East Barnet Joint Stock - a workbench

[Chas Levin]

Just when you think you're nearing the end of a section, a small but embarrassing oversight trips you up: wheel balance weights!

I've got in the habit with more complex builds of putting parts from etches that need to be detached early on but aren't needed at that point (for exmaple to detach other parts that are being worked on) into small plastic trays... which then inevitably get other things put on top of them: you can see where this is going! I only found the weights whilst sorting out all the various parts needed to re-assemble the chassis and realised I'd completely failed to spot their ommission - oops!

Taking a closer look, two problems presented themselves. First, the weights were on the NS chassis etch, which is 0.46mm thick: the spokes of the Markits wheels I'm using are not set back that far from the rims, leaving these NS weights sitting visibly proud.

Second, these weights were drawn on the LRM etch for the correct size of wheel (naturally) but the Markits are ever so slightly smaller (the closest available size). This means that the inner wheel rim diameter is slightly smaller than the corresponding outer edges of the weights.

Given these two problems (entirely due to my using Markits wheels, just to be clear: no criticism of LRM, as I'm sure these weights would look excellent on suitable finscale ones!) I decided to make new weights, in thinner brass: I didn't like the idea of trying to modify the NS weights' outer edges to fit the wheels' diameter, as I thought it would be difficult to achieve four uniform results.

Now, I'd guess there are easier ways to do this but I plunged in, just to see what I could do. First thing was to scribe out a circle on the brass with a compass, exactly the same as the wheels' inner diameter:

 

 

 

Next, pieces were nibbled away with cutters, up to the circle (whose scribed diameter had been deepened quite a few times with a scalpel blade first) where they were then 'metal-fatigued' off:

 

 

 

I then used one of the kit's NS weights as a pattern to scribe the inner edge's line onto the brass, placing the outer ends in line with the circle's edge and ignoring the gap that widens to the centre between the two metals' diameters:

 

 

 

By going over the scribed line with a scalpel, the new brass weight can them be detached, shown here with one of the NS ones above it - the difference in outer diameter is not that obvious here, but more so in real life and it gives about half a milimeter gap at the centre point:

 

 

 

And the result - a proper fit to the wheels' diameter and acceptably flush with the inner rims:

 

 

 

Still some cleaning up and final shaping to do, priming and painting and then the delicate business of gluing them in place without messing up the otherwise finished wheels' appearance, but all in all, disaster averted.

Edited April 10, 2022 by Chas Levin

[Chas Levin]

Another session with the masking tape, a lengthy can-rattling intermission... and voila, a black smokebox:

 

 

 

 

 

This is actually the first time I've sprayed two different colours next to each other, so I spent a bit of time making sure the border was well sealed and everywhere around it covered properly. Every other kit I've done has had single colour bodywork (I'm not counting teak effect!) and where an area such as the underframe was black or a roof white, I either brushed it on or only sprayed if it was a separate sub-assmebly, such as the typical D&S coach kit design. Actually, since the light green here is cellulose, it wouldn't have been a problem to remove over-spray (the black is Halfords matt acrylic) but I'd rather not have to do so and there's always the risk of residue getting caught in inaccessible areas.

In case anyone wonders why I bothered masking so much - including areas such as the footplate, which will also be black - it's because of something I read a while back, about the different types of black to be found on many locos. I'd never noticed it before, but once it had been pointed out, I saw it everywhere: smokeboxes, footplates, tank tops - they all had slightly different finishes and hues. I ducked out of trying it on the first loco I built - the DJH J9/10 - because it was my first loco build, I was keen to finish it and the ease of spraying the whole thing black in one go was too appealing. I thought I'd try it this time though, and as I mentioned previously when Jol queried why I masked the primer to spray the green, I didn't want to start building up multiple layers of different colours, for fear of losing detail.

I think I might have been a bit harsh about the finish of the light green: spending some time looking at it again while working on it today, I think it looks Ok and by the time the other colours, lining and so forth are in place it should be fine. The lighting in these shots though - part LED, part early stormy evening - has made the GNR Light Green look rather different to real life; which goes to show how difficult it can be to discuss colour variations using amateur photos viewed on computer screens!

