The Saltport Saga

[Barclay]

Come on I hear you cry - this is the standard gauge industrial section, where are the industrials? By about 1996 or 7 the layout was starting to take shape and I had 2 loco's that ran OK but not great - and they weren't industrials ! I had been building a Connoisseur Kits Stanier Brake van in etched brass and absolutely loved it, so I decided to get myself an etched loco kit. The one chosen was the Impetus large Bagnall 0-4-0T, in reality unique I believe. The kit was the last one left in stock - I hadn't realised but Impetus was being run down prior to sale so I was just in time. By a strange quirk of fate the range ended up in the hands of Richard of Karlgarin Models, once my old local model shop, although by this time only selling mail order, and subsequently on-line. There has been much talk about the way the kits were never re-introduced but I do know that Richard had a bad motorbike crash and this severely affected his ability to do the necessary work.

 

The kit was just the thing for a first-timer - robust and not too much fiddly detail. It was also my first compensated loco and I have never looked back. Without the clever transmissions we have these days the motor recommendation was a small open frame Mashima 9/16 sitting vertically in the firebox, and I followed this but used 60:1 Romfords rather than the 40:1 suggested. There can't be a lot of power left but I don't ask for much and it has always run very well indeed, although it can sound like a cement mixer at times.

 

Those old photo's again - hard to quantify why I like them better. These show the loco. before it received its Narrow Planet worksplates and fleet number plate by A1. This was a post-war loco so is more or less new here...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2022 by Barclay

[Mol_PMB]

Superb little loco!

I think one of the differences between old and new photos is the lighting. The old pics look as if there's a bit of brightness in the sky whereas the new ones were definitely taken on a gloomy day and I can almost feel it starting to spit with rain. A bit like it is right now here in west Manchester!

[rope runner]

Yes, this 16'' 0-4-0 Bagnall was unique - 2907 of 1949 named DNT. Loco lasted until the end of steam at Staveley Ironworks and was reputedly much liked by crews. The rear buffers were replaced with large flat topped ovals as the loco was prone to buffer lock at this end owing to her size and relatively long rear overhang. I have one of these Impetus kits in the "stash" but will be building with a conventional smokebox door, which was fitted from new. Replacement dogged smokebox doors were something of a norm at Staveley. 

 

There was another 16'' four coupled loco produced by Bagnall which was near identical, except that it had a cut down cab and dropped footplate, this being 2993 of 1950. 

 

Paul A. 

Edited March 12, 2021 by 1whitemoor

[Regularity]

5 hours ago, Mol_PMB said:

A bit like it is right now always here in west Manchester!

Meteorological correction!

[Sandhole]

14 hours ago, Barclay said:

Come on I hear you cry - this is the standard gauge industrial section, where are the industrials? By about 1996 or 7 the layout was starting to take shape and I had 2 loco's that ran OK but not great - and they weren't industrials ! I had been building a Connoisseur Kits Stanier Brake van in etched brass and absolutely loved it, so I decided to get myself an etched loco kit. The one chosen was the Impetus large Bagnall 0-4-0T, in reality unique I believe. The kit was the last one left in stock - I hadn't realised but Impetus was being run down prior to sale so I was just in time. By a strange quirk of fate the range ended up in the hands of Richard of Karlgarin Models, once my old local model shop, although by this time only selling mail order, and subsequently on-line. There has been much talk about the way the kits were never re-introduced but I do know that Richard had a bad motorbike crash and this severely affected his ability to do the necessary work.

 

The kit was just the thing for a first-timer - robust and not too much fiddly detail. It was also my first compensated loco and I have never looked back. Without the clever transmissions we have these days the motor recommendation was a small open frame Mashima 9/16 sitting vertically in the firebox, and I followed this but used 60:1 Romfords rather than the 40:1 suggested. There can't be a lot of power left but I don't ask for much and it has always run very well indeed, although it can sound like a cement mixer at times.

 

Those old photo's again - hard to quantify why I like them better. Final pic is more recent showing the loco with its Narrow Planet worksplates and fleet number plate by A1. This was a post-war loco so is more or less new here...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry about that building - I'm thinking of changing the point control on this section to hacked servo's and I might need to put one or two in it before I bed it down properly!

Yours is the only other made up model I have seen.
Mine was built by my Friend Mike as a birthday present.
I really must weather her. Some scenery would be nice too.

