanship/clever 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, airnimal said:

I see myself as a bodger who can't make kits so just blunders on scratch building.

I long ago realised that (generally speaking) I can’t make kits.

Whether that’s down to being pig-headed enough to think that I can see a better/easier way, have acquired sufficient knowledge of the prototype to have higher standards of dimensional accuracy than some of the kits that I have tried, or am too set in my own ways of working, I don’t know.

 

I decided on S scale when I was a teenager, because I liked the size. When asked at my local club, I brazenly commented that 4mm was too easy. I meant that in the sense of their being too many kits covering a wide range of prototypes. Having attempted a few kits in 4mm and 7mm scales, I think I got it wrong: 4mm scale is far too difficult!

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, airnimal said:

It's funny how other people see your work and what you see yourself. I see myself as a bodger who can't make kits so just blunders on scratch building. I make so many mistakes when building something like this wagon but I try to carry on and overcome problems as they arise. I also only notice details after I am half way through that would have been easier had I noticed earlier on.

 

This has uses of the terms bodger and blunders that I should think apply to the vast majority of scratch builders; it certainly does to me. I can't think of a locomotive I've built when overcoming problems as they arise and having to go back to rectify earlier mistakes or omissions hasn't featured but the ingenuity you show when making your models leaves me full of admiration. For bodger and blunders in your case it is my opinion that the better terms would be skilled model maker and excellent problem solver. 

 

3 hours ago, Regularity said:

I long ago realised that (generally speaking) I can’t make kits.

Whether that’s down to being pig-headed enough to think that I can see a better/easier way, have acquired sufficient knowledge of the prototype to have higher standards of dimensional accuracy than some of the kits that I have tried, or am too set in my own ways of working, I don’t know.

 

This chimes with me perfectly. I am currently part way through making a steam crane from a 7mm kit that several other modellers of my acquaintance have successfully finished, seemingly without too much trouble, but I'm finding it a trial. The first kit I have made in several decades was one of a turntable for my layout that I bought just over a year ago and although I've now finished it satisfactorily that too caused me more grief than any scratch building project. I have now realised once again why I don't generally make things from kits and admire those who can do so without resorting to language that would shame a Liverpool docker of the old school.

 

Dave

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The only time I ever corresponded with Bob Essey I asked him why he switched from O finescale to S7. He told me that he realised that cutting holes in boilers to accommodate driving wheels set too closely together struck him as a pointless exercise and waste of time. 
That’s an interesting parallel with eschewing kits: of made to suit certain standards, they may not work well with others...

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob Essery and I were the objects of a campaign by the late John Horton and Adrian Tester to switch to S7. One of the arguments they used was that of cutting holes in boilers but there was also the far better appearance of pointwork and the much better running through it that Ken Cottle showed us to be the case.

 

Dave   

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dave Hunt said:

Bob Essery and I were the objects of a campaign by the late John Horton and Adrian Tester to switch to S7. One of the arguments they used was that of cutting holes in boilers but there was also the far better appearance of pointwork and the much better running through it that Ken Cottle showed us to be the case.

You can improve the running and the appearances without going to S7, by tightening up the clearances and narrowing the gauge: but you still have the holes in the boiler to contend with, as well as the look of the wheels. (Something rather clunky about the O “fine” wheel profile, to my mind.) 

It’s all part of a bigger picture, simply put by stating that as far as things are practicable, reduce the prototype by your scale ration. In the long run, this is usually easier - so long as you make adjustments when you deviate from prototype practice. (The most noticeable of which is the need for slightly more side play on steam loco drivers as we use a single tyre profile, unlike the prototype. That’s why Geoff Holt’s 4-4-0 had trouble on the Dewsbury crossover, per the report in whichever MRJ Compendium it was. At least, that was my reading of his article.)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that we ever really got to the bottom of the trouble with Geoff's 4-4-0. At the time my Compound had just entered service and didn't have the same problem on Dewsbury despite very limited side play on both drivers and bogie and since Geoff has used my profile tool to turn the tyres, Bob and I largely discounted the tyre profiles as the  cause. To be honest I can't remember exactly what happened except to say that Geoff did all sorts of tweaks and modifications and I didn't read the article to which you refer.

