Tupton Junction - East Midlands in '77

[John Tomlinson]

I'm sure you are right to have gone for the Bachmann 47 as your standard. When I started back in the hobby 20 years ago the Heljan one was appearing, and despite the tubbyness the running qualities were such a step up on what had gone before that I felt no reservation about going for that as standard. I detailed up seven of them, different identities, liveries, air braked or not, full buffer beam pipes and so on.

 

When the Bachmann model came out I toyed with making a switch, but then what about all my work! So I've stuck with the tubbies, and will continue to do so, and so long as I don't park them next to another manufacturers example I'm probably OK. Iain Rice's consistency principle has a lot going for it.

 

Your detailed, weathered and personalised examples look splendid. I do remember 47356 in green, strangely on the WCML in Lancashire in 1976, probably the last one I saw in that livery on BR.

 

John.

[Mophead45143]

9 hours ago, caradoc said:

What a great layout idea, and a superb collection of stock too - Look forward to seeing this develop !

 

If you felt like sometimes running a Summer Saturday service, this would allow additional passenger trains behind normally freight-only locos; For example:

 

11 Jun 83 37132 on 0805 Chesterfield-Scarborough

25 Jun 83 47375 on the same train

09 Jul 83 37013 on the same train; 37169 on 1053 Weymouth-Bradford

30 Jul 83 47372 on 0732 Sheffield-Skegness

 

Good luck !      

 

Yeah definitely! I've seen a few shots of Tinsley 37's starting Summer Saturday workings from Chesterfield in 1977, so it's certainly doable. There was a picture in a Rail Express mag years ago which did a feature on a summer Saturday at Clay Cross, which had a class 40 go through on a similar working. 

 

Cameron

[Mophead45143]

3 hours ago, John Tomlinson said:

I'm sure you are right to have gone for the Bachmann 47 as your standard. When I started back in the hobby 20 years ago the Heljan one was appearing, and despite the tubbyness the running qualities were such a step up on what had gone before that I felt no reservation about going for that as standard. I detailed up seven of them, different identities, liveries, air braked or not, full buffer beam pipes and so on.

 

When the Bachmann model came out I toyed with making a switch, but then what about all my work! So I've stuck with the tubbies, and will continue to do so, and so long as I don't park them next to another manufacturers example I'm probably OK. Iain Rice's consistency principle has a lot going for it.

 

Your detailed, weathered and personalised examples look splendid. I do remember 47356 in green, strangely on the WCML in Lancashire in 1976, probably the last one I saw in that livery on BR.

 

John.

 

To be in honest if I was in your position I would have done exactly the same thing. As you say the consistency principle is important, having a mixture of both types on a layout would flag up the issues with both.

 

I do like the Heljan model, and as I've said before I think they look good on the EM Gauge website: http://www.emgauge70s.co.uk/project_class47.html 

 

I already had a couple of Bachmann models when I started making comparisons, so in a way I had the opposite scenario to what you had. Thanks for kind comments! 

 

Regards,

 

Cameron. 

[Mophead45143]

The Whistlers 

 

The Chesterfield area could hardly be described as mecca for class 40 fans. That said, it was not far from class 40 hot spots, meaning locos's could turn up randomly on workings from time to time. There were also regular trains (such as ballast from Loughborough to Heally Mills I believe) which could often produce one of these English Electric heavy weights. 

 

Four of the earlier Bachmann variants were acquired several years ago. While the newer tooling from Bachmann is better, they can be hard to get hold of now, and when they appear online they go for serious £££'s!!! If you were starting from scratch I would probably recommend the new tooling (they are releasing some more split box ones imminently). For me however, I am generally quite content with the earlier tooling. It's nothing like as problematic as their first class 25 in terms of shape etc, although I am sure serious class 40 fans would be less comfortable than I am! To me, it still looks like a the hulk of a class 40.

