Jump to content
 

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

Steps on one side lined:

 

545867734_LRMC1220210814(1).jpg.ce78ac5ed18c215b81a49a5454678923.jpg

 

 

The lining looks over-bright at the moment, as it's gloss on the satin brown, but varnish will even that out. They're also not as even and flat as I'd like, but that's mainly due to my uneven brushwork on the brown surface. Lesson learned there: surfaces destined to be lined need to be totally flat!

The lines are also still over-scale (I measure them nearer 1/2" than the specified 1/8") but I had problems avoiding them breaking up when I tried to go thinner, again because of the uneven base surface. They're the same width as the white lining on my old Hornby GNR N2 and J52 though, so I guess if Hornby could get away with it... (and the Hornby locos don't even have any red and black lining at all!).

I am getting better at is thinning down the lines after applying them though, with a brush just slightly moistened with white spirit. Getting the hang of that makes lining much easier: you don't have to worry so much about the line as it first goes on, as long as it covers the place it's meant to be, as you then 'shave off' the edges.

 

The smokebox door hinge and dart have also received a coat of PPP 'Oily Steel':

 

1944680928_LRMC1220210814(2).jpg.83b98e78ab75f97445897543fc94eff9.jpg

 

 

Again, the finish is not as good as it needs to be (especially at twice life-size - the top edge of the upper hinge bracket, for instance) but I decided to let it sit overnight and try and remove some of the bumps tomorrow. The 'white spirit brush along the edge' trick is extremely tricky here, where you're trying to remove metallic silver paint from black, as tiny silver particles find their way onto the black with frustrating ease. I found I had to brush onto the silver area, never onto the black, but the adhesion of the wet silver paint on the Halfords black wasn't very strong and removing more than intended was a hazard. Once I'm happy with the finish of the silver, I'll varnish the whole smokebox door to protect it...

 

Edit: looking at the picture of the front again, I thought I'd go and take another look before bed and it seems that the bumpy upper edge of the upper hinge bracket is partly a grainy artefact of the photo, because it doesn't look that way on the model! Looking at blown-up photos has it's pros and cons, doesn't it? :rolleyes::D

Edited by Chas Levin
  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The steps on the other side have now been lined:

 

1957933513_LRMC1220210817(1).jpg.cb65b5d49478162482b55bc37b0ce342.jpg

 

 

Usual disclaimer: they look better in person than in the photo! Overall, I managed a slightly neater job than the other side - definitely a learning process. I didn't spot the poor alignment of the lower rear step before lining it however - it's the lining that shows it up, of course, because I followed the line of the step itself with the pen:rolleyes:. I'll try and adjust the look of it tomorrow, by shading in some brown above the right-hand side, some black below the left-hand side and re-applying the red.

 

I realised there's another reasonably well protected area I can deal with while I'm still in red and black mode - the parts of the frames that sit above the footplate. An awkward area, in particular the inside faces, because of the lamp irons and the vac pipe. But they'll look gorgeous when they're done. Special effort required too, because they're 'above ground' and that bit more visible...

Edited by Chas Levin
  • Like 7
  • Craftsmanship/clever 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Today's modelling time was spent on two very small areas indeed, both quite time-consuming but both are the sort of thing you notice, perhaps without realising it - the eye takes in a huge amount of detail that the brain registers unconsciously, so I think it's worth getting as many details looking good as I can, to help balance out the many things that are not quite so crisp!! :rolleyes:

 

First up then, that lower rear step on the left-hand side that I mentioned in my last post. As can be seen in the photo below, I've now levelled the lower red lining, so that the upper and lower sides of the trapezium shape are parallel:

 

2106314712_LRMC1220210817(3).jpg.6d0f4d7bdd6fec27fd630acebd3d9d53.jpg

 

 

(I'm not sure you can have a trapezium with two curved sides but what the hell - let's live dangerously:D). This was done by applying some brown above and some black below, plus some judicious budging and stroking of the red with white spirit and a small amount of re-touching the red with the tiniest droplets on the end of a finely pointed brush.