Edited April 10, 2022 by Chas Levin

[Chas Levin]

Most of the Chocolate has now been done on the main body and a start made on the black areas too - mainly the coal rails, steam chest and much of the underside:

 

 

 

The wheels also have their balance weights now; predictably, adding them to the otherwise finished wheels was not easy. I knew that positioning such small items accurately against the rims was going to be tricky so I soldered pieces of brass wire to the backs, to be used for holding while painting as well as final positioning. It also provided a chance to try out a recently aquired small gadget, a spring-loaded clamp for round things:

 

 

 

The close fit of the bare brass crescents to one test wheel did not carry over into fitting the four weights, each with fractionally different paint deposit patterns, onto the four different wheels, each with similarly different micro-surfaces and although the gaps were small, they were quite obvious:

 

 

 

Although I see epoxy often mentioned for this job, I had decided to use cyano gel, partly because I was concerned about epoxy leaking through the gaps and thought the cyano would set before it pushed through; my hunch worked and once the weights were in place, I added more cyano from the back, to fill the gap: it pushes through just enough to match the front level of the gap, before setting. Once set, the join line was touched in with paint and, after a coat of varnish, this is the result:

 

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by Chas Levin

[chris p bacon]

Now you're just showing off.....

[Chas Levin]

22 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

Now you're just showing off.....

Ha - far from it, CPB! Very embarrassed to have forgotten about the balance weights, newbie error, just relieved I managed to avoid a mess .

[Jon4470]

Nice work on the wheels!

 

I’m now off to find my wrist watch holder tool..... it might just become a wheel holder!

[Chas Levin]

12 minutes ago, Jon4470 said:

Nice work on the wheels!

 

I’m now off to find my wrist watch holder tool..... it might just become a wheel holder!

Good idea Jon! You definitely need something when working on wheels, awkward things to handle, especially if they're already painted... You might do even better with a watch holding tool actually, because this thing I used is great but the spring loading is a little on the strong side!

[Chas Levin]

Another reason why it's well worth building Ian Rathbone's lining jig (or something similar): it's also excellent for fiddly painting - before you even get to the lining stage - and, by clamping it in a vice with a ball and socket joint, you can hold the model, absolutely securely and without repeatedly handling it, in almost any position and at almost any angle, which solved the problem of how to paint and line areas like the buffer beam :

 

 

 

 

 

These two photos also illustrate the variable nature of mobile phone camera colour rendition: the upper photo makes the green look noticeably cooler / bluer than it is; the lower one is still not absolutely accurate, but it's closer, yet they were taken within a minute or so of each other, under the same lighting. Well, I say that: they're from slightly different angles, so I guess the mix of natural and artificial lighting must have been slightly different...?

As you can see, painting of the body continues, with the buffer and drag beams, steps, footplate and cab interior all having received attention over the last few days. I've done the cab interior in a very slightly lighter shade of the GNR light green (by adding a couple of drops of white) as I've noticed that the green interiors of green locos often look as if they were done that way.

Edited April 10, 2022 by Chas Levin

[Chas Levin]

A bit of a longer interval than recent form since my last post, partly through other things eating into modelling time, partly because I've been painting, which I find much slower work than building. Here are some pictures of the C2 body, which has now had all the main painting done, prior to starting on the lining:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reaching this point has not been without incident; amongst other things, I learnt that Halfords acrylic cannot be sprayed on top of enamel. It was not an enjoyable learning experience, but it was an interesting one and valuable practice in selective masking and repair!

I also need to plan in advance which things are painted first: the vermilion buffer and drag beams would have been quicker jobs had I not done the buffer housings, steam and vac pipes first... Never mind, got there in the end!

The eagle-eyed will spot that the green on the side tanks doesn't quite reach down to the footplate: this was due to slightly inaccurate masking when spraying the green, but will be taken care of when the dark green border areas are added; likewise the small areas at the tops of the tank sides, where some black was deposited during the removal of masking tape.

There's still some touching in to do here and there (the front areas of the footplate continue to give trouble) but in general I think it's pretty nearly there.

I'll take a short break from painting next, to re-assemble the chassis and check its fit - and that of the cab roof - before starting in on the lining...

Edited April 10, 2022 by Chas Levin

[Chas Levin]

Chassis re-assembly, a welcome break from painting. I do love painting, but you can have too much of a good thing!

I'm still not happy with wire pickups; I'll probably stick with them for this build, but for the next one I'm determined to try something else:

 

 

 

The plan is to have the pickups running under the brake rigging, in such a way that when the rigging is clipped into place it helps hold the pickups in place too. The job is made much easier by mounting the chassis, upside down, in the lining jig...