 

Anyway, to the models:

 

 

Bachmann's 40075 (discs) and 40169 (centre h/code) are undergoing a change of identity to Heally Mills machines No.s 40038 & 40176 respectively. These two models were purchased as new, although 40075 was a victim of one of my earlier weathering attempts (since rectified!), and 40169 had a replacement chassis which featured underframe tanks. 

 

Also purchased some years ago was an already renumbered and weathered 40169 as 40186, again with underframe tanks, unlike the original release. 40186 was a Springs Branch machine, but alas, there's a prototype for everything and below is a shot of a Springs Branch loco passing Toton on tanks! (photo credit: John Woolley). This justified retaining the number and not spoiling the existing weathering. 

 

The model can be seen below. I can't take credit for the weathering, although much of the bufferbeam equipment was added by myself. On all locos I have had to swap the bogies around as Bachmann incorrectly fitted the speedo cable on the bogie beneath the bodyside grille at the No. 1 end, when it should be on the diagonally opposite side of the loco. This was a pretty easy job to rectify, so long as you take care not to damage the bogie frames. 

 

 

Below are some pictures of 40038 & 40176 on completion of their identity change and weathering. 

 

 

Above: 40038 (No. 2 end)

 

 

Above: 40038 (No. 1 end)

 

 

Above: 40176 (No. 1 end)

 

 

Above: 40176 (No. 2 end)

Edited June 27, 2020 by Mophead45143

[Mophead45143]

The fourth class 40 in the fleet is Longsight based 40135. This model was purchased as resprayed blue and weathered, although the weathering left a little to be desired. I have removed much of the weathering on the ends and sides and reworked what was left on the roof. There is still more work to be done on the ends in this regard, however the bigger problem is the headcode boxes.

 

While I am happy with Bachmann's first class 40, I can't live with the headcode boxes on their split variant. They are totally wrong and spoil the all important 'face'. This is something that can't be un-seen when you compare it to the real thing, or Bachmann's latest tooling for that matter.

 

 

However, Extreme Etchings (Shawplan) come to the rescue once again! Product code EEDP40-18 is a set of etched headcode frames for split box class 40's.

 

 

I have not yet fitted them, but when I do I will upload some pictures of my progress and compare the results to the original model. 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2020 by Mophead45143

[Mophead45143]

In the meantime, here's a shot of Tinsley based 37121 (not previously featured), and 47083 which has had some more work done on the roof weathering.

 

 

 

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

Just shows how things change in only a few years. In my Chesterfield spotting days I only ever saw two EE type 4's, both green, one FYE and one SYWP, and it was such a momentous occasion they both got recorded for posterity!

 

Mike.

[Mophead45143]

1 hour ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Just shows how things change in only a few years. In my Chesterfield spotting days I only ever saw two EE type 4's, both green, one FYE and one SYWP, and it was such a momentous occasion they both got recorded for posterity!

 

Mike.

 

I think any 40 sighting in the area would always have been regarded as a mega cop by a spotter! But I imagine it became a little less rare later on. Derby did actually overhaul quite a few in 1977, including 40038 & 40186.

 

Cameron

[37114]

Just caught up on the last few posts, some lovely locos, the 47s look excellent.  I agree with your approach with painting the headcode faces black and adding the 0000 on top, printing behind the thick clear glazing looks wrong in many cases due to the thickness of the glazing.

[Mophead45143]

10 hours ago, 37114 said:

Just caught up on the last few posts, some lovely locos, the 47s look excellent.  I agree with your approach with painting the headcode faces black and adding the 0000 on top, printing behind the thick clear glazing looks wrong in many cases due to the thickness of the glazing.

 

Thank you! If you can make the glazing work then it does look good, for example 47083 in the pictures above still makes use of the original glazing (the printed headcodes having been removed from the back using T-Cut). But from side on angles it can appear to be set a bit too deep into the body than the real thing would be. Hence with 47181, instead of going to the effort of making a proper headcode box with glazing, I just stuck them on. A lot of people I would class as professional modelers use this simple approach to good effect. 

