sem34090 Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 It also has that cohesive GSR look, which I always liked and felt was appropriate in its resemblance to SECR Practice. One of these with a Stirling cab would look good... 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinnylinny Posted January 27, 2020 Author Share Posted January 27, 2020 1 hour ago, sem34090 said: It also has that cohesive GSR look, which I always liked and felt was appropriate in its resemblance to SECR Practice. One of these with a Stirling cab would look good... Thank you! That's what I'm going for by using all the Wainwright-y bits time and again. Trying to give a feel of most of the stock having been designed by one CME. That is the stock from the Guildford and Surrey Railway, at least. The Linton and Bagshot Railway stock is rather more varied, hence the Sharp, Stewart 0-6-0, the Millwall-type Manning Wardle and the ex-Electrotren 0-6-0 (which claims to be an Andrew Barclay!) - they tended to buy in locos from outside builders. The carriages generally seem to follow GWR paneling practice, for example - just a coincidence that it happens to be easily replicated by bashing Ratio kit sides and Triang clerestory stock! 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CKPR Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 Mind you, some of the smaller railways, such as the M&CR and the SMJR, had very heterogenous collections of engines with little or no discernible 'house style'. The M&CR built engines to their own designs at Maryport works, sometimes built one-off copies of their neighbours' engines and occasionally bought in engines to the designs of other railways. The final two M&CR engines, 0-6-0s Nos 29 and 30, were built by the Yorkshire Engine Co. ostensibly to an H&BR design but ended up looking more like a GCR 9J. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Regularity Posted January 28, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 28, 2020 I disagree. The SMJR locos have a very definite style to them, or at least the majority of the locos (3,4,10,11,12 and 14-18) are from two distinct designs from Beyer Peacock, usefully differentiated as curved outside frames with 5’ wheels and straight outside frames with 4’9” wheels. Even 5 and 6 were a pair, and 7-9 were all DX goods, although from a notoriously standardised class, they managed to get three different visual examples. More info here. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CKPR Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 I knew I should have used the C&WJR as my second example rather than the highly standardised SMJR... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Regularity Posted January 29, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 29, 2020 4 hours ago, CKPR said: I knew I should have used the C&WJR as my second example rather than the highly standardised SMJR... Ah, but if you had referred to the East and West Junction Railway, the SMJR precursor, you would have been on slightly safer ground, especially pre-1895! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CKPR Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 The worst of it is that I can see my copy of Ahrons from where I'm sitting... 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Regularity Posted January 29, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 29, 2020 2 minutes ago, CKPR said: The worst of it is that I can see my copy of Ahrons from where I'm sitting... The secret is to open the pages and read the words! 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CKPR Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 (edited) Izzit 'eck, ars too busy deeking at M&CR enjuns in Jenkinson & Essery's "An Illustrated History of LMS Locomotives" (the clue as they say is in the title !) Edited January 29, 2020 by CKPR 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Regularity Posted January 29, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 29, 2020 6 minutes ago, CKPR said: ars .... deeking Is that what the "brown eye" is used for? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinnylinny Posted January 30, 2020 Author Share Posted January 30, 2020 Well, I know when I started the 0-4-4t project, I had a spare Hornby Jinty chassis lying about... but can I find it now? The Bachmann chassis I have is no use, being front-wheel-driven (meaning that there's a coupling rod joint between the driven and the middle wheelset, so no use for chopping into a four-coupled chassis). I had a peek at a Nellie chassis but the wheels are too small for this mixed-traffic engine, being the same size as Hornby Terrier wheels (albeit with a rather larger flange!). Some of the Hornby Jinty chassiseseses (what on earth is the correct plural of chassis?) have traction tyres on the centre drivers. These I definitely want to avoid, as otherwise I'll end up with pickup on only one set of wheels (plus whatever pickups I can fit to the trailing bogie. Some of the chassis also have a sprung rear axle, which I equally wish to avoid, for the sake of a rigid four-wheeled mainframe. Still more of them have flangeless centre drivers (including those with the traction tyres). This chassis hunting malarkey is a bit of a minefield! So far the best bet I've found is a Thomas chassis (although this will mean repainting the wheels to cover the garish powder-blue). Then I need to find some less-chunky coupling rods. Of course, the Hornby Jinty isn't an 8'+8'6" chassis either, so I'll need to find a 33mm 4-coupled coupling rod or modify a suitable 6-coupled one. I don't think the Mainly Trains etched rods for this chassis are still available, unfortunately. