Jump to content
 

Great Southern Railway (Fictitious) - Signalling the changes...


Recommended Posts

Forget making it a tender engine; I think it would look best as one of those North London Railway 4-4-0T locos that was made out of leftover bits of Isle of Wight paddle steamers. Designed by Mr Adams, I think.

 

This is a really good slide-show of NLR locos https://transportsofdelight.smugmug.com/RAILWAYS/LOCOMOTIVES-OF-THE-LMS-CONSTITUENT-COMPANIES/LOCOMOTIVES-OF-THE-NORTH-LONDON-RAILWAY/i-FBB4FMm

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

After two days (so far) exhibiting at Model Rail Scotland, I've picked up a new loco for the roster at Linton - an Oxford Adams Radial, second hand, for £45. It runs beautifully, and has all the detailing bits. However, it's in EKR livery, although that appears to be one of the LSWR liveries with the LSWR number painted out and "EKR" and the number painted on. However, I'm wondering if any of the other LSWR liveries might suit for my time period (1900-1910-ish), perhaps the darker green. Basically, I'd quite like it to look a bit different from the standard, as-preserved, RTR model of 488. However, look at this beautfiul thing!

post-793-0-43451800-1519512615_thumb.jpg

(and yes, yes, I know about the daylight under the boiler. I have plans for that...

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

This gives me an idea...

 

Forget making it a tender engine; I think it would look best as one of those North London Railway 4-4-0T locos that was made out of leftover bits of Isle of Wight paddle steamers. Designed by Mr Adams, I think.

This is a really good slide-show of NLR locos https://transportsofdelight.smugmug.com/RAILWAYS/LOCOMOTIVES-OF-THE-LMS-CONSTITUENT-COMPANIES/LOCOMOTIVES-OF-THE-NORTH-LONDON-RAILWAY/i-FBB4FMm

 

I was kindly sent a CAD file for an NLR 4-4-0T... I might edit it slightly... add the tender from my T3...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Why is everyone so concerned about the daylight under the boiler?! I didn't notice it until I read about it on here, and that was after removing the coal rails.

Because that used to the key distinction between RTR and something better, back in the day.

That and separate handrails.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough! It's just that I didn't notice it, but then again my opinion doesn't really hold any substance. I may attempt to add a bottom to the boiler at some stage, but for now the model awaits finer detailing and the fitment of a crew, plus some minor weathering on the underframe (Is it just me who thinks green wheels left completely clean look wrong?) but not much on the body.

 

Reminds me to try and get my terriers to something closer to (A1) prototype condition... and to bother to contact Branchlines as to whether they can supply rods for my Keyser Radial...

Link to post
Share on other sites

After a long weekend at the Glasgow show, it's good to curl up and rest... and then get back to the modelling the next evening. The Stroudley G class 2-2-2 has been slowly receiving a few coats of Phoenix Precision "Improved Engine Green" paint, applied by brush, and is looking much better for it. The other thing that really helps is the appearance of its chimney! I'm still deciding how to go about applying the lining, and suspect I'm going to end up trying to go down the line of "N"-gauge BR white-black-white lining transfers, with one of the white lines carefully coloured in red Sharpie before application. This will definitely be a fiddly job. But, without further ado, behold, a properly-coloured G class!

post-793-0-37651400-1519671774_thumb.jpg

 

And the cab interior detailing is exquisite, especially when you realise this is all scratchbuilt, including the regulator handle painstakingly filed down, with what look to be dressmaking pins as the handholds...

post-793-0-97363200-1519671843_thumb.jpg

Another thing that's happened is that I've placed an order from Shapeways for a kit of the Millwall Extension Railway's Manning Wardle 2-4-0 loco... for which I blame Gary (BlueLightning), having seen his one. There are also a few T gauge wagons and locos in the parcel (mostly bought as a bit of fun and to test my painting skills) and there will be a special surprise item too, which I suspect nobody here will be able to guess!

Phew! All this finescale modelling is starting to get to me. Think I'll put this aside to let the paint dry, and crack out the Dremel again for this fictional 2-4-0 tender loco!

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

......... The Stroudley G class 2-2-2 has been slowly receiving a few coats of Phoenix Precision "Improved Engine Green" paint, applied by brush, and is looking much better for it. 

Looking good, but have the rear tender springs collapsed?  It's looking rather 'down' at the back!

 

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking good, but have the rear tender springs collapsed?  It's looking rather 'down' at the back!

 

Jim

Well noticed! Fortunately that can be remedied with a small packing piece of plasticard when the whole thing is reassembled, but thank you for pointing it out!

 

Sadly, progress with the 2-4-0 has somewhat ground to a halt. The major problem I'm having is that the T9 wheels have a very prominent boss in the centre of the wheels, and this means that the coupling rods are quite a way away from the tyres of the wheels. It means that they are quite wide. Now, the C class, the running plate of which I have been chopping up, is a fairly narrow locomotive, and I'm running out of running plate to carve off! I don't think the T9 chassis is going to be the way to go with this model. I had rather liked it, because the motor is fairly low so fits inside the boiler of the donor C class (very snugly, but it *does* fit).