[Barclay]

17 hours ago, Mol_PMB said:

Superb little loco!

I think one of the differences between old and new photos is the lighting. The old pics look as if there's a bit of brightness in the sky whereas the new ones were definitely taken on a gloomy day and I can almost feel it starting to spit with rain. A bit like it is right now here in west Manchester!

I think you have hit the nail on the head. 

 

Years ago and maybe 10-12 years when these older photo's were taken the layout was lit with Halogen spotlights. These were replaced by daylight balanced striplights, and I remember doing much A/B comparison before deciding the striplights looked better without the spots as well. But of course the camera has a much poorer ability to register different light levels than the human eye. Having said that I have only really started to become dissatisfied since I switched 'phones from an ancient Nokia Lumia windows 'phone to a new Nokia 3.4. Could it be the 6-7 year old Lumia had a better camera? I have now found the old digital compact camera and charged it up overnight so will try some test shots this weekend for comparison. I do also have a Nikon DSLR but it's so bulky I don't find it much use for layout work.

[SR71]

I've found in getting 'smarter' the Android software white balancing gets itself in a muddle with multiple light sources. If you haven't already try the more button next to video and then select pro. You can play with settings as if it were a regular camera in there.

 

Really enjoy the thread and your loco builds are something to aspire to.

[Sandhole]

Seeing the Doxford Crane Tank in the background, am I right in thinking it is to a different scale than 4mm?
It looks rather small. Having seen the real things, I do not think they are that small.
In these times of lockdown apathy, seeing your layout has re-invigorated my mojo.
Regards,
Chris.

[Barclay]

5 hours ago, Sandhole said:

Seeing the Doxford Crane Tank in the background, am I right in thinking it is to a different scale than 4mm?
It looks rather small. Having seen the real things, I do not think they are that small.
In these times of lockdown apathy, seeing your layout has re-invigorated my mojo.
Regards,
Chris.

Thanks Chris - Yes, the crane tank kit was an unfortunate lesson for us all that we should never make a model directly from a drawing without checking the drawing is what it says it is! In this case Railway Modeller in the early 70's published a drawing to allegedly 4mm but if you check the dimensions it is absolutely 3.5mm !!

[Sandhole]

5 hours ago, Barclay said:

Thanks Chris - Yes, the crane tank kit was an unfortunate lesson for us all that we should never make a model directly from a drawing without checking the drawing is what it says it is! In this case Railway Modeller in the early 70's published a drawing to allegedly 4mm but if you check the dimensions it is absolutely 3.5mm !!

OOPS.
Good job the Garrett kit was 4mm.

[Barclay]

No.32 is one of the saddle tank locomotives made by Hawthorn Leslie and later Robert Stephenson and Hawthorns, that to me, absolutely epitomise the classic industrial locomotive.

 

Having built the Impetus Bagnall I had realised that brass, as a means of making locomotives, is about a thousand times more pleasing to use than white metal, which I have tried (quite unsuccessfully) to avoid ever since. When High Level Kits  appeared on the market I had coveted their RSH 0-4-0ST and quite soon I had to have one. The kit is slightly more complex, and certainly better detailed, than the older Impetus but the real revelation was the design of the drivetrain, with a decent can motor hidden in a boiler that is attached to the chassis, and a double reduction gearbox supplied with the kit.  The loco. is a smooth and capable runner - from time to time I demonstrate on the EM gauge Society stand at certain exhibitions, and I always take a rolling road with me to create extra interest for visitors. This loco. has probably been to more exhibitions than any of the others, and left running all day will easily run one or two actual miles. It has therefore accumulated a very decent mileage and still runs superbly, a credit to Chris Gibbons' design.

 

My loco's have all had running numbers from some etches by A1 Models - I bought a good number some years ago and hope they will see me out. I also equip them all with builders' plates from Narrow Planet - a superb service, where you can choose the actual works number and year of manufacture, and very reasonably priced. I do wonder why makers of industrial loco. kits don't include a works plate (Backwoods used to) as they are such a distinctive feature of the industrial scene.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2022 by Barclay

[Adam]

Ah! Lovely! I've done one of those, my first standard gauge etched loco (and as good an introduction as you could wish for). Wulfstan remains a favourite and has a Railway Executive plate allowing it out on the mainline, much to the annoyance of a chap at a show who said it shouldn't be out without one, only to be told that yes, we knew and yes, it did.