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwealleans Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 Chassis. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted January 30, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 30, 2020 10 hours ago, jwealleans said: Chassis. But pronounced chasseez. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinnylinny Posted February 5, 2020 Author Share Posted February 5, 2020 So, a chassis for the 0-4-4t has been procured! It'll be winging its way to me shortly. I've also managed to get some work (on a strictly temporary basis, but it puts off homelessness for another 6 months, so...). It's been a bit of a busy week. I've been gradually trying to slim down my collection of BR-era rolling stock, so been going through the stock boxes. Three Mainline/Bachmann short cattle wagons have been unearthed. Thus far, one is in GSR grey (although after someone's comments about lettering styles, I'm less happy about the capital G that has been used - the tail is very atypical of the times). The other two are in shades of brown, which I was considering as the wagon livery. I'd also like to replace the steel channel solebar underframes with wooden solebar ones, but at 15'6" over headstocks I'm struggling to find one suitable RTR, and the Cambrian kit underframes only go up to 16'. Perhaps another 3D printing job! Either that or bodge the Cambrian ones with a bit of Plastruct. I've got a soft spot for those ex-Mainline ones, being nice models but not quite accurate for anything in particular. Perfect for my requirements! Speaking of Cambrian underframes and RTR bodies, I also dug out two of these Triang (ex-Trackmaster) van bodies which I'd mounted on Cambrian underframes to create a GSR van - it transforms the look of what are actually very nice, crisp mouldings, and gives a very nice early freelance van. Sure, the bolt heads are a bit big, but who's measuring? And finally, we dug out a couple of locos at the club night last night to have a bit of a historic lineup: Rocket (1829), Jenny Lind (1847), City of Glasgow (1940) and Metronet Pathfinder (2006) 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caley Jim Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 1 hour ago, Skinnylinny said: .......I'd also like to replace the steel channel solebar underframes with wooden solebar ones, but at 15'6" over headstocks I'm struggling to find one suitable RTR, and the Cambrian kit underframes only go up to 16'. ..... Sorry, Linny, but I don't quite follow that. If the cattle trucks are 15'6" oh and the Cambrian kits are 16', what is the problem? Can you not cut a a mm off either end of the Cambrian solebars to reduce the length? Or am I missing something, not being a modeller in one of the larger scales? Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinnylinny Posted February 5, 2020 Author Share Posted February 5, 2020 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Caley Jim said: Sorry, Linny, but I don't quite follow that. If the cattle trucks are 15'6" oh and the Cambrian kits are 16', what is the problem? Can you not cut a a mm off either end of the Cambrian solebars to reduce the length? Or am I missing something, not being a modeller in one of the larger scales? Jim Oops, my mistake. I was misremembering. The cattle trucks are 17'9" across the ends of the body (excluding end stanchions), which strikes me as an odd length, but oh well. Edited February 5, 2020 by Skinnylinny 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
richbrummitt Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 As you probably know the GWR were early to adopt iron for solebars and other parts of wagons. What you .ay not have known is the L*WR (I cannot recall off the top of my head if it should be an N or an S) experimented with iron for cattle wagons fairly early on. I found this out when I went looking for prototype info on a wagon I was building. Some lots were built with wood and some with iron. I modelled the latter to be different. From what I recall now it was the use and cleaning assumed to cause them to wear/rot out more quickly hence the trial. On to my point: you could claim the same for your companies cattle wagons. If the channel is too deep to your eyes to look like iron, as opposed to steel channel, then reducing the amount the bottom of the channel protrudes might be a possibility to get a satisfactory appearance? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted February 5, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 5, 2020 21 minutes ago, richbrummitt said: If the channel is too deep to your eyes to look like iron, as opposed to steel channel, then reducing the amount the bottom of the channel protrudes might be a possibility to get a satisfactory appearance? Or file back and overlay to represent a wooden solebar. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinnylinny Posted February 5, 2020 Author Share Posted February 5, 2020 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Compound2632 said: Or file back and overlay to represent a wooden solebar. That might mean a bit of work to replace the steel-channel bufferbeams also - the thin ends are rather visible! 50 minutes ago, richbrummitt said: As you probably know the GWR were early to adopt iron for solebars and other parts of wagons... you could claim the same for your companies cattle wagons. An interesting thought, and I like it... but I think that I'd prefer to stick with wooden, purely on the grounds of it being common. I've already got a fair few "this company is unusual in that {insert thing here}" so the more typical things I can build in, the more believable the scene will be. Edited February 5, 2020 by Skinnylinny 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
richbrummitt Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Skinnylinny said: That might mean a bit of work to replace the steel-channel bufferbeams also - the thin ends are rather visible! You could fill/pack them too so that they appear solid? Should work. Edited February 5, 2020 by richbrummitt 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinnylinny Posted February 7, 2020 Author Share Posted February 7, 2020 Well, some basic painting got done last night, but that's about it - two cattle wagons and two vans as above. Before: And after: I've intentionally used a few different shades of dark grey to represent fading paint on the wagons. I'm now on the look out for some wagon transfers - I might end up designing a sheet to go off to one of the custom transfer printers, as I can't print white lettering and I'm not trying to colour match half a dozen different shades of grey in order to print on white transfer paper! Colour matching one colour is bad enough... I note that the GSR is chronically short of open wagons, so I'll have to do something about that. 10 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinnylinny Posted February 17, 2020 Author Share Posted February 17, 2020 Well, the transfer situation still hasn't been figured out; I'm probably going to have to get a couple of sheets of HMRS Scottish Pre-grouping wagon transfers. I can use the G and S from GNoSR and G&SWR wagons - they seem fairly similar in terms of typeface. Anyone for NB, CR or HR (also spare &, N W and R) transfers in 4mm? It does mean though that I'll get various other lettering thrown, such as "Goods Brake" (presumably not still "break" by 1900?), "Fish", "Machinery", "Lime", and "Ballast", which is a bonus. I was sorting through more boxes and came across a built and painted (unlettered) Ratio gunpowder van. I'd obviously nicked the wheels and buffers and couplings from it for another project. A spare half hour before the visitors arrived, with some wheels and Bachmann sprung buffers, plus some transfers from the odds-and-ends bits and: Looks like I still need to remove some residual glue from the transfer sheet around the GUNPOWDER lettering, but otherwise I'm quite happy with this. That buffer on the left with the distinct upwards lean hasn't been glued in place yet, so will be straightened! This wagon is presumably used to serve the nearby military camp at Bisley. One hopes it is carefully unloaded far from any open flames! 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caley Jim Posted February 17, 2020 Share Posted February 17, 2020 Gunpowder vans were often red in colour and had large lettering right across the van. There was usually a notice on one of the doors stating 'No person must enter this van without first putting on the magazine boots which will be found inside of door'. Presumably these were rubber boots which prevented any risk of sparks from the hob-nailed boots worn by staff. Jim 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted February 17, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 17, 2020 5 minutes ago, Caley Jim said: Gunpowder vans were often red in colour and had large lettering right across the van. There was usually a notice on one of the doors stating 'No person must enter this van without first putting on the magazine boots which will be found inside of door'. Presumably these were rubber boots which prevented any risk of sparks from the hob-nailed boots worn by staff. Often but not always. Midland ones were the standard wagon grey. The notice is de rigueur though. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinnylinny Posted February 17, 2020 Author Share Posted February 17, 2020 GWR ones were black (note: not wagon grey!) with red and white lettering. The notice I'll definitely need to add to the door - does anyone do a suitable etch? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now