Edited April 10, 2022 by Chas Levin

[Chas Levin]

An exciting early morning session, reassembling everything to see how the C2 looks and runs so far, before I start the lining of the body:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Running (a Mashima into a High Level RoadRunner+) is very good, though - typically - slightly smoother in reverse than forwards, which some pickup tweaking and running in should hopefully cure.

The slightly scruffy borders in places between green, brown and black will be taken care of in the course of lining and applying the dark green borders, as will the unpainted tank and bunker beading, while the bunker floor will be underneath a coal load.

The roof is just clipped into place at the moment - it'll be properly secured, once all the lining's done, by two 14BA bolts into captive nuts. The conn rods are also just temporarily secured by washers cut from plastic electrical wire insulation.

If anyone can see anything wrong - I've just noticed that I need to remove the paint from the cab roof grabrail, for one thing - please do let me know...

Next, it's bow pens at fifty paces!

Edited April 10, 2022 by Chas Levin

[Chas Levin]

Before starting in on the lining, I thought I'd try and nail the slight tight spot in the running... Partly just to know that the chassis was running well, partly as displacement activity because the lining is quite daunting!

The tight spot only occurred going forwards, in the same rotational position each time - between 11 and 1 o'clock on the right-hand side. Running it slowly enough to stop at that point, the LH rod was comfortably loose (in a good way I mean, not excessively), the RH tight to the inner edges - i.e., the inner sides of both rod holes were gripping the crankpins. I tried very, very carefully broaching the holes but I wasn't keen because of the fear of over-enlarging them. It improved things a little but after enlarging by about a quarter of a mil I decided not to go any further: a little extra clearance won't do any harm, what with the compensated front axle's need to move about a bit, but too much and there are other problems, as I have read in many places. I wondered whether I'd managed to get a crankpin off the perpendicular when removing them to apply threadlocker, but they all look to be good (though it's not easy to be 100% sure, as the wheel faces have various different surfaces on them, what between the tyres, the spokes, the centre bosses and the land between...).

Up until now, I'd been testing the chassis fully bolted under the body, partly for the weight but mainly because of the 10BA bolt that's soldered, upside-down, into the smokebox saddle, protruding down through the footplate and then through the front chassis stretcher to secure the chassis, finally serving as the central locating pin for the bogie stretcher. For reasons I can only ascribe to lack of experience, I had simply proceeded on the assumption that the body had to be in place in order to have that bolt to locate through the bogie.

As I contemplated dismantling everything for the umpteenth time, light finally dawned: as that bolt was the sole necessary part of the body for the complete chassis to be able to run, all it needed was another 10BA bolt, directly through the hole in the chassis spacer and secured underneath with a nut! I was somewhat taken aback at my inability to think of that sooner, but I certainly shan't make that mistake again . So, finally, the chassis can be tested a lot more easily - here's a shot of it (complete with just enough lead to provide traction) where the bolt through the front spacer can be seen:

 

 

 

So... what of the tight spot? Well, as soon as I started running the chassis as above, it had disappeared: hooray!!

 

So, it's clearly something happening when the body's bolted to the chassis. That puzzled me at first, as there were no problems with the body and chassis were paired for testing before painting... yes, another 'how did I miss that?' moment: various areas of the underside of the body have received sprayed and painted coats of paint, in the course of ensuring that places such as the undersides of steps and valances, and the areas around the sides of the frame extensions were painted.

Clearly, the areas that mate with the chassis need to be cleaned back to the bare metal that they were when the two halves of the loco mated without problem and I'll be surprised if that doesn't eliminate the problem.

 

It does seem odd to me though, that the difference in the surface height caused by paint deposits across such small areas might lead to a distortion of the frames that produces a tight spot, on one side only and only when going forwards. I guess it's actually a very complex pair of shapes - the chassis and the body - which must interact in quite complicated ways when they're bolted together; and, clearly, if things aren't entirely true and square, the chassis will be the one of the pair to distort.

