Jump to content
 

Building the Hertford Quad set from Mousa Models/Bill Bedford


Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...
On 17/05/2020 at 16:23, Baldyoldgit said:

If you have a copy of East Anglian Branch line Album by Dr Ian C  Allen , fig 110 shows a Hertford Quad in a March _ Cambridge train.

regards Tony.

Like the man said...

 

IMG_5585.JPG.dc71fb085460b9d246be68aeb974af8b.JPG

 

which helped me sort out some doubts about door handles...

 

best,

Marcus

Edited by EHertsGER
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Ok, we’re back.
 

First off, this is just a brief post to set things in motion again and to bring you up to speed with the quad project and so on. I admit I haven’t touched them for over a year, but I feel my excuse is valid; I spent the intervening period building a diag 310 steel articulated set ‘for practice’ if you like, sorting out bogies - I settled on the ABS ones as the ‘standard’ option, but for this project I am till mulling Comet vs MJT as well as how the glazing goes into Bill’s sides, which ‘undergubbins bits look best, where they go and why.

 

I built a few other things too: Coronation ‘City of London’, Schools ‘Rugby’ (another abandoned blog to be finished off soon), a couple more N7s and an F4 and ‘some’ wagons. Oh, and the rest of life happened too…


Well that’s my excuse. Or laziness.


Right now I have one set of turnbuckle queen posts in place on the diag 102 and am thinking about the turnbuckles. Last  time we looked I was chopping about MJT 61’ sets but recently I have looked them over and feel they are not quite ‘turnbuckly’ enough for me, so that is going to be our next adventure. After that, the rest of the undergubbins and the end ‘bits’, articulation, bogies interior, glazing and roof so we aren’t done yet! We could be here some time…

 

Welcome back!


best,

Marcus

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Must admit I really don't like Comet bogies. I find them too fiddly. Leaving the brake shoes off helps (and you don't get them with MJT anyway although I think they are available as an extra) but I just don't get on with them.

 

I have also tried building a set using Bill Bedford parts but again I just couldn't get on with them - I can tell once assembled they would work very well, but perhaps it's being left handed and a general ham-fisted fool I just couldn't get them to stay together.

 

MJT turnbuckles are a bit on the "representative" side rather than accurate but I'm happy to stick with them, although I do use 16BA nuts instead of the washers which I find helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So things move along, albeit slowly. On this occasion, only the queen posts have been added, using the MJT parts. Richard ‘Bucoops’ of hereabouts has commented that 16BA nuts would look better than those supplied - and I agree with him. However, right now, it appears nobody has any in stock. Add to that the cost of 64 of the little blighters (plus extra to feed the carpet) and we may just stick with the MJT ones. 
 

The next step the ‘undergubbins’ and for unravelling the mysteries of where it all goes, we can turn to Bill Bedford’s original floorpans which you remember I replaced but did not throw out. Everything is marked there for queen posts - making sure you also line them up with the rivets on the outside of the solebar - battery boxes and vacuum cylinders. Dynamos alas, are not, but if you are building one of these or the Isinglass kit you may well be of the sort that has a lot of drawings and photographs to help. Finally, the vacuum reserve tanks are easy to place, between the vacuum cylinder and the queen post. Most of that lot can be seen quite well under a very big magnifying glass in the photo I nicked from p 138 of the Harris book (see a previous post).

 

That brings us to battery boxes. Comparing Bill’s floorpan and ‘the’ photo it can been seen that there are differences. The 102 pan shows - and Bill supplies - double boxes between the queen posts, whereas the photo shows single boxes diagonally opposite each other. Do we know if both applied at different periods? 
 

For now I have assembled the floor of 102 as seen in my photo, but the battery boxes are I feel, still wrong and may yet become the post-1927 ones from Wizard (really nice). The vacuum cylinder frame is in the ‘right’ place but the reserve thank interferes with it, so may be moved once I have checked drawings and photos.
 

That’s it for now, with my apologies for the truly filthy state of my work. I will clean it, I promise.

 

The queen posts:

 

C838974B-96D4-40F5-9D4D-A985FBF09090.jpeg.2df9886b0ba5d9150b4974ccef54d34d.jpeg


Diag.  102 with ‘undergubbins’:

 

276ED702-D864-49C6-A5B6-2901991F68F4.jpeg.656ac276e04e5c71ad3c51f1b7b0af9e.jpeg

 

Note: the etching on the underside of Diag 105 is an MJT 51’ floorpan I had spare and used instead of cutting one. Ignore the marks as they are for a bogie coach.

 

best,

Marcus

Edited by EHertsGER
  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

As I expected, the vacuum cylinder cradle thingy is in the wrong place. Inspection of Mike Trice’s LNER underframe diagram (from MJT - anyone building LNER coaches needs one) we find the centre line of the vacuum cylinder shaft is 5’3 1/2” from the centre line of the nearest truss rod post/queen post, towards the outer end of the coach.
 