 

 

Adam

[Sandhole]

On 22/03/2021 at 11:39, Barclay said:

No.32 is one of the saddle tank locomotives made by Hawthorn Leslie and later Robert Stephenson and Hawthorns, that to me, absolutely epitomise the classic industrial locomotive.

 

Having built the Impetus Bagnall I had realised that brass, as a means of making locomotives, is about a thousand times more pleasing to use than white metal, which I have tried (quite unsuccessfully) to avoid ever since. When High Level Kits  appeared on the market I had coveted their RSH 0-4-0ST and quite soon I had to have one. The kit is slightly more complex, and certainly better detailed, than the older Impetus but the real revelation was the design of the drivetrain, with a decent can motor hidden in a boiler that is attached to the chassis, and a double reduction gearbox supplied with the kit.  The loco. is a smooth and capable runner - from time to time I demonstrate on the EM gauge Society stand at certain exhibitions, and I always take a rolling road with me to create extra interest for visitors. This loco. has probably been to more exhibitions than any of the others, and left running all day will easily run one or two actual miles. It has therefore accumulated a very decent mileage and still runs superbly, a credit to Chris Gibbons' design.

 

My loco's have all had running numbers from some etches by A1 Models - I bought a good number some years ago and hope they will see me out. I also equip them all with builders' plates from Narrow Planet - a superb service, where you can choose the actual works number and year of manufacture, and very reasonably priced. I do wonder why makers of industrial loco. kits don't include a works plate (Backwoods used to) as they are such a distinctive feature of the industrial scene.

 

 

 

 

 

I run the Agenoria HL saddle tank that Mike modified to an RSH example. Looks a bit battered now, but still runs beautifully.
In my 'loft insulation', I have a Center Models and High Level kit.
Problem is, my unwanted guest means I'm having to rationalise my store of unbuilt kits. 
Mortality is a pain .
That's why I'm loving the 3D industrial stuff.
Looking forward to seeing the rest of the locos.
Here's the big and small of the Manchester Steel fleet.
Regards,
Chris.

Edited March 25, 2021 by Sandhole

[Barclay]

When Backwoods Miniatures brought out their RSH crane tank kit it wasn't long before I had to have one. It was a beautiful jewel of a kit - Sharman's even made a special wheel for it. For reasons I can't remember it was some years before I got 'round to building it, and in the intervening period something unfortunate happened. I admired one at an exhibition and the layout's owner told me the kit was actually to HO scale instead of 4mm, as advertised. Back home I rushed to look up the drawings in an old Railway Modeller (1970?) - phew, the model matched the drawing, the fellow was talking nonsense. I don't know what made me check the drawing itself against the dimensions, and it was then that I realised the RM had produced the drawings to 3.5mm scale. Presumably the kit manufacturer had dimensioned the kit directly off the drawing.

 

 

I now had a dilemma - build it, even though I knew it was wrong? The answer was 'yes' of course and I've never regretted it, it's a lovely thing to have, but it is really small ! The photo's show this, and it's the relationship to the buffers of the runner wagon that really show up the discrepancy. The runner is built from a very old Wills Match Truck kit. I hadn't built a runner initially but it was on the loco's first operating session that I realised why crane tanks need them, unless the jib is to smash a hole in the next van it tries to shunt. How smart am I?

 

Some years ago the loco. sheared one of the gears in it's bespoke gearbox, and Backwoods, still around at the time, sold me a new gearbox etch and gears. Their gearboxes aren't great as I discovered when building their industrial Beyer Garratt, so heaven knows what I'll do if it packs up again. Despite all of this I do think the loco. looks nice shuffling around the layout.

 

 

 

 

 

 

More messing around with cameras - all but one of these was taken with my DSLR. It's very bulky but I realised that with such a good picture quality you can take the photo. from a tripod standing well back, and crop the image afterwards. This means the ability to use f22 and attain a much better depth of field than I have managed before.

