Strand and its trains

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Guy Rixon said:

Finally, I'm not sure that there's an exact standard, with tolerances, for model axleguards. They seem to vary a lot. There should have been strict standards for the widths (interfaces to both solebars and flanges of bearings) and for the dimensions of bearings, but none such exist AFAIK.

 

I was told very firmly by Bill:

 

 

 

[Guy Rixon]

I measured some P4 wheel-sets and obtained the following widths over tyres.

 

Maygib: 21.7mm

AGW: 22.0mm

Exactoscale: 21.1mm

 

These are all for split-spoke wagon wheels and measured with dial calipers, not with a micrometer, so the random error is probably around ±0.025mm. Exactoscale wheels are known to be narrower (i.e. nearer to scale) than other makes.

 

One should note that the P4 standards allow back-to-back in the range 17.67mm to 17.75mm. My wheels are all gauged by me to 17.75mm using an Exactoscale gauge. AGW wheels out of the packet tend to have the lowest allowable back-to-back, so their width over rims might be lower. However, most P4 users regauge their wheels and there seems to be some recent consensus to using the greatest allowable back-to-back rather than the lowest.

 

There are also the S4 standards which derive from exact scaling of the full-size railway. Their back-to-back is in the range 17.87mm to 17.89mm (the P4 back-to-back is deliberately smaller than scale to assist with tight curves).

 

Finally, one should remember that accurately-gauged wheels may not be accurately centered on the pinpoint axle. An offset of 0.2mm is easy to achieve.

 

Putting this together, I would say that a kit accommodating generic, P4 wheels should have at least a clear gap of 23.5mm where the structure comes close to the tyres.

Edited April 5, 2020 by Guy Rixon

[Guy Rixon]

Ballast wagon with P4 wheels (Maygib) in D&S axleguards: it rolls. The electric adze was applied last night and a few minutes of cutting resolved matters. The buffer height has come out right and the wagon seems to be sitting square on the track. These new axleguards are not yet fixed (to be done after the body is lettered and finished), so the alignment along the length of the wagon is not quite right yet.

[Martin.M]

Guy I managed to P4 Toms wagon I just had to file back about 0.2mm on each solebar for the rocking w irons. Not to difficult to do and they do look smashing wagons... 

 

Well worth the effort in my view

 

Martin

[TurboSnail]

28 minutes ago, Martin.M said:

Guy I managed to P4 Toms wagon I just had to file back about 0.2mm on each solebar for the rocking w irons. Not to difficult to do and they do look smashing wagons... 

 

I am taking the feedback on board so jobs like this can be made a little easier in future

[Guy Rixon]

Both ballast-wagons are now erected. Brakes and leather flaps over the axleboxes are still to do. My plan for lettering "Engineer's Dept" fell through as the letters I have are too large. I suspect that legend will have to be left off unless and until I can get custom transfers made up.

 

When I do the rest of the ballast train, I've worked out how I can use the moulded axleguards. I need to fill part of the cavity under the axleguard proper with plastic and epoxy, then file back the resin to clear the wheels, then rebate the solebars to clear the in-fill. It would be less work than making up the brass ones and a fair bit cheaper.

 

I can't get the brakes to align with the wheels (am I doing somethign wrong?), so will probably replace them (and any way I broke one, me clumsy). I'm considering making an RFM print for SER single-shoe brakes, possibly including the levers and guards.

[TurboSnail]

3 hours ago, Guy Rixon said:

I can't get the brakes to align with the wheels (am I doing somethign wrong?)

 

Probably not, I didn't put a locating aid in as the different wheelsets I've tried in OO had different placement requirements. It's just a case of lining it up by eye unfortunately.

 

And Snap! I think my attempt at SECR livery isn't quite as accurate, but I was using the paint and transfers I had to hand.

 

[Guy Rixon]

Looks fine to me. The "6 TONS" notation is probably right for the Maunsell period rather than the Wainwright period, so would suit a darker grey, but shades of grey are so uncertain that it's not worth much worry. So far as I know, Mr Wainwright stopped the Ashford painters from painting the ironwork black, but I don't know when that order was given.

 

Concerning the interior, goods and mineral opens were not painted inside to avoid contamination, but who cares about contaminating ballast with paint flakes? It seems possible that ballast wagons could be painted inside and out. The photos aren't remotely clear enough to tell, so we shall never know.

[Guy Rixon]

Currently back on the workbench is a coprolite from my early days of P4 modelling. The brass bits in the middle are the mortal remains of a kit-built LCDR van. I remember buying this in 1989, when Chatham kits were trading directly, before Roxey bought the range. Back in the dream time, I built the body quite quickly, then stalled because everything else about the kit was problematic. Every 10 years or so I get it out, solve one of the problems, then put it away again because it mocks me.