 

I'll be posting some images of my re-work on the headcode boxes for 40135 shortly. With that I used thin, clear perspex from part of the packaging in a Bachmann box. This works quite well, as it is much thinner than the chunky glazing normally found in models. I have used this on all my split box 45's in the past and it looks pretty good.

 

Cheers,

 

Cameron

 

Edited June 28, 2020 by Mophead45143

[Mophead45143]

40135 - Fixing the boxes

 

As I mention in the previous post, one major problem with the Bachmann split-box class 40 is the headcode boxes. They just don't look right, principally because the aperture for the alpha-numeric display is too big. This spoils the balance of the face of the loco.

 

Using EEDP40-18 from the Extreme Etchings range, I set about trying to improve this, to see if this loco could be made to look more like the real thing.

 

 

The first step was to remove the frames from the headcode boxes. These come off with a little careful persuasion. I then carefully off the raised detail on the headcode box frame with a sharp knife.

 

As the Extreme Etchings frames are so thin, they can simply be placed on top of the originals once the raised detail has been removed. The frame pretrudes out around on the end of the headcode box, and on the originals this is ever so slightly larger than the replacement etched frames. As a result, a carefully sanded down the sides and bottom, leaving the top so as not to interfere with the grab handles, which I intended to leave intact. The modified frame can be seen on the left, with the original on the right.

 

 

It is worth noting that Bachmann positioned the grab handles incorrectly at the inboard end of the headcode box, when they should be at the outer end. The good thing about doing it this way is that you can simply swap them around when applying the new etched frames. The top left frame has the grab handles in the correct position if looking face on to the loco, whereas the top right is incorrect, as supplied.

 

IMPORTANT: Make sure the new etched frames are oriented correctly. While it is fairly obvious that the hinges need to be at the inboard end, it is not immediately apparent that the frame is slightly thicker at the top when compared to the bottom. The frames here are oriented correctly, with the thicker part at the top.

 

 

Next, some headcode transfers were applied to a piece of thin, black card, cut to size, then inserted into the frames. Pieces of thin, clear perspex (from Bachmann packaging!) were inserted into the boxes to represent the glazing. They didn't have to be a perfect fit as the aperture on the etched frames is smaller than that on the original, so this would cover up imperfections around the edges.

 

In the meantime, the etched frames were given a few coats of warning yellow (It is much easier to do this first, as it removes the risk of getting paint onto the 'glazing' once fitted.

 

  

 

Finally, the etched frames were carefully glued to the plastic ones, and the assemblies refitted to the locomotive. The difference here is striking, with the untouched model on the left and the reworked model on the right. Whilst doing this job, I also re-positioned the headboard bracket further down, as this is too high on the original models. 

 

 

 

It may not be perfect, but this is a pretty cheap and easy way to make a far more convincing split box class 40 out of the earlier tooling. Hopefully someone will find it useful!

 

Regards,

 

Cameron

 

Edited June 29, 2020 by Mophead45143

[37403]

How are things progressing with this layout?

The previous updates were fantastic

[Mophead45143]

8 hours ago, 37403 said:

How are things progressing with this layout?

The previous updates were fantastic

 

Thank you for the continued interest. Progress has been very slow, but certain key steps like sorting the garage out and confirming the required baseboard dimensions have been completed, and I anticipate this year will see things develop a bit faster. I am hoping to get the baseboards cut and installed over the next couple of months.

 

One thing I will say is that inevitably, time has given me chance to reflect on my plans for this layout, which is a good thing. It's always worth experimenting with track plans and concepts, as even when you think you've found what you want, there may be better ideas undiscovered. In this case I have actually ended up revisiting one of my very early plans and developed it further. 

 

This is one reason why there have been no updates over the past few months, as the idea has effectively been abandoned. In the place of 'Tupton Jn' will be something more familiar (same area), just as operationally interesting, and with a much better track to scenery balance (less is always more!). 

 

I will capture all this when more progress is made, most likely on a new thread that will be linked on here when the time comes - so watch this space! :)

 

Regards,

 

Cameron

[Mophead45143]

 

New topic started!