 

The other issue I dealt with - or at least affected considerable improvement in - was the noise level of the running drive train, by closing up the mesh between the worm and the first gear. Mounting the motor as I have done uses the pair of holes in the High Level Kits' Road Runner+ that are not in the curved keyhole shape, so there wasn't really any provision to move the worm any closer, but I couldn't live with the noise level without at any rate trying to close things up a little, so I removed the motor's securing screws, moved it aside on its wires, masked up around the top of the gearbox to keep filings out of the works and very carefully filed the lower edge of the inner area of the hole for one of the motor screws a little wider. On re-assembly, it was then possible, by leaving the other motor screw just shy of tight, to move the motor down a little - probably only about a fifth of a mm - and secure it there.

The improvement was immedate and considerable.

I decided to secure the motor screws with paint applied around their heads, after getting the positioning right, rather than trying to use threadlocker, as I couldn't work out how to keep the motor position absolutely unaltered, having once got it right, in order to remove each screw to apply the Loctite. It also occurred to me that some of the stuff might find its way inside the motor case - the screws are quite a bit longer than the casing metal - and cause trouble in the future.

I'm not sure how easy it is to see the worm-to-gear mesh in this photo, but here it is anyway:

 

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by Chas Levin

[jwealleans]

I've had a similar sort of issue with a tight spot where the body on a Crownline J19 developed a twist and applied it to the chassis when they were attached.   Backing off one screw about a quarter of a turn solved the problem.   It can be very easy to focus on one potential cause and miss what might be a much simpler one.

[Chas Levin]

Hello Jonathan, thanks, good advice! I had also made a mental note to experiemnt with exactly how much to tighten up the chassis-to-body bolts too, in case that helps.

 

I hope it's not that the body itself has a twist and as it ran without the bind before painting I don't think it will be that, but I'd probably never be able to spot such a subtle deformation even if it were there.

How did you pinpoint that as a cause on your J19?

 

I see a similar problem securing the two bolts (though not quite as critical in accuracy) to that of the motor securing screws in my last post: having ascertained the perfect degree of tightness, you can't then withdraw the bolt to apply threadlocker, without losing that perfect placing. Perhaps if it transpires that one bolt can be done up to a certain, marked point near full tightness with no problem and it's the other bolt that causes issues, that first one could be secured with threadlocker and the other (the one needing very careful final adjustment) secured with paint around the head...

 

This morning, I removed the paint on the body's underside, in those areas where it mates with the chassis, but I didn't have time to test the result... I'll test later and fingers crossed that'll be the answer

[jwealleans]

3 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

How did you pinpoint that as a cause on your J19?

 

I put it on a flat surface and looked along the boiler.  It also had a slight wobble (it was standing on the steps).   I've never worked out how i did it but it must be something in what I do habitually as I built two, one for a commission and one for me and both came out with the same slight distortion.

[Chas Levin]

Well, I was right about the less than even seating of the chassis, but as well as the paint (now removed) over the contact areas, I also discovered a small area of somewhat blobbed solder, inside the body, where the front wall of the cab joins the cab floor, probably only a quarter of a mm higher than the brass but enough to skew things a little and the chassis is now sitting much more evenly.

 

I'm still having slight issues with the pickups though; having swapped the 0.33mm PB wire - too flimsy to hold position and make decent contact - for 0.45mm, I'm now finding it difficult to hit the right balance between maintaining good contact without exerting too much pressure - a common problem, I know.

 

It's particularly trying in the case of the front compensated driver axle; getting good pickup contact on a compensated axle that has to be able to move in three different planes is never going to be easy. I read in Iain Rice's Chassis book that contact on the back of the tyre is the best - in fact in his words the only - option in this case, but I found that extremely difficult to get working and instead I'm finding that having pickup contact on the rim edge, the same as the non-compensated powered axle, seesm to be more successful. All part of the learning curve...

[Chas Levin]

The chassis has now been put to one side, as it's running well - though not quite as well, or quite as quietly as I'd like. However, the object of the exercise is a finished loco and there's a great deal more to be done: there'll be time for more chassis tuning and tweaking after I've got some more painting and lining under my belt.

 

Here are some thoughts on the lining of this loco body, partly in case they're of use or of interest to others planning similar jobs, partly as an aid to my own thinking...

 

I took another dip into Ian Rathbone's “Painting and lining” (never anything other than valuable reading!) where there's an excellent section entitled “Order of lining”. He gives some key rules (while noting that they sometimes conflict) including these:

The most delicate lines of the lightest colour should be done first

With groups of lines, that nearest the edge should be done first

The lines least vulnerable to damage (e.g. by handling the model) should be done first

 

Each point has explanations and examples - I'd urge anyone interested to buy the book and read the detail (no connection with Ian or Wild Swan!) and they make excellent sense.

