Strand and its trains

[Edwardian]

12 minutes ago, Guy Rixon said:

Thanks for the links. This is important for Strand as the recently-discovered WTT shows that there were LNWR vans working up from Kent in the fruit specials. These will go from Cannon through Strand and up the CCEJ to Willesden instead of via Holborn and the Met Widened Lines.

 

I see the removable shelves in the picture of loading a van. They are stacked against the van side.

 

I shall have to build some louvred LNWR vans; it looks like there were a few diagrams to choose from. I have one D&S kit part-built from years back but have lost some chassis parts. Perhaps a printed kit is in order?

 

Terrific Faff building lots of louvred vans.

 

I think a printed kit is, therefore, warranted. I could have LNWR vans running to and from Norfolk via LNWR's Nene Valley line and the GER via Peterbro' East. 

 

Of course, what is really required is a printed kit of GER 22' Sundry Vans!

[Guy Rixon]

20 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

Terrific Faff building lots of louvred vans.

 

I think a printed kit is, therefore, warranted. I could have LNWR vans running to and from Norfolk via LNWR's Nene Valley line and the GER via Peterbro' East. 

 

Of course, what is really required is a printed kit of GER 22' Sundry Vans!

You know that the Peter K kit is still available? It seems wasteful to duplicate a prototype which already has a kit. Still, there are two basic kinds of Sundry vans, with different doors. I shall consider doing a kit for the kind not covered by Peter K.

[Edwardian]

14 minutes ago, Guy Rixon said:

You know that the Peter K kit is still available? It seems wasteful to duplicate a prototype which already has a kit. Still, there are two basic kinds of Sundry vans, with different doors. I shall consider doing a kit for the kind not covered by Peter K.

 

Thanks, I had forgotten.  I have a Peter K GER 4-wheel coach, ordered a year or so ago, so should have remembered.

 

More brass to stack and hope to get around to. As you say, these days, somethings should be printed, not etched!

[Jol Wilkinson]

3 hours ago, Guy Rixon said:

Thanks for the links. This is important for Strand as the recently-discovered WTT shows that there were LNWR vans working up from Kent in the fruit specials. These will go from Cannon through Strand and up the CCEJ to Willesden instead of via Holborn and the Met Widened Lines.

 

I see the removable shelves in the picture of loading a van. They are stacked against the van side.

 

I shall have to build some louvred LNWR vans; it looks like there were a few diagrams to choose from. I have one D&S kit part-built from years back but have lost some chassis parts. Perhaps a printed kit is in order?

The two former D&S LNWR straight van sided kits are still available from London Road Models (the third van along in the photo). Falcon Brass listed an ex-LNWR Milk and Fruit van in theit LMS wagons section (now NLA) of the high roof type.

 

A kit for either of the two other sliding door types in the photo would be very nice. I would only go for a 3D printed version though if it were at a sensible price and with an acceptable surface finish (i.e. not like sandpaper or striated.

[Guy Rixon]

16 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

A kit for either of the two other sliding door types in the photo would be very nice. I would only go for a 3D printed version though if it were at a sensible price and with an acceptable surface finish (i.e. not like sandpaper or striated.

Quite. I would not sell prints with a rubbishy finish. What would you consider an acceptable price, were the kit to offer body and underframe with printed fittings but not functional axleguards?

 

The reason for suggesting a printed kit, rather than an assembled vehicle, is that I think I can then get an acceptable finish on all the main faces and have it printed at Shapeways. I know I can assembled vehicles printed elsewhere with reasonable finish, but only Shapeways allows me to make it available indefinitely and without me being in the supply loop. And Shapeways stuff can only have proper finish when done as a flat kit, as Mike Trice has demonstrated.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Guy,

 

as I enjoy building etched kits, I would be happy to pay something comparable to or a little more than a good etched kit. The older D&S LNWR six wheel kits retail for £33 but the newer LRM kits with Cleminson underframe retails for £42 - £43. So somewhere around the  £40 would be good. Bill Bedford's Mousa Models LNWR wagon kits, with sprung underframes 3D printed bodies are £22.50, so a bit less twice that would again seem reasonable for a more complex model, if the axle guards still have to be bought.