 

It now has a brass roof, rolled by me, and the body has wooden supports to which the roof may ultimately be glued. Hardcore modellers would solder the roof on, but having failed for 10+ years to find a good way to hold it accurately in position while soldering, I prefer glue.

 

The kit comes rocking suspension, which was ahead of the wave in the 1980s. Unfortunately, the etched axleguards are way over-scale and their support structures are wider than the solebars. I could fix the supports, but frankly it's quicker and easier to build a spring chassis, so this one now has Bedford sprung axleguards on an RFM baseplate.

 

The kit solebars are slot-and-tab supports with detail overlays. Very good, except that the slots are in the wrong place, putting the solebars too close together to admit any kind of axleguard. Therefore, the etched support are in the bin and the model is sitting on a plastic U-shape made of 0.040" styrene. This, with the RFM baseplate, gives me the right buffer height after weighting. I shall use the etched solebar-overlays and 1mm plastic plus 0.2-ish mm brass gives me a plausible width for the solebars.

 

The axleboxes in the kit are reasonable castings, but they would need milling out in order for the functional bearings to move. Therefore, I've printed new ones. The buffers are not such good castings, and anyway there is room to spring them in a 16' vehicle, so I shall use RFM prints.

 

The brake is a single, wooden shoe, hung from a block on the solebar, with a long lever. The kit has a flat etched bit in the profile of the trunnion: how could that ever have been enough? So far, I'm undecided whether to scratch-build the brake block, hanger and mount or whether to make another print. A print of these parts is an asset, but I would rather like this thing off the build queue sooner rather than later. The brake lever in the kit might be viable, but it looks a bit wide, so I may use 51L parts instead.

 

Finally, of course, I have to fit all the iron work to the body. Since my resistance-soldering gear is still unserviceable, I'm seriously considering gluing that lot.

Edited April 17, 2020 by Guy Rixon

[Guy Rixon]

After some hacking around over the weekend, I now have an underframe for the van.

 

The solebar overlays are from the kit and everything else is new. The axleguards are Bedford "1907 RCH". The axleboxes and springs are by RFM. The brake lever and guide are by 51L. The brake hanger, block and "trunnion" mount are scratch-built. The trunnion is made from a length of 0.7mm ID tube soldered to a strip of fret waste, with the rest of the profile built up in epoxy resin then filed to shape. It's possible to carve these things out of styrene, but I find that makes a weak part that doesn't locate the brake-shaft properly. The hanger as from fret waste and the block from 1.5mm styrene. The arc where the block is worn was cut using a 12mm sanding drum. 

[Guy Rixon]

I finally got all the details on the body (except the buffers, which go on last, with final assembly . Here it is in primer. The grotty flash-photos don't show it very well, and it actually looks less diseased than in these pictures.

 

The three-quarter view is just clear enough to expose an unusual detail: an external tie-rod, passing through the pillars at the base of the end. I've used Halfords primer, because it sticks well to brass, and this exposes an oddity of tone. The primer is slightly darker than the top-coat (Tamiya Dark Sea Grey) but the top coat becomes darker than the primer when varnished, as seen on the underframe.

 

Body lettering and final varnishing are about to happen...

[Guy Rixon]

The ex-LCDR van is now finished. Only took 31 years.

 

Next up, brasswise, are some SECR coaches among which are some even older fossils.

[Compound2632]

5 minutes ago, Guy Rixon said:

The ex-LCDR van is now finished. Only took 31 years.

 

There's a rather nice whitmetal kit, you know:

 

 

Hopefully it won't take 31 years for me to get round to putting the roof on.

[Guy Rixon]

Yes, the HBR van is basically the LCDR one with modern brakes and different buffers. Probably the writing on the axleboxes is different too.

 

That WM kit didn't exist back in 1989.

[Compound2632]

8 minutes ago, Guy Rixon said:

Yes, the HBR van is basically the LCDR one with modern brakes and different buffers. Probably the writing on the axleboxes is different too.

 

That WM kit didn't exist back in 1989.

 

I've built that to represent the first batch. When the H&B ordered more, they had the Scotch brake, which is provided for in the kit, so I believe one could make a satisfactory LCDR van. The planking of your model is different: comparing Bixley and Tatlow, they should be the same. The H&B version is 9'0" wheelbase whereas the LCDR is 9'3".

Edited April 29, 2020 by Compound2632

[Guy Rixon]

The planking width in the brass kit may be an error. However, that kit is intended for the 8-ton version of the van (I have added ironwork and changed the fittings to make it a 10-ton van) and the HBR vehicles were derived from the later, 10-ton variant. It's possible that different sheeting was used between the LCDR batches but I don't think there are enough photos to be sure.