 

Armed with these points, I decided to get back into the swing of lining (it's been nearly two months since I lined the chassis) by doing the red and black on the frame extensions that sit under the body. These areas a difficult to photograph - I'm using a camera phone and it tried to focus and light for the larger surrounding areas, but these give some idea:

 

 

 

 

 

Not the most perfectly even lines, especially when viewed so much larger than life, but as with the chassis, I decided not to get too perfectionist here, as they'll never be seen in normal use.

 

I'd wanted to resume the lining with more red and black as I'd used those colours most recently, but this illustrates the common sense behind Ian's guidelines: before re-reading that section of the book, I'd intended doing all the red and black on the body in one go, before moving on to other colours - that would have meant the frame extensions, steps, buffer housings and valances - whereas the moment I read his point about how vulnerable to handling damage valance lining is and how it should therefore be done last, I breathed a sigh of relief that I hadn't fallen into that trap. I might also do the buffer housings in this run and I think the steps should be fine too (as he also notes, areas protected by protruding features - in this case, the steps themselves - are fairly safe) but the valances will definitely be done last!

Edited April 10, 2022 by Chas Levin

[Jon4470]

Hi Chas

 

Those lines look good to me!

 

With regard to the paint not flowing to start with. I’m guessing that you have already checked the paint? If not, try the cocktail stick test from Ian’s book.

 

Alternately you could see if the paint will flow with the lining pen open a bit more ( on some scrap). If it flows then, close up the pen to the desired width. That might prompt the paint to flow.

 

Jon

[31A]

When you say the paint wouldn't flow freely until you'd cleaned the pen with white spirit, do you think there might be some residual white spirit remaining on the pen which is in effect thinning the paint slightly?

 

I used to do a fair bit of lining using a bow pen years ago and found that Humbrol paints always needed thinning before they would flow freely from the pen, whereas Railmatch enamels would flow freely without needing to be thinned.  For that reason I standardised on Railmatch BR Cream for the Primrose lining on LNER teak coaches (although it might be a bit pale I suppose) and still use it sometimes for glazing bars on the windows of buildings.  I mention that it was 'years ago' as the formulation of Humbrol paint may have changed since I did that sort of thing.

 

The lined frame extensions look great; if you can do stuff to that standard I don't think you need to worry!

 

[Chas Levin]

4 hours ago, Jon4470 said:

Hi Chas

 

Those lines look good to me!

 

With regard to the paint not flowing to start with. I’m guessing that you have already checked the paint? If not, try the cocktail stick test from Ian’s book.

 

Alternately you could see if the paint will flow with the lining pen open a bit more ( on some scrap). If it flows then, close up the pen to the desired width. That might prompt the paint to flow.

 

Jon

Hi Jon, yep, cocktail stick test always observed .

It does flow very well... once it gets going, so I don't think it's how wide the pen is set.

I'm setting it by putting a post-it note edge between the blades and tightening them until I can only just draw the paper through, with perceptible drag. I measured the thickness of a post-it note (can't remember what it was right now) and it's about a scale 1/8", which is what I need. But, of course, the actual thickness you end up with is very dependent on the speed with which you move the pen. I found however that setting it much wider meant I couldn't get a thin enough line, even at speed.

[Chas Levin]

4 hours ago, 31A said:

When you say the paint wouldn't flow freely until you'd cleaned the pen with white spirit, do you think there might be some residual white spirit remaining on the pen which is in effect thinning the paint slightly?

 

I used to do a fair bit of lining using a bow pen years ago and found that Humbrol paints always needed thinning before they would flow freely from the pen, whereas Railmatch enamels would flow freely without needing to be thinned.  For that reason I standardised on Railmatch BR Cream for the Primrose lining on LNER teak coaches (although it might be a bit pale I suppose) and still use it sometimes for glazing bars on the windows of buildings.  I mention that it was 'years ago' as the formulation of Humbrol paint may have changed since I did that sort of thing.

 

The lined frame extensions look great; if you can do stuff to that standard I don't think you need to worry!

 

Hello Steve, thank you for the kind words! I have to keep reminding myself how the lining looks at normal viewing distance - even with my glasses on - rather than how it looks through my magnifier while I'm working on it, which is not far off how it looks in these blown-up photos!