 

I have never purchased anything from Shapeways, but friends that have weren't happy with the finish or the value for money. None have have purchased anything recently having been frightened off. One problem is that many of the items are shown as a CAD representation or the photo of a printed item doesn't show the surface finish clearly.

 

Edited to add that I would appreciate a model designed to accept a readily available etched sprung axleguard system for that sort of price.

 

Jol

 

 

Edited May 16, 2019 by Jol Wilkinson

[Guy Rixon]

Jol, based on the kits of comparable format in Mike Trice's shop, I would expect a 6-wheeled vehicle to cost about £50 and a 4-wheeled one, such as a combination truck, a little less. The prices scale with the space used in the printer and I think that the flat-packed prints now cost less than taller ones. Exchange rates matter, since the base prices are set in American dollars.

 

Printing with the flat, cosmetic faces upwards significantly reduces the patterning. When I get to a CAD and a test print (which may be quite a while), I'll put honest photos here and folk can decide for themselves whether the finish is sufficient.

[Argos]

.....and if they can be scaled down to 2mm a few more sales might appear (hint hint) 

[Guy Rixon]

I don't think a 1:76.2 kit can be directly scaled down to 1:152. Too many features would drop below the limit of printability. Examples of things that would have to be re-done:

• A brake lever could be printed in 4mm (although generally I'd prefer to make a brass one), but not in 2FS.
• Louvres could be made as actual slats in 4mm but would have to become engraved detail in 2FS.
• Cosmetic axleguards can be printed in 4mm (Mike Trice did this on his GNR coaches), but would be too clunky, too fragile or both in 2FS.
• Alignment pegs for the main structure would be different in 4mm and 2FS.
• Detailed buffers don't print reliably in 2FS.

However, much of the work could be reused in a 2FS version, and the little one would be a lot cheaper to print.

 

If I get as far as 4mm-scale kits (don't hold your breath, I have many things to do first), I will canvas likely sales for a 2FS version. Since the reworking would take significant time, I would not proceed with 2FS unless there was enough interest.

[Guy Rixon]

The cattle box now looks like this:

Most of the residual solder has disappeared under the primer. There are traces, but I couldn't easily see them until I took this photo, so I think I shall go ahead and apply the main colour. I think imperfections will show less clearly in the chocolate coat.

[Argos]

Hi Guy,

 

It look superb to my eyes, and given the photo is a couple times the size of the actual wagon, I don't think you have anything to worry about.

[Guy Rixon]

I have looked into the complex question of loading gauge on the SECR. This is particularly important for LNWR and GWR stock on through services via Strand.

 

The folklore previously known to me was that no foreign coach wider than 8'6" was allowed anywhere on the SECR system, meaning almost all brake vehicles with side observatories would be barred. Recent reading suggests that this would have been an excessive restriction and that through coaches with observatories could have been specially authorised for the specific routes of their trains. I found four relevant documents.

 

1. SR restriction codes, from Southern Railway 1934 WTT Appendices reproduced at the Bluebell Railway web-site:

 

R0: anywhere except Canterbury & Whitstable.

 

R1: anywhere but Hastings line and C&W.

 

R4: anywhere by Hastings Line, C&W, Gipsy Hill and Crystal Palace LL, Cooksbridge and Lewes, Charlton and Plumsted, Dartford and Strood, Hawkesbury Junction and Archcliffe Junction (Dover).

 

R0 is 8' 0.75" wide, R1 is 8' 6" wide and R4 is 9' 0"wide.

 

2. SECR WTT appendix of 1902 (at SECR Society members' pages)

 

p88, "large stock":

C[hatham] Section Bogie Vans or Brake Vans with side observatories, and Wide Carriages, 8ft 6in width of bodies: [prohibited to] Tunbridge Wells and Hastings Branch.

 

American Cars, Bogie Stock, except as shewn on p89 [i.e. 42' long or shorter], Gas Trains, Close Buffered Greenwich Stock, G.P.O. Sorting Vans, Large 6 Wheeled Vans: [prohibited to] Folkestone Harbour Branch.