Edited April 1, 2022 by Barclay

[Sandhole]

7 hours ago, Barclay said:

When Backwoods Miniatures brought out their RSH crane tank kit it wasn't long before I had to have one. It was a beautiful jewel of a kit - Sharman's even made a special wheel for it. For reasons I can't remember it was some years before I got 'round to building it, and in the intervening period something unfortunate happened. I admired one at an exhibition and the layout's owner told me the kit was actually to HO scale instead of 4mm, as advertised. Back home I rushed to look up the drawings in an old Railway Modeller (1970?) - phew, the model matched the drawing, the fellow was talking nonsense. I don't know what made me check the drawing itself against the dimensions, and it was then that I realised the RM had produced the drawings to 3.5mm scale. Presumably the kit manufacturer had dimensioned the kit directly off the drawing.

 

I now had a dilemma - build it, even though I knew it was wrong? The answer was 'yes' of course and I've never regretted it, it's a lovely thing to have, but it is really small ! The photo's show this, and it's the relationship to the buffers of the runner wagon that really show up the discrepancy. The runner is built from a very old Wills Match Truck kit. I hadn't built a runner initially but it was on the loco's first operating session that I realised why crane tanks need them, unless the jib is to smash a hole in the next van it tries to shunt. How smart am I?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some years ago the loco. sheared one of the gears in it's bespoke gearbox, and Backwoods, still around at the time, sold me a new gearbox etch and gears. Their gearboxes aren't great as I discovered when building their industrial Beyer Garratt, so heaven knows what I'll do if it packs up again. Despite all of this I do think the loco. looks nice shuffling around the layout.

 

 

 

More messing around with cameras - all but one of these was taken with my DSLR. It's very bulky but I realised that with such a good picture quality you can take the photo. from a tripod standing well back, and crop the image afterwards. This means the ability to use f22 and attain a much better depth of field than I have managed before.

Lovely model.
I can see why you got it.
It really is tidgy though. It should be at least the same size, if not bigger, than the Hudswell in picture 2.
Don't get Coachbogie going on Backwoods gearboxes.
The Garrett he built for me has got smoother and smoother. He never thought it would last.
Been 20yrs in service now.
If you were needing a new gearbox, I'd go to Chris at High Level.
I think he was the developer of the Backwoods gearboxes.
He has always been an absolute gentleman in my dealings with him.
Keep the pictures coming, please.
Regards,
Chris.

Edited March 28, 2021 by Sandhole

[Barry O]

Nice to see some Industrials in a great setting!

 

Might have to finish one ore two more of mine though.

 

Baz

[5050]

On 29/03/2021 at 00:06, Sandhole said:

I think he was the developer of the Backwoods gearboxes.
 

Probably so - remember 'Porter's Cap' gearboxes?  Precursors to the High Level ones before Chris branched out on his own.

[Barclay]

In reality 11229 was at Bank Hall at the end of 1947, but if you invent a location then I feel it's reasonable to re-allocate a few locomotives to work there !

It must have been the mid-1980's,and I had a 00 layout based around R-T-R stock. I always wanted one of these pugs but the Airfix kit was out of production and Dapol had yet to appear. Then, on a Geography field trip to Shropshire, popping into Hobby Specialists of Shrewsbury when I should have been asking shoppers how far they had come today, I found a stack of old stock Airfix pug kits. A year or two later in my local model shop I bought a Bristol models brass chassis kit, which must have been second hand because it came with Sharman drivers. I also purchased a tiny Tenshodo motor and some 38:1 gears. When this loco. came into service I couldn't believe how much better those wheels looked, and it ran pretty well too. I'm quite sure it was this loco. that made me realise that my R-T-R stuff was rubbish and that I had to start all over again at some stage.

 

It was some years after I started the layout that the loco. was converted to EM and brought back into service. Even more recently that the mucky remains of its BR livery were replaced with proper LMS colours. At some stage since then it has ceased to be as straight as I could wish, presumably due to the occasional extreme heat, but it's 35 years old so it can't be helped. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 5, 2022 by Barclay

[5050]

Hobby Specialists in Shrewsbury, that's a blast from the past.  When we were first married we lived in Oswestry and soon after took a trip to 'Salop' (as the locals call it).  The model shop was on the itinerary (well, mine anyway......) and I bought a set of Eclipse jewellers screwdrivers,some needle files and a craft knife, all of which I still have (almost 50 years later) and use often.