 

I don't think it can be the white spirit, because at the point when I first load the pen with paint, it hasn't had any spirit on it. Also, I dry the pen very thoroughly after each clean.

 

Looking closely at the Minerva compass pen blade's inner faces, the metal isn't shiny (like the outer surfaces), it is minutely grooved; I wonder whether that has something to do with it - whether perhaps repeated applications of paint deposit tiny amounts of residue (even after cleaning) into those grooves, smoothing the way for the paint?

 

Further experimentation is clearly called for...

 

Regarding the paint, I'd always used Humbrol for LNER coach lining, with a 50:50 mix of yellow and buff gloss: I can't remember where I read that, it was on a thread about lining I think. For this loco, I'm actually using Phoenix Precision, in a bid to have accurate colours: the chassis and bogie lining, like the buffer beams, is specified as vermilion and rather than wade through the Humbrol range to find something that looked right, I went with the PPP Vermilion. So it's possible that this is to do with the different flow characteristic of PPP.

However, just to confuse matters further: when I used Humbrol for coach lining, I was using the larger nickel bow-pen from my dad's drawing set, shown in the picture further up this thread, whereas, since I started using the PPP paint, I've been using the stainless steel compass bow-pen!

Clearly, I shall have to try humbrol in the nickel pen and PPP in the steel one!!

 

I'd already planned to compare the Humbrol and PPP gloss white for the white lining, which may also be revealing...

Edited August 7, 2021 by Chas Levin

[31A]

2 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

 

Looking closely at the Minerva compass pen blade's inner faces, the metal isn't shiny (like the outer surfaces), it is minutely grooved; I wonder whether that has something to do with it - whether perhaps repeated applications of paint deposit tiny amounts of residue (even after cleaning) into those grooves, smoothing the way for the paint?

 

 

It has just occurred to me on reading that, in the past I've read of people polishing the tips of bow pens so that the paint will flow freely.  I don't know whether this is mentioned in Ian Rathbone's book, but I think I've read of carborundum slips being used for this. Doing so might make the Minerva's blades shiny and no longe minutely grooved?  It might be interesting to see whether the Humbrol flows more freely off the old pen, if the blades of that are smooth.

 

[Chas Levin]

10 minutes ago, 31A said:

 

It has just occurred to me on reading that, in the past I've read of people polishing the tips of bow pens so that the paint will flow freely.  I don't know whether this is mentioned in Ian Rathbone's book, but I think I've read of carborundum slips being used for this. Doing so might make the Minerva's blades shiny and no longe minutely grooved?  It might be interesting to see whether the Humbrol flows more freely off the old pen, if the blades of that are smooth.

 

There is indeed quite a bit of coverage in Ian's book on honing the blades - there's also some excellent material on YouTube from Mike Trice - and I went through that procedure with this pen when I first bought it, as it didn't then flow at all. However, I only honed the first few milimetres: perhaps some work is needed further up...

 

What still puzzles me though, is that once the paint does finally start flowing, it's then fine for the remainder of the session - which might be a couple of hours....

 

Well, we shall see: I'm currently working on a gadget to make lining around the buffer housing ends easier - small details, to be sure, but prominent...

[Chas Levin]

While I was doing red lining - though only on less vulnerable areas - I decided to try and find a way to make lining around the ends of the buffer housings easier, as I'd been thinking about how difficult they might be. I thought how much easier it would be if the housings extended further out, giving somewhere not only to rest the compass bow-pen's brass rod but also perhaps a way to guide it... and so, here is my latest Lining Stand Accessory:

 

 

 

Doesn't look like much, does it... It started off as a piece of plain brass tube,a snug fit inside the empty buffer housings:

 

 

 

I then cut grooves into it by holding it in a drill chuck and spinning it against a circular needle file - there are three grooves, to allow for three different degrees of separation of the compass arms, because from some angles it's easier to manipulate the compass when it's quite closed up, whereas at other times there are fittings protruding from the loco body that can only be avoided by having the compass at a greater angle - hopefully, these pictures make things clearer:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That third photo, with the brass rod against the end of the tube, doesn't offer the same degree of guidance as the grooves, but it does allow the pen-blades to lean over at a greater angle, avoiding fouling the lamp irons, grab-rail and so forth.

 

So, you may very reasonably ask, does it actually work? Yes it does!