 

This, of course, highlights the fact that the lower step itself is not quite level, but I think that looks better than having the lining wrong. And in terms of representing reality, I find it easier to imagine a step getting bent or damaged in use than to believe that a lining artist in the GNR paint shop got the lining off-kilter! Also, for practical purposes in my own model world, the loco will mainly be viewed from higher angles where the wonky step won't show, whereas the lining would still do so.

 

Second job of the day: I'd been under the impression that the red and black lining was applied to both the upper and lower edges of the frame sections above the footplate, but closer inspection shows that it appears not and that, in those few places where it can be discerned in photos, as well as in Nigel Digby's book, it's only present along the upper edges. I'm going with that, because attempting to apply it along the lower edge - alongside the footplate surface - as well as the upper surface would have been considerably more difficult and less likely to result in a tidy job.

 

However, this left a (very) small bit of tidying up to do: I'd not worried about small amounts of black paint 'riding up' onto the lower edge of the frame pieces whilst I was painting the footplate surface, reasoning that the black edge lining would cover them. But, without that now being done, those tiny black areas needed to be over-painted in the Frame Chocolate Brown. Doing so was reasonably careful work, but not as difficult as securing before and after photos of the job that actually show what's been done! Below is my best effort - you'll have to take my word for it that beforehand (on the left), the black was visibly encroaching on the lower edge of the brown and afterwards (on the right), the line is nice and clear between the two colours:

 

861198144_LRMC1220210817(12).jpg.3f443d0051ba95bf863228a769c457b8.jpg

 

 

As you can probably see, the amount of black in the wrong place was tiny - probably less than 0.2mm at its worse - and only along some of the length, but as I said at the start of this post, I think these things are taken in when we look at a model, even if we don't realise it. It doesn't help that the lighting is less well arranged in the 'after' photo, but I decided I'd spent quite long enough on photography by that point. The white specs on the smokebox are just dust, by the way!

 

The black that has come down from the smokebox saddle and over the upper edge of the frame piece will of course be covered by the red and black lining, so I've left it alone for now.

 

The two lengths of the frame pieces either side of that smokebox saddle area I think can be done using the compass bow pen, with the brass wire guide moving along the upper edge of the frame; the section that abuts directly onto the smokebox saddle may be more difficult however. I can rest the brass wire on the lower edge of the curved saddle, but there'll be little to stop it wandering... The other way is to use the longer and heavier nickel bow pen, resting the outer side of the curved blade on the footplate surface. That would call for a steady hand... We shall see.

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

  • RMweb Premium

So, the upper frames: I decided to start on the inner surfaces, that face the steam chest, on the basis that they'll be less high-profile than those facing outwards. Althought they're short lengths, they're quite awkward to line because of the lamp irons at one end and the smokebox door and the steam chest at the other. In addition, the upper frame on one side interferes with the placing of the bow pen to line the opposite side - so using the compass bow pen and it's brass wire guide to track the shape isn't possible because its blade adjustment screw fouls:

 

1151217525_LRMC1220210819(5).jpg.f1c52ab729dea9a8dcaebdc5c59dd562.jpg

 

 

However, I then realised that the opposite frame piece could be used as a guide for the larger nickel bow pen:

 

1138091457_LRMC1220210819(4).jpg.a396a321d024597aef855ac4fca54eee.jpg

 

 

This works quite well, given a piece of masking tape along the top edge of the frame piece being used as a guide to protect the paint (I learned the hard way that moving the pen - however carefully - along the painted surface without that causes predictable damage!) but... the lamp irons and smokebox mean that the pen can't be kept at a constant angle, as can be seen in these three photos:

 

183490051_LRMC1220210819(1).jpg.fd26fea004e036fd3dc0d9b1032bf5f0.jpg

 

 

1104814420_LRMC1220210819(2).jpg.b21a4f9827d0596d288f9aba778bbd9c.jpg

 

 

1395146306_LRMC1220210819(3).jpg.0008c610e1e6ef482465eae17b221418.jpg

 

 

It's also not easy to prevent the pen moving up and down a minute amount but, given a steady hand and time spent with the white spirit dampened brush afterwards to clean up, this is the result:

 

1454594425_LRMC1220210819(11).jpg.8e23c3178846c390a41212db1897ceb7.jpg

 

 

And here's a cruel close-up:

 

145643662_LRMC1220210819(10).jpg.99fc24284b946e114863368089a0e56d.jpg

 

 

Amongst the things I'm gradually getting used to is the way these lines take on quite different appearances when viewed from different angles and in different lighting conditions:rolleyes:. For example, the rear third or so of the line I've just done looks slightly thicker and brighter in all the photos I take of it but, when viewed straight on and in good light, it looks even in width and brightness.