 

3. SECR WTT appendix of October 1905 (at SECR Society members' pages)

 

Victoria Section Bogie Vans or Brake Vans with side observatories, and Wide Carriages, 8ft 6in width of bodies: [prohibited to] Tunbridge Wells and Hastings Branch; Between Minster and Sandwich (over Stour Bridge).

 

American Cars: [prohibited to] Folkestone Harbour Branch.

 

4. SECR WTT appendix of March 1910 (at SECR Society members' pages)

 

p86 "Restricted working of stock"

 

Victoria Section Brake Vans with side observatories and Victoria Section Carriages marked "A" on sole bars; Folkestone Car Train: [prohibited to] Tunbridge Wells and Hastings Branch; Between Minster and Sandwich (over Stour Bridge)

 

Victoria Section Bogie Brake Vans: [prohibited to] All parts if Charing Cross Section of the the line, excepting London, Red Hill and Reading Branch

 

American Cars: [prohibited to] Folkestone Harbour Branch.

 

 

Putting those together, it seems that stock 9' wide over side observatories was accepted all along the main lines, except for the difficult curve between the SER and LCDR lines at Dover; arrival onto Admiralty Pier (later into Dover Marine) was OK.

 

The problems on the Stour bridge sound like something discovered the hard way. Presumably there's an accident report somewhere.

 

I don't know what was wrong with the LCDR bogie vans. They seem to have been accepted onto the SER lines in 1902, on the basis that they were no wider than the 6-wheeled stock with side-observatories. They then presumably lurched around the system scraping platforms and equipment until banned totally between 1905 and 1910. Possibly the combination of versine and the 9' width (the observatories being in the centre, not at one end) was just too much. In later service, their side observatories were removed and they were allowed back in.

 

The problems at Folkestone Harbour were the length of coaches (and the stroke of the buffers) vs. the curvature. By 1910, SECR coaches up to 50'1" (the longest then in service, IIRC) were accepted but the American Cars were longer and still barred. Presumably the 60' Trio sets would also have been barred when they appeared. Eventually, the harbour branch was changed to accept BR Mk.1 stock.

 

I think I am now OK to accept to accept brake coaches from the LNWR via Strand, except that 50' or longer coaches with centre brake-compartments will cause the same havoc as the LCDR full-brakes of the same length; they can go via Metropolitan Junction south curve onto the LCDR but mustn't try to go to London Bridge or beyond. End-brake coaches and 6-wheeled brakes will not be a problem. Also, Wide Things should not venture along the North Kent, which stuffs my plans for a Watford-to-Woolwich service with LNWR Watford-Euston stock. Finally, the best of the GWR clerestory stock, and the early toplights, are not going to make it to Folkestone Harbour and I'll need to stick with the runty slip-coaches from the Birkenhead service.

 

Wide Thing

You make my heart sing

You make everything groovy...

[Argos]

Presumably the groove is made by the wide thing being outside of the loading gauge?

[Guy Rixon]

I finished the LNWR prize-cattle box.

 

The lining was done with a Posca pen and is a bit rough, but I don't know a way to get cleaner lines. On the full-size van, the chamfers of the frames are painted in the lining colour, and the beading on the drovers' compartment. On the model, the edges of the frames are stepped, not truly chamfered and it's hard to draw a consistent line along such a sharp edge. The pens do have one great advantage: any misplaced colour can be sponged off using propanol on a fine brush. This seems not to affect the underlying decoration provided that the varnish has been allowed a day or two to cure.

 

I discarded the etched tie-bars and replaced them with brass wire. That was a good choice as the wire resists handling and etched tie-bars distort horribly. I should probably have do the same with the supports for the foot steps. I shall have to glue some wire strengtheners behind them.

 

In the, the CATTLE BOX lettering came from a waterslide alphabet, the depot-allocation letters on the HMRS sheet being too small.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Guy,

 

I've not used a Posca pen so have no direct experience of them but I think that this is where a bowpen with enamel paint may be the best way.

 

I also use a brighter colour than the LNWR coach lining ochre (PPP) on carriages  to make it stand out a bit more, but an ochre might be better here. You could also try using a brown pen to "overlay" and thin down some of the wider bits of yellow.