[Barclay]

When the Kingdom Kits Andrew Barclay was first advertised, I think it was the only industrial of any kind that was available. I saw one in my local model shop and had to have it. I then took one look at it and put it back in the box, where it was to stay for the best part of 15 years. That was a really bad kit I'm sorry to say and the inexperienced teenaged me thankfully realised that it was quite beyond him.

 

With a few kits under my belt I finally felt brave enough to tackle it. The running plate had casting pips all along the sides and was replaced with a new assembly from brass. The boiler bottom was incredibly mis-shapen  and was replaced with some brass tube attached to the chassis so I could arrange the drive-train High-level style, with a Branchlines Multibox and Mashima 12/24. The holes in the chassis were far larger than the 1/8" bearings supplied, but compensation cured that problem. 

 

I ended up with a loco. that runs really well but still, to me, looks like a character sketch of a Barclay rather than a decent model. There's a lot of packing between the chassis and running plate but I still think it sits too low, and the recommended 3'3" wheels (Sharman) seem too small - I'm sure 3'6" would look better and help the sit of the loco. The 3'3" would be in demand now for re-wheeling Hattons Barclays, but are no longer listed in the Sharman range. Final thing, my fault, I put the handrails too low.

 

So, one day, I really need to take this one in hand, correct some faults, and add some detail. The trouble is, I'm a strong believer in the old adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" !

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2022 by Barclay

[5050]

"I then took one look at it and put it back in the box, where it was to stay for the best part of 15 years. That was a really bad kit I'm sorry to say and the inexperienced teenaged me thankfully realised that it was quite beyond him."

 

My thoughts exactly!  Although I was rather older than teenage.  You've reminded me of my build from a few years ago where I did manage to get mine running although it was a 'labour of love (!!)' at times.

 

 

[Adam]

If that thing bears a relationship to a real Barclay, it’s a 16” and the wheels should be more like 3’ 8” (the ones Gibson do). That would certainly fix the height, but might not sort out the other issues...

 

Adam

[Barclay]

18 hours ago, Adam said:

 3’ 8” (the ones Gibson do). 

 

Adam

I believe you are right, and I actually have some. They are spoken for but could be used to see what the loco. might look like. There'll be no going back then !

[Sandhole]

On 09/04/2021 at 15:49, Barclay said:

When the Kingdom Kits Andrew Barclay was first advertised, I think it was the only industrial of any kind that was available. I saw one in my local model shop and had to have it. I then took one look at it and put it back in the box, where it was to stay for the best part of 15 years. That was a really bad kit I'm sorry to say and the inexperienced teenaged me thankfully realised that it was quite beyond him.

 

With a few kits under my belt I finally felt brave enough to tackle it. The running plate had casting pips all along the sides and was replaced with a new assembly from brass. The boiler bottom was incredibly mis-shapen  and was replaced with some brass tube attached to the chassis so I could arrange the drive-train High-level style, with a Branchlines Multibox and Mashima 12/24. The holes in the chassis were far larger than the 1/8" bearings supplied, but compensation cured that problem. 

 

I ended up with a loco. that runs really well but still, to me, looks like a character sketch of a Barclay rather than a decent model. There's a lot of packing between the chassis and running plate but I still think it sits too low, and the recommended 3'3" wheels (Sharman) seem too small - I'm sure 3'6" would look better and help the sit of the loco. The 3'3" would be in demand now for re-wheeling Hattons Barclays, but are no longer listed in the Sharman range. Final thing, my fault, I put the handrails too low.

 

So, one day, I really need to take this one in hand, correct some faults, and add some detail. The trouble is, I'm a strong believer in the old adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" !

 

 

 

 

 

Once again, you are the only other person to run one of these.
Mike did the paint job. I know, now, this is the wrong Barclay, but it was the only game in town. Runs beautifully.
It's going to get a scarey dazzle paint job for the hot metal part of Manchester Steel.

Edited April 10, 2021 by Sandhole

[Down_Under]

I wonder if the Andrew Barclay was based on one of the ‘Fife Specials’ which had a 7ft WB rather than the 6ft that is associated with the majority of the 14” and 16” class

16” Fife special - note longer wheelbase and longer tank than “normal”

[borrowed from https://preservedbritishsteamlocomotives.com/andrew-barclay-works-no-2260-ncb-no-23-0-4-0st/ ]

 

[https://preservedbritishsteamlocomotives.com/works-no-2261-fife-flyer-no-6-0-4-0st/]