[Guy Rixon]

These chaps, who I found today slacking off in a storage tub, are my complete modelling-output for the last two months of last year. They are ModelU figures for GWR staff: on the left a guard and on the right a stationmaster, who will eventually become the GWR Goods Agent at Bedford Street depot. Compared to typical figures in 4mm scale they are superb. I find painting figures a nice change from building wagons and coaches and I need to dig out the Stadden figures I have in store somewhere.

 

The guard has now been chivvied into his van.

Visible in this shot is how I attach a roof when I've been dumb enough not to include proper fixing brackets in the soldered build. Strips of card are glued to the sides with CA glue, then bent down to the roof profile. The roof (rolled brass in this case) is then stuck to the card with Deluxe Card Glue which is a posh kind of PVA and highly recommended. It holds the roof firmly, but when I have to remove it (guess who fixed it with the chimney over the verandah?) the glued card is the weakest point and it can be sliced out without wrecking the model.

[Edwardian]

I was very tempted by these figures, but decided not to buy them for the West Norfolk as I already have Stadden railway servants.  I would certainly use them for the GW, though.

 

Very nicely done. 

[Guy Rixon]

Much brass, very train. This is an audit of the train that started my whole SECR thing, back in the '80s. It's been a long time coming, but things are starting to accumulate. The painted coaches are early work from the '80s and need to be stripped and sprayed properly: the paint finish isn't very good and the colours are too inconsistent. The ones with brass roofs I bought from eBay and are rather nice. They need detail adjustment before painting. The brake on the right is new build during lockdown and would be further along already if I could get the materials I lack.

 

If I complete these and add one more 4-compartment coach (so as to have both 1st and 2nd class seats), then the train is viable for running. Ultimately it will have 9 or 10 coaches.

 

Since I can't progress the 27' stock until the new brass bits arrive, I diverted to one of the Grand Vitesse vans built by Hurst Nelson in 1901. This was stalled for a time while I sought suitable axleguards. I've recently discovered a cache of Bill Bedford parts that seem applicable, but I can't build the chassis until I get a drawing to show where to add the solebar fasteners (missing from the kit) and HMRS are closed during lockdown. I'm building the body meanwhile, and I note that five years ago I wouldn't have coped with soldering the louvres and overlay-doors. One does progress, however slowly.

[Compound2632]

Are these 27-footers the discontinued Branchlines kits?

[Brassey]

That train will need quite a fiddle yard with 9 or 10 coaches.  An issue I will have to contemplate when I've built a similar quantity.

[Edwardian]

Yes, the problem with suburban trains is that they tend to be quite long.  There is also the question of whether the loco is up to it.  Would either of the new RTR Terriers shift 10-11 Stroudley 4-wheelers, as they were designed to do?  Well, certainly not the Ks kits!

 

Although the locos and coaches are all quite short for such trains and such a period, a Terrier plus 10-11 close coupled 26' 4-wheelers still takes up quite a bit of real estate.

 

 

[Guy Rixon]

6 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Are these 27-footers the discontinued Branchlines kits?

Yes, those are they. I have enough in store to complete the train and some over (which I may sell, or I might make up two shorter trains). I've examples of most editions of the kits from first to last.

 

For rather early kits they're not too bad.

[Guy Rixon]

Ten coaches is 303'6" of train, bearing in mind that they are close-coupled. That's 48" rounded to the nearest inch in 4mm scale. Add 35' (5.5" in scale) for a tank engine, and a bit of dynamic space and it fits on a 60" cassette. That's OK for exhibiting, but for home running I would probably limit the cassettes to 48", so only 8 coaches.

 

The big question is whether a model of an SECR tank-engine (Q class or larger; no runty LCDR engines) can drag the train up Bedford Street bank. I would like to know this before committing to the track plan, but that requires me to break precedent and finish the train. Plan B is the other history where the line climbs away from Strand going north and crosses Seven Dials on viaduct. That brings the gradient down from the wrong side of 1 in 50 to maybe 1 in 80. I'm almost minded to go for viaduct over tunnel anyway, despite previous plans. 

[Regularity]

3 hours ago, Guy Rixon said:

Ten coaches is 303'6" of train, bearing in mind that they are close-coupled. That's 48" rounded to the nearest inch in 4mm scale. Add 35' (5.5" in scale) for a tank engine, and a bit of dynamic space and it fits on a 60" cassette. That's OK for exhibiting, but for home running I would probably limit the cassettes to 48", so only 8 coaches.

If you have separate loco cassettes, you simply move them from one end to the other, and don’t need to turn the whole train.

That was the point of Chris Pendlenton’s original design.