 

No worries, I thought - I'll swap just the wheels over with some from another spare chassis. No joy there - the T9 appears to use 2mm diameter axles, which no other chassis I can find uses. So, things are at a standstill until I can figure out an alternative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't you take the coupling rods off and shave down the bosses?

 

Jim

 

Sadly not quite that simple - the brass threaded inserts in the wheel into which the crankpins screw are long enough that trying to shave down the bosses would end in a resounding "clunk" - they're too long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly not quite that simple - the brass threaded inserts in the wheel into which the crankpins screw are long enough that trying to shave down the bosses would end in a resounding "clunk" - they're too long.

Can't you file them down too?  Or would that not leave enough thread to hold the crankpins?

 

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

There only seems to be a few turns of the crankpin there, and the crankpin sockets are blind holes, not drilled through, so I'm nervous about wrecking the wheelset...

I'm not familiar with RTR construction, but it sounds to me as though they've been moulded into the wheel and will have some sort of locking/retaining lugs on them, so getting them out, deepening the holes and re-fitting them will be out of the question.  Pity.

 

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, the weather outside is frightful... 8 inches of snow outside, and no local buses, so we're not trying to go to work today. Having been sent home at 3pm yesterday, I think this is the safest, wisest move. 

As such, I'm bundled up indoors with tea and hot crumpets, and some wagons and lettering transfers... 

 

post-793-0-74767700-1519894978_thumb.jpg

[Edit: Who thought giving tare markings as individual digits and separate hyphens on a PRESSFIX transfer sheet was a good idea?!]

Edited by Skinnylinny
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that was fun... So, after taking the day off on Thursday due to a Met Office red weather alert for snow in Edinburgh (which was pretty bad - at least 8 inches of snow at my flat, no public transport for whole city for the first time in at least 15 years, government advice being to avoid travel unless absolutely essential, etc etc), I was back in at work on Friday, so no more modelling done there, other than the two wagons I got completed on Thursday: the Cambrian LSWR van (just needs handrails added to the doors and couplings) and a Great Southern cattle wagon from a Mainline model (the not-quite LMS van, which may yet end up on a Cambrian wooden underframe). The Stroudley brake van got a quick spray of etch primer too, which I picked up at the Glasgow show last weekend.

post-793-0-99835600-1520189652_thumb.jpg post-793-0-58433600-1520189670_thumb.jpg

However! Taking on board advice given earlier in the thread, and based on fiddling around with the working timetable (still very much a work in progress), I've made a few modifications to the trackplan. Firstly, there's no longer a single-track entrance/exit from the layout. This has now been upgraded to a double-track bridge by removing the short siding at that end. I've also extended both remaining sidings under the station building bridge (which may still be shifted to the left along the platforms, allowing it to link up to the ramp down to the bay/end-loading platform; I'm as yet undecided) and added an access ramp to the end of the sidings. I'm wondering whether inlaid/nearly buried track for the sidings would allow easier access for horse-drawn carts and traffic. This does, however, leave me with a large empty area to the left, to which I can't really add track (nor do I want to, I think I've got plenty!), but which I don't know what to do. I don't really want to add anything that's going to block the view of (or access to) the track too much. So far, options include an embankment, perhaps with a road near the front edge of the board then disappearing "off-scene" towards the viewer. Any suggestions from anyone?

 

post-793-0-11965400-1520188835_thumb.png

One other concern: I previously had a single slip for the exit from the sidings, crossing over the departure platform road. In order to have access from the sidings to the departure road, I might have to change this to a double slip, though I'm aware that these would likely have been very expensive and maintenance-intensive. Am I better re-laying the station throat to have a ladder of simple turnouts? I have to admit I did like the idea of a single slip but I think a double would be unrealistically complex, even in as tight a space as the one I'm representing...

 

post-793-0-03622600-1520190096_thumb.png

Edited by Skinnylinny
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh wow, that would really make the pointwork very compact... My only concern there is that I'm planning on using Peco Bullhead track, and while they've announced a single and double slip to come out this year, the tandem (three-way) point has yet to be announced, and I don't trust myself to build a tandem point as my first hand-built point!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

In tight places, the olden-days engineers were more liberal with complex pointwork than their successors, so I’d go for a tandem (three-way) and a double-slip, to avoid multiple reverse-curves.

They also had various degrees of aversion to facing points, so an alternative would be to simply reverse the crossover. This provides an arrival road which would be used almost exclusively for this - once a train has arrived, another cannot arrive until this road is clear, so it would not be allowed to remain blocked for too long.

 

Can yout clarify the role of the bay? Is it for parcels/milk/etc? Or is it for local traffic? If the latter, then it can arrive but not depart.

 

I will download your image and draw some lines, but a single slip is high in my mind.

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...