 

Jol

[Edwardian]

3 hours ago, Guy Rixon said:

I finished the LNWR prize-cattle box.

 

The lining was done with a Posca pen and is a bit rough, but I don't know a way to get cleaner lines. On the full-size van, the chamfers of the frames are painted in the lining colour, and the beading on the drovers' compartment. On the model, the edges of the frames are stepped, not truly chamfered and it's hard to draw a consistent line along such a sharp edge. The pens do have one great advantage: any misplaced colour can be sponged off using propanol on a fine brush. This seems not to affect the underlying decoration provided that the varnish has been allowed a day or two to cure.

 

I discarded the etched tie-bars and replaced them with brass wire. That was a good choice as the wire resists handling and etched tie-bars distort horribly. I should probably have do the same with the supports for the foot steps. I shall have to glue some wire strengtheners behind them.

 

In the, the CATTLE BOX lettering came from a waterslide alphabet, the depot-allocation letters on the HMRS sheet being too small.

 

This is where 3D print will be better in the future as a medium.

 

Brass is of course smooth, but essentially flat. This makes it ideal for some things but a compromise for others. A 3D print coach grab handle, say, will be round in section, not flat.  Similarly, the rounded edge to coach beading or the champhered edge of frame members may be represented. 

 

None of which is much help to you!

[Jol Wilkinson]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

 

This is where 3D print will be better in the future as a medium.

 

Brass is of course smooth, but essentially flat. This makes it ideal for some things but a compromise for others. A 3D print coach grab handle, say, will be round in section, not flat.  Similarly, the rounded edge to coach beading or the champhered edge of frame members may be represented. 

 

None of which is much help to you!

How far in the future and in which particular way better? So far 3D does not, in my view provide the answers to some of the difficulties other techniques have.  It is too easy to assume new technology will provide solutions to existing "problems" but, as was the case when photo etched kits were introduced, some designers use it to make items which are better created with other techniques and materials. One designer has just replaced sprung etched wagon w-irons with 3D printed parts in 3D printed kits but I am not yet convinced that  they will be reliable.

 

I make grab handles from brass wire, which provides a good profile and appearance. Rounded edges to beadings/mouldings might be accurate (a radius of about .33mm being about right) but is probably not noticeable. Plastic injection moulded carriage sides tend to have slightly radiused edges to the beading already.

[Edwardian]

Clearly noticeable enough to affect lining.

 

3D printing has a little way to go, but it's getting there. Rails of Sheffield have given us some idea of the Shape of Things to come. It has achieved things that have not been possible in other media. 

[The Lurker]

On ‎10‎/‎05‎/‎2019 at 17:45, Guy Rixon said:

Strawberrygate! The next paper from SECR Soc. cache, the special instructions for working fruit traffic in 1900, dispels the myth (which I repeated earlier on this forum) that the Kentish fruit-traffic went mainly by road and the SECR had little of it.

 

In 1900, there were four special trains per day on the new main line just to move strawberries into Cannon Street. These started at Halstead or Dunton Green and detached vans at Hither Green for the northern railways. There were four balancing workings of empty vans, plus trips to clear those vans away from Cannon Street to Hither Green where the down specials collected them. In the season when these trains were running, strawberries were not allowed to be carried on passenger trains.

 

There were another 7 fruit specials per day, each way, from other parts of the SECR network, plus a couple of as-required workings. Then there were the cross-London connections to the LNWR, MR and GNR variously from Hither Green and Loughborough sidings.

 

So "all the fruit went by road" is revealed to be utter , and shows the problem with relying on secondary sources. Doubtless, some reached the London markets by road by the method and for the reasons already discussed.

Middleton's book on the Dartford Loop line has a picture of strawberries being loaded onto a train at the sidings in Bexley

 

EDIT - the link to Strawberries on the South Eastern in Edwardian's post is a link to the same (or very similar) picture in the Bexley Borough archives

Edited May 28, 2019 by The Lurker

[Ravenser]

On 24/05/2019 at 14:07, Guy Rixon said:

I have looked into the complex question of loading gauge on the SECR. This is particularly important for LNWR and GWR stock on through services via Strand.