I had the same issue with this line as the ones on the steps, where trying to thin the line much more results in it breaking up, because of the slightly uneven brown base surface. I think what happens is that the white spirit finds its way into the lower areas and bleeds away more of the line, leaving it in place on the higher sections, resulting in tiny breaks. So I've left this one as it is and I plan to apply the black ever so slightly up onto the edge of it to thin it a tiny bit more, as I did on the steps.

The other advantage of leaving the red quite bright is that after a couple of coats of varnish it'll still show up well: after all the work it takes, I shall enjoy being able to see it from normal viewing distances!

Edited by Chas Levin
  • Like 6
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Further work today on the upper frame lining: the right-hand inner face of the front section, and the right-hand outer face:

 

46827795_LRMC1220210821(1).jpg.a1f33d6fca2e24cd23715869f6e1bec7.jpg

 

 

Both these areas were awkward, in part because I'm right-handed, in part - in the case of the inner face - for the same reasons as the other inner face as detailed above and in part - in the case of the outer face - because of the section that runs along the smokebox saddle, plus the small hand-rail towards the rear.

 

The compass bow pen is suited to the sections either side of the smokebox:

 

1488970289_LRMC1220210820(1).jpg.d229e0cffa4ff1557a2dfcbe82488add.jpg

 

 

690738027_LRMC1220210820(2).jpg.2758f175b6cba841a5f4565fc24fa84c.jpg

 

 

But, when we come to the area below the smokebox, the brass wire guide can't rest on the top of the frame. It can rest on the curved surface of the saddle, but there's nothing to stop it wandering up and down:

 

1764908026_LRMC1220210820(3).jpg.5169c6ebdd9e6b47262b5058c67c2683.jpg

 

 

The other option is to use the nickel pen and rest it on the footplate:

 

1371610910_LRMC1220210820(4).jpg.dcc9f2e6988fe316ce2364fd4f273719.jpg

 

 

This looked like it would work well for the straight section from the side-tank front to where the frame starts to curve downwards - including that difficult smokebox part - but following that downward curving front section freehand seemed an unnecessary extra handicap, so I went with the compass pen. The section under the smokebox saddle was predictably messier than the areas either side, but some white spirit stroking largely rectified things.

 

The bow pen even fitted on top of the little hand-rail, but I had to brush in the last few mm each side of the hand-rail knobs and the rearmost section - between that hand-rail and the tank fronts - had to be brushed, as steps and handrails combined to preclude bow pen use!

 

Overall, I think the outside face run doesn't look too bad - the straight section is pretty much straight, certainly in normal viewing and the line is fairly consistent. They're still not as thin as I'd like but hopefully applying the black edging will help:

 

1860477118_LRMC1220210821(2).jpg.9473e6b7f6f2eb00648d53818518976b.jpg

 

 

Edited by Chas Levin
  • Like 8
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Black edging now added to both sides of the upper frame pieces:

 

293589019_LRMC1220210823(2).jpg.115efbd4f222885519304e1300d56218.jpg

 

 

It's a delicate business, trying to lay the black just a little over the edge of the red to reduce the red width by a fraction, but overall I'm reasonably pleased. They're also difficult to photograph, being black!

I know I've said this before, but Lesson Learned on the importance of obtaining a really smooth, really flat surface at each stage of painting but especailly where lining is to be done later. I'm hoping the sprayed green cellulose will provide a better base surface for the white and black lining - it certainly looks more even.

Bow pen flow has been good too, of late. I spent some further time honing the blades of the steel compass pen and that does seem to have improved things a little, so that it now flows more readily, though still not as well as it's larger, older nickel cousin.

Looking at the photos I can see a couple of things that need attending to - the vac standpipe bracket and the left-hand buffer housing need black and brown touching in, respectively - but otherwise, there probably isn't much else to be done