 

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by Chas Levin

[Chas Levin]

Buffer housing lining continues - the front pair now have their red lines, while the back pair now also have their black edging:

 

 

 

I had some difficulty securing a reasonable photo of these - my phone camera's very shallow depth of focus was the problem!

 

I'll do the red and black lining on the vertical parts of the steps next - I think it will be protected by the protruding horizontal steps themselves - but after that, I'll have to take the plunge and start the main white, black and dark green lining of the upper body, boiler bands and so forth.

 

So, why all the prevarication? GNR passenger lining: what's the big deal - what are we actually talking about at? Well, for those who are unfamiliar - and pre-grouping livery is not to everyone's taste - here's a contemporary postcard that gives a good idea of the overall effect:

 

 

 

It's a well known card - Nigel Digby uses it as an example in the GNR section of his excellent Pre-Grouping liveries book, though I must stress that what you're looking at here is a photo I took of my own copy of the original postcard - and it's one of a number featuring GNR locos. Although it's clearly a drawing, it's probably derived from a photo: many of this GNR postcard series are clearly done that way - sometimes including rails in the foreground - and some even say so. I think these hand coloured postcards are a valuable resource in assessing early liveries: it seems reasonable to assume that the artist's intention would have been to render the loco livery as realistically as possible and it also seems reasonable to assume that he (or she) would have been working from life. As far as I've so far been able to discover, there are no contemporary colour photos of GNR locos in their original livery - though I'd be delighted to be corrected on that! - so these seem like the next best thing.

For another perspective, here's another well-known photo of the preserved N2 1744 in GNR livery, freely available online and very pretty, to my eye:

 

 

 

This gives - of course - a much more realistic idea of what's involved. Having now spent a lot of time looking at photos and reading about the livery, there are one or two small ways in which it differs from what was 'official', according to some sources, but I've also learnt that there were all sorts of contemporary variations too, as you'd expect, given how many different paint shops were applying the livery and over how long a timespan. Small areas of lining were done differently from time to time - sometimes, sections of the chassis only had horizontal lines, with no verticals to join them up, whereas in other photos, the line is continuous. The same is true of loco bodies too: things like the lower smokebox area, where it overlaps with the upper parts of the frames that sit above the footplate, were black in some cases, Frame Chocolate in others.

 

As a final example of the original GNR livery and to show it applied to a C2, here's photo I recently came across on Ebay - I'm not sure whether it's an original photo or a postcard - which I thought interesting as it's a half-rear view and not a picture I've seen elsewhere; apologies for the poor quality:

 

 

 

Talk of what's 'official' opens a bit of a can of worms, doesn't it? The trouble with books such as Nigel Digby's, or the even more useful E F Carter “British Railway Liveries” is that they're essentially secondary sources: they're simply quoting from original, or primary sources. In the case of Carter, the date - 1952 - of his first edition makes it particularly interesting because the descriptions - and in particular the colour paint chart - can be assumed to be derived, in part at least, from living memory... but for pre-grouping questions, those memories were already 30 years old!

 

My concerns over judging measurements and layouts were allayed however by a fellow RM Webber, who not only alerted me to the existence of such a thing as a Painting Diagram, by very generously sent me scans of some original GNR ones: the Holy Grail! I was full of curiosity and was fascinated by them: I hadn't imagined that such precise layout measurements of every aspect of the livery would have been recorded so meticulously, but as soon as I saw them, I realised that they would have to have been drawn up and distributed to the various loco and vehicle works, or there would have been no hope of any liveries more elaborate than all-over black being consistent from one area to the next!

 

The diagrams were supplied for personal use only, on the understanding that they were not published (partly for copyright reasons, partly for their possible future use elsewhere), but I have obtained permission from the person who gave them to me (thank you once again, sir!) to reproduce here a very cropped extract, just to illustrate the level of detail that they incorporated, for those who've not seen one before:

 

 

 

The same level of detail is expended on every area of the loco body and frames, with colour shades and measurements (the latter all Imperial: hooray!). The precise colour shades were of course known to the shops at the time and we do have good information on them nowadays: it's those measurements that were of particular interest to me, as I'd been wondering how to get them right and I'd assumed I'd have to scale them from photographs. These diagrams make it easier to feel things are right, or at any rate, one version of 'right'! Every detail is specified, including the colours and widths of the lining on the buffer housings that I'm currently working on: nothing's left to chance!

Edited April 10, 2022 by Chas Levin