 

The folklore previously known to me was that no foreign coach wider than 8'6" was allowed anywhere on the SECR system, meaning almost all brake vehicles with side observatories would be barred. Recent reading suggests that this would have been an excessive restriction and that through coaches with observatories could have been specially authorised for the specific routes of their trains. I found four relevant documents.

 

1. SR restriction codes, from Southern Railway 1934 WTT Appendices reproduced at the Bluebell Railway web-site:

 

R0: anywhere except Canterbury & Whitstable.

 

R1: anywhere but Hastings line and C&W.

 

R4: anywhere by Hastings Line, C&W, Gipsy Hill and Crystal Palace LL, Cooksbridge and Lewes, Charlton and Plumsted, Dartford and Strood, Hawkesbury Junction and Archcliffe Junction (Dover).

 

R0 is 8' 0.75" wide, R1 is 8' 6" wide and R4 is 9' 0"wide.

 

2. SECR WTT appendix of 1902 (at SECR Society members' pages)

 

p88, "large stock":

C[hatham] Section Bogie Vans or Brake Vans with side observatories, and Wide Carriages, 8ft 6in width of bodies: [prohibited to] Tunbridge Wells and Hastings Branch.

 

American Cars, Bogie Stock, except as shewn on p89 [i.e. 42' long or shorter], Gas Trains, Close Buffered Greenwich Stock, G.P.O. Sorting Vans, Large 6 Wheeled Vans: [prohibited to] Folkestone Harbour Branch.

 

3. SECR WTT appendix of October 1905 (at SECR Society members' pages)

 

Victoria Section Bogie Vans or Brake Vans with side observatories, and Wide Carriages, 8ft 6in width of bodies: [prohibited to] Tunbridge Wells and Hastings Branch; Between Minster and Sandwich (over Stour Bridge).

 

American Cars: [prohibited to] Folkestone Harbour Branch.

 

4. SECR WTT appendix of March 1910 (at SECR Society members' pages)

 

p86 "Restricted working of stock"

 

Victoria Section Brake Vans with side observatories and Victoria Section Carriages marked "A" on sole bars; Folkestone Car Train: [prohibited to] Tunbridge Wells and Hastings Branch; Between Minster and Sandwich (over Stour Bridge)

 

Victoria Section Bogie Brake Vans: [prohibited to] All parts if Charing Cross Section of the the line, excepting London, Red Hill and Reading Branch

 

American Cars: [prohibited to] Folkestone Harbour Branch.

 

 

Putting those together, it seems that stock 9' wide over side observatories was accepted all along the main lines, except for the difficult curve between the SER and LCDR lines at Dover; arrival onto Admiralty Pier (later into Dover Marine) was OK.

 

The problems on the Stour bridge sound like something discovered the hard way. Presumably there's an accident report somewhere.

 

I don't know what was wrong with the LCDR bogie vans. They seem to have been accepted onto the SER lines in 1902, on the basis that they were no wider than the 6-wheeled stock with side-observatories. They then presumably lurched around the system scraping platforms and equipment until banned totally between 1905 and 1910. Possibly the combination of versine and the 9' width (the observatories being in the centre, not at one end) was just too much. In later service, their side observatories were removed and they were allowed back in.

.......

 

I think I am now OK to accept to accept brake coaches from the LNWR via Strand, except that 50' or longer coaches with centre brake-compartments will cause the same havoc as the LCDR full-brakes of the same length; they can go via Metropolitan Junction south curve onto the LCDR but mustn't try to go to London Bridge or beyond. End-brake coaches and 6-wheeled brakes will not be a problem. Also, Wide Things should not venture along the North Kent, which stuffs my plans for a Watford-to-Woolwich service with LNWR Watford-Euston stock. Finally, the best of the GWR clerestory stock, and the early toplights, are not going to make it to Folkestone Harbour and I'll need to stick with the runty slip-coaches from the Birkenhead service.

 

Wide Thing

You make my heart sing

You make everything groovy...

 

So that's the Ratio 50' corridor brake kits barred... The LNWR had a lot of 42' stock though

[Guy Rixon]

Jol, I think printing is "there" in quality, but not yet in cost, for (specifically) coach bodies and outside-framed stock like the cattle box.