 

As far as I am concerned, apart from the 'holes in the boiler' situation, the other major reasons for using S7 standards include the appearance of the wheel sets (as you say) and the ability to employ scale frame spacing. There isn't the obvious mismatch between frame spacing above and below the platform and it's a lot easier to fit inside motion between S7 frames - I wouldn't like to build another Compound in 0F as it was bad enough squeezing everything in as it was. I don't really understand why people actually narrow the gauge further to get better running rather than using S7 standards.

 

Dave

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please forgive me David but I would like to make a slight correction – Bob Essery was converted to S7 a little earlier. I visited him in his home which was then in Solihul in early 1989 (or late 1988) with a 33mm gauge point I had made. He placed an O gauge wheel set on it. With one wheel on the crossing nose the other ran on the back of the check rail – he was convinced. When I reminded him, I had tried to convert him to S7 at the previous Manchester Show he told me I was a rotten salesman!

At that time S7 was quite low key and very much a niche gauge. I knew Bob Essery as a fellow MRS member and had seen his input into the Scalefour Society – he was the person needed to popularize S7 – hence the visit.

Once converted to S7 the ScaleSeven Group was soon set up with the inaugural meeting comprising about 24 of us held at Ken Cottle’s house in Luton – RJE became member No 1, Ken is member No 2 and Dick Ganderton No. 3. Unfortunately Bernard Laycock another important S7 pioneer didn’t join.

In a re-run of Heckmondwyke and S4, RJE decided to build a large S7 layout – Dewsbury – I helped with the track while Ken built the baseboards. It was not long after we had started that I met John Horton – a member of the LMSS who RJE had enlisted to help. At the time JH was trying to build an Ivatt class 4 2-6-0 (Doodlebug) in gauge O and had encountered the problems with a narrower than scale gauge. He quickly became a convert. He loaned me a book by Brian Reed about Crewe works. In it was an instruction from Ramsbottom to the men – work to dimensions. This became our mantra and our approach to S7 - depart from the prototype as little as possible. JH built a number of locomotive frames on this principle for RJE and, in conjunction with gauge widening they worked without problems - refer to MRJ No. 60.

With Dewsbury under way, David was subjected to the Chinese water treatment by JH and myself until he saw the light. Three-throws not withstanding I don’t think he regrets the change!

  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have managed to drill so many holes in the wrong place and broken more drills than on any other project. This wagon has tested my patience than anything I have ever made before. 

All the holes are now drilled ready to take the nuts / bolts but the one on the side are just loose and not glued in yet because I and still working on the spring hangers. These nuts / bots are quite soft so rather than damage them I will leave off untill it's time to paint the wagon. All the bolts on the ends are glued in because the buffers protect them.

These spring hangers have taken a long time to come up with something that looks like the photos. I must have had about 20 rejects before I finally settled on the present arrangement. I have only made one so far but I think I will stick to how I have made the first one and so I can see the finishing line and get some paint on and hide all my mistakes.

 

While I have been wrestling with these spring hangers other people have been posting about S7 which I have enjoyed reading about. 

When I moved up a scale from 4mm I did consider S scale which I find delightful but was put off by the lack of parts especially driving wheels. Not being good at loco building I decided to go 7mm before quickly turning to S7. 

After seeing Geoff Stenner's Oakhurst layout at the Machester show and seeing how well it performed, I was hooked.o

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

  • Like 12
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Snap Mike!

I followed a very similar path. Moving to 7mm scale from P4 I did build one loco in fine standard 0 but soon converted it to S7 and have never looked back. Being able to lift dimensions straight from a GA drawing makes modelling so much more satisfying.

 

I am thoroughly enjoying following this build of yours. It is a bit of a cliche but modellers tend to favour the less usual prototypes when in reality they were quite rare. We have seen you produce some exquisite 'ordinary' wagons and this special you are building will truly be a 'special' example!

 

Ian.

  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, airnimal said:

I have managed to drill so many holes in the wrong place and broken more drills than on any other project. This wagon has tested my patience than anything I have ever made before. 

Does this mean that you might reconsider your aversion to finishing off that lovely loco?

 

After seeing Geoff Stenner's Oakhurst layout at the Machester show and seeing how well it performed, I was hooked.

Funnily enough, Geoff's SER 0 class loco was one of the first S scale locos I saw, which set on that path.

But Oakhurst gave me severe temptation.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • 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.