The V hanger nestles up behind the solebar, but I have opted to let it in slightly to avoid a clash with the truss rod. The prototype truss rod post/queen post is slightly outboard of the solebar centre line, but on the etched parts it is on the center line (at least on this set of coaches it is!) You’ll see in the next photos of the completed undergubbins sets…

 

more anon,

Marcus

Link to post
Share on other sites

And so to the ‘undergubbins’…

 

I am going to approach this by adding a few notes on what choices we have in assembling all this as well as notes on how to do so and placement. So;

 

Vacuum cylinders

 

As a common ‘presence’ under coaches we have a few options including the Comet cylinders and separate V-hangers (the latter also supplied by Bill in the kit and marked for insertion of a tab on the floor pan we are not using), the brass Markits set (nice and I would probably have used these if I had them in stock), the MJT set, Lanarkshire Models vacuum cylinders and, I am sure, others. As construction was largely soldered that let the Lanarkshire ones off the hook as they tend to disappear at the first sign of heat. The Comet cylinders did not look ‘right’ to me , being a bit too ‘LMS-y’ for this job, not to mention being a bit too big. Alas even the MJT set did not escape as I preferred to use the ‘cradle’ and the cylinder but fabricate the shaft and actuating levers.

 

Placing them, however, proved to be an adventure on its own. The Bedford floor pans had positions marked, but they turned out not to take into account the placing of the vacuum reserve cylinders and so were too close to the truss rod posts.

 

So, taking as a reliable datum the ‘star’ mark on the solebar denoting the location of the dynamo support bracket, my MJT plan tells me the vacuum cylinder shaft was 2’ behind this toward the truss rod posts. This is borne out by there being plenty of room for the vacuum reserve tank (MJT), so that is where they go. Or, in other words, 4’ 10” outboard of the nearest truss rod post. The V-hanger should be up against the inside of the solebar, but I have inset it by ~ 0.5mm to avoid clashing with the truss rod. Clear? No? Buy Mike Trice’s drawing. I am not reproducing any of it here so you do go and buy it and support his business. So there.

 

Truss rod queen posts

 

Our choice here is the Comet set, the ones supplied by Bill and the MJT set. The Comet set and Bill’s fall at the first fence as they only have posts for the outer rods. MJT saves the day with the full four post arrangement. Take your cue from the solebar rivets and the markings on Bill’s floor pan to locate these.

 

There has been some chatter about the inner rods being mounted higher than the outer rods, but from my photographs (see a previous page) this seems not to be the case for the Hertford sets (but is for the GE quint if Isinglass is accurate). In short, no cutting about here, just mount them with either the supplied ‘nut/washer/thingy’ or, if you can get them, 16BA nuts. I would have done the 16BA nuts but I wanted to get on. I am happy with the results once the rods are installed.

 

Truss rods

 

Comet or MJT? Neither. The Comet ones are too 2-dimensional for me and are only the outer ones anyway, so that doubles the number I would need to buy to chop up. MJT are pretty good, but once one has tried the ‘fabricated’ route, one tends not to look back.

 

As with every etched product, there is an element of ‘flatness’ aligned with the sheet from which they come. Truss rods are round – 1 ½” to be precise, or 0.5mm dia brass wire in our world instead.

 

I fabricated the turnbuckles from thin-walled brass tube (2.5mm outside and 2mm inside dia. I think, probably from K&S). My approach is to drill #76 across the diameter of the tube and then saw off the drilled section leaving around ½ mm either side (it does not matter how much, as we shall see). Insert a length of brass wire through the hole leaving enough ‘tail’ either side to provide the truss rod lengths. Now, squash the slice of tube down onto the wire until you have formed a turnbuckle shape. Solder if you wish, but the squashing seems to be enough to hold it. File either side until you have a slim turnbuckle piece just wider than the rod.

 

I did try to replicate the gap between the rod ends inside the turnbuckle but after messing about with one I gave up. The gaps will only be visible on the outer rods anyway, saving you doing so on the inner ones, but my eyesight is not good enough to spot them.

 

Securing the rods is the next fun bit. Cut the inner rods to size to fit the gap between the posts and the thickness of the post at each end. Take each end and squash them in a pair of pliers to leave only the distance between posts unsquashed. File the squashed ends to shape to give a half round locating lug that will fit around the post but only halfway and solder in place over the first nut/washer/thingy - or 16BA nut if you are being posh - with the rods and their ‘locator’ on the inner side of the posts.

 

Take each end rod in turn and do the same ‘squashed end’ to the inner ends only. Now, locate the squashed ‘locator’ over the outer side of the corresponding post to (hopefully) form a complete circle around the post. Add the outer nut/washer/thingy and solder.

 

Solder the other end’s ‘tail’ to the solebar or floor for outer or inner rods respectively, making sure they line up with a) the rivets on the outside of the solebar and b) each other.

 

Dynamos

 

MJT or Comet. This time Comet wins out, placed 1’ 11 ¼ “ further outboard from the vacuum cylinder activator shafts, mounting peg hole drilled, and soldered in place. The mounting peg should be set 7mm inboard from the rear of the solebar.

 

Battery boxes

 

Battery boxes! Ugh! Battery boxes. Here we go; Bill provides a nice set of battery boxes for the set that fold up from a couple of pieces of brass and require some handles and so on. Nice. For something else.

 

Firstly, unless these sets had their battery boxes moved around (Steve Banks???) they are all wrong for the set and in the wrong places. Studying the photos I note there are no double boxes but all those present are single boxes and that there are only two per coach diagonally opposite each other within the truss rod queen post supports as they run across the chassis. Clear? Check the photo on a previous page.

 

This would be fine if these sets had their boxes moved around, but, as they were built in 1929, it is unlikely that any subsequent rearrangements would have reverted to the GN type boxes supplied by Bill. So wrong boxes anyway.

 

This leaves us the question as to which one do we use; Comet, MJT, Wizard or others I do not know about. The cast offerings from Comet are single boxes of the post 1927 type (the difference is in the way they are slung; pre-’27 boxes are supported on shafts that run underneath and bolt into supports at the side. Post ’27 boxes are supported on flat sections that fit over supports to the side and are bolted from underneath. Clear? MJT drawing. You know it makes sense.) Just what we need if we are reluctant to detail or solder anything tricky. And why not; they are nice castings, albeit lacking any backing but usable. Even the cast handles look good.

 

The MJTs are double post ’27 boxes, so must be sawn in half. They do come with an etched set of supports (nice detail there) but that will only be good for one of the two you have just created by sawing them in half. Once again, usable, but in my view the wrong kind of fiddling about to get them ‘right’

 

So, of course, I had to opt for the Wizard boxes. These are an etched kit of front, sides, base and rear, separate straps and a need for wire handles. And are double boxes.

 

So, first things first, in the flat, fit the handles and straps (as opposed to the safety strap. Try to keep up.). Cut them in half and file down the sawn half to remove the remaining central pillar. You can use the side/base etch if you like, but as with the MJT this will only do one set for each double box you have, but will, at least, go some way to reducing the work. You will not need the safety strap, but they will come in handy for fabricating those supports I am about to mention.

 

At this point I have to observe the oddity that is the photograph of these boxes on the Wizard site and product package. There appears to be some form of ‘tang’ folded across the top of the boxes, ostensibly to secure the box to the floor of a coach. However, inspection of the actual etches reveal to me that this is the set of support straps that should fold own the outside of the battery box (the etched line being on the outside of the bend.) so I have no idea how this anomaly came to be.

 

Anyway, back to the job in hand. Either cut the middle out of the side/base etch or fold up a new strip of brass to fit where the etched side/base would have gone, making sure you have enough extension to suspend the boxes from the coach floor and solder into a box shape. Add support straps to the sides by either folding down the ones on the etched part or from scrap or strip (or safety straps you do not need) to suit, then add the flat support plates underneath and you have a pretty, well…pretty…battery box, if such a thing is possible.

 

Other bits and bobs.

 

Peering at the MJT drawing (told you you would need one…) there are several pipes and so on but I feel they may be too fiddly, which leaves only the steam pipe as a piece of 0.5mm brass wire.

 

That is enough for now as I work to finish off what I started above. More anon, as they say.

 

Best,

Marcus

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

Knowing how we all like a picture or two, here are some that might be useful:

 

 

1804570510_Turnbuckletrussrods2.jpg.2c2c4db7cde975eaa63493a35b260338.jpg

1. What it is all supposed to look like (OK, it is from a 61' coach, but you get the idea) including the post-'27 battery boxes.

 

1101809812_IMG_2509(002).jpg.eeac58d0b1d4e36219f1458d4ee622d7.jpg

2. The MJT vacuum cylinder 'cradle', cylinder and fabricated cross shaft/actuating levers, the Comet dynamo and MJT vacuum reserve cylinder.

 

938588878_IMG_2512(002).jpg.5b1474a71959ac1fe95e7cecf29499bc.jpg

3. Side view showing how it all looks 'en-masse' (diagram 102)

 

1458763315_IMG_2510(002).jpg.29a4145b95fcc05f4b99935e5ad307d4.jpg

4. Truss rod queen posts with barely visible 'half-round, squashed end' connection of the rods.

 

2145928486_IMG_2511(002).jpg.d57adbd1facab98c1ccabb4db8b4a5e7.jpg

5. 'Those' battery boxes - the right boxes in the right place (set back 4mm from the solebar)!

 

Now to go and finish this one and do it all again three more times! 

 

More anon.

 

Best,

Marcus

Edited by EHertsGER
  • Like 7
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

A bit late but does the NRM have drawings for the H-Quad underframes? I got some very poor but still just about readable ones for the quints which shows the truss rod arrangement (and confirms the centre ones are lower than the outer ones) but not brake fittings etc. I need to have another trawl to try and find GA ones that show the fittings but it's hard work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bucoops said:

A bit late but does the NRM have drawings for the H-Quad underframes? I got some very poor but still just about readable ones for the quints which shows the truss rod arrangement (and confirms the centre ones are lower than the outer ones) but not brake fittings etc. I need to have another trawl to try and find GA ones that show the fittings but it's hard work!

 

 

Richard

 

I am taking my guidance from the photograph on p138 of Harris’ book, but it’s hard to tell. The nearest coach (dia 105) looks as if this might be the case, or not, but on p116 is another dia 105 in a twin set showing the four lining up together. Were they staggered only on quad/quints? My interpretation is that the end (dias 105/102) coaches were built on standard 51’ frames, which we know, and so the truss rods were all aligned, being ‘standard’ an’ all. There seems little point redesigning a standard under-frame just for these fourteen sets.
 

Now you’re going to find that drawing, I just know it…

 

best,

Marcus

Edited by EHertsGER
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, EHertsGER said:

Richard

 

I am taking my guidance from the photograph on p138 of Harris’ book, but it’s hard to tell. The nearest coach (dia 105) looks as if this might be the case, or not, but on p116 is another dia 105 in a twin set showing the four lining up together. Were they staggered only on quad/quints? My interpretation is that the end (dias 105/102) coaches were built on standard 51’ frames, which we know, and so the truss rods were all aligned, being ‘standard’ an’ all. There seems little point redesigning a standard under-frame just for these fourteen sets.
 

Now you’re going to find that drawing, I just know it…

 

best,

Marcus

 

Looking again at the quint drawings, it's only the outer underframes that have the different height (depth?) trusses - the inner ones are even. Quint coaches are all the same body length so it must be due to the end bogies being set inboard compared to articulated ones. If the H-Quad sets have longer underframes for the outers then it would possibly make sense that all of them were the same depth?

 

I haven't found anything obvious in the Stratford drawings list for your set - will see if I can find the main LNER ones on the NRM site again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

"Stratford" Drawing list - https://www.gersociety.org.uk/index.php/collection/65-stratford-drawings-and-microfilm-lists-nrm-format-7-19

 

LNER Dwg list - https://www.railwaymuseum.org.uk/sites/default/files/2019-01/London %26 North Eastern Carriage and Wagon.pdf

 

I think where it refers to suburban quad it means the KX ones? However I did see this on page 597:

 

110 13285 D 31/5/1928 P 51’-0½” Underframe for Articulated Stock 13285.D* Underframe, bogie outer, quad 10” x 5”, twin 9½” x 4 3/8”, inner 10” x 5”; HNG 1/8/1928

 

But that's it - everything else with "quad" in is for suburban sets or wagons. "Hertford" doesn't reveal anything useful and the lists don't appear to mention diagram numbers.

Edited by Bucoops
Link to post
Share on other sites

Diagram 105 was also used for a number of twins, so the underframe is likely to be the same as used on all of the 1928-30 twins. The intermediate carriages have the same length as the intermediates on the GN Quads and Quints, so the H Quads are likely to have had the same underframes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, billbedford said:

Diagram 105 was also used for a number of twins, so the underframe is likely to be the same as used on all of the 1928-30 twins. The intermediate carriages have the same length as the intermediates on the GN Quads and Quints, so the H Quads are likely to have had the same underframes. 

Thank you, Bill - I spotted that on p116 of ‘the’ Harris book (opposed to the other ones). I am really enjoying building this set and would be interested in any comments on my approach. Looking at it even at its present state of ‘finish’ it’s an impressive sight. The twin set I mentioned was your diag 310 sides grafted onto an old Kemilway kit. Nice.

 

best,

Marcus

Edited by EHertsGER
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Signs of progress - and of an actual Hertford Quad. Compared to the photo in Harris, I think its coming together well. I admit its a bit grubby and it isn’t sitting as well as it should but we’re nearly there.

12ED3069-B577-40A0-B1C1-745F85896042.jpeg.9b5fe215a2f60d1a2e2bc0e9893027f9.jpeg

More as things progress. Bogies by Comet, wheels by Exactoscale, roofs by MJT vents by someone on Shapeways, buffers by Kean-Maygib. 
 

best,

Marcus

  • Like 10
  • Round of applause 2
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...