 

Printing the cattle box, or similar stock would save a vast amount of building time and allows a better result for those like me with limited skill in soldering and no resistance-soldering capability. It took me above 7 hours to solder my PC-models kit. I think the printed-resin version would need 30 minutes labour at most. It would not be as cheap as an etches-plus-castings kit: I'd expect the prints to cost as much as the etched kit and then I'd need some etched parts for the underframe at extra cost.

 

Coach bodies need a more subtle comparison. I'd guess that it takes me 3-4 hours to assemble the shell of a coach, including ventilators etc., but it will later take at least an extra couple of hours to arrange glazing and the interior. If I made it as a printed kit - which I have not actually done yet - then I think the assembly time would be less than an hour, but I'd expect to spend perhaps an hour rubbing down the stepping on the turn-under. That sounds like a big win in overall time.

 

Note that the stepping on the turn-under happens when the coach sides are printed as a flat-pack with cosmetic side up (so as to get useable output from Shapeways) or if the body is printed assembled and right-way up. However, if the sides are printed as a sprued with their length along the z axis, then they can be done without stepping: I saw this on the Isinglass stand at RailEx this year. The cost for resin prints of good quality not from Shapeways (so forget the estimates in our earlier conversation) seem to be around £100 per 60' coach for one, but perhaps less than £120 for a batch of sides for eight coaches printed at once. But then you need the brass bits for the underframe etc., so the cost is going to be a bit more than the current, etched kit.

[Guy Rixon]

16 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

So that's the Ratio 50' corridor brake kits barred... The LNWR had a lot of 42' stock though

Yes, I have a Geen kit for a D162 (42') which I intend to do as a D165 tricomposite-brake through-coach. That one can even go the narrow way to Hastings, I think.

[Guy Rixon]

I checked at the Cult Pens shop and Posca don't seem to do an ocre-coloured pen, nor brown. So the lining on the cattle box, in a fetching shade of "wrong", may have to be covered over in paint as Jol suggested. Possible time to try my Bob Moore pen again and see if it really does work with paint as claimed. I can brush-paint chocolate to cover the yellow if need be.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Guy,

 

I have a Bob Moore pen with fine and medium knibs. The medium knib well but the fine tends to clog easily, but that may be down to me using "old" paint. There is also the Peter Spoerer Easy Liner pen which I also have, similar the the Bob Moore type. It isn't as fine as the BM one so probably okay for 7mm but not really for 4mm in my view.

 

I have several bowpens, Kern, Haff and Ecobra. These all bowpens all work well and I remain convinced they are the best for  the job. Haff pens are still available, but Kern (usually highly rated) are only available second hand. The inexpensive unbranded types available for about £10 or less can apparently be made to work well but need fettling, following the guidance in Ian Rathbone's book.

 

Regarding 3D print quality, I'll comment when I have got around to building Bill Bedford's latest two LNWR van kits I have recently bought. These were produced on Bill's own printer.

 

Jol

Edited May 28, 2019 by Jol Wilkinson
Additional text

[Guy Rixon]

Next up is a LSWR "special" PLV (i.e. a passenger-rated fruit-van), of the design introduced in 1909. I have two of these kits, the original version as sold by Mallard and this one, as later reissued by Blacksmith. The older kit has a problem in that the slots to represent the louvres in the doors are not etched through and I'm still wondering the best way to fix that. It's down in the brown-painted bit so may not show its scars too obviously.

 

The cockling of the top flange over the doors happened when I straightened the bowing of the sides. There's some odd stress-effects in there, but brutality has fixed the bits that show.

 

The blacksmith kit has a rolled, brass roof that doesn't fit. The Mallard kit has a vacuum-formed roof that is probably brittle as hell by now. Both will have to go, and I'm considering which of my various roof bodges will suit.

 

I need these vans to run in the mixed trip from Cannon Street to Bedford Street depot, the one that also conveys the MR and GNR perishables. Some more LSWR vans would be welcome, but I can only have two of this design as they'd only built two by the summer of 1909. Mousa do a kit for an earlier PLV of the LSWR and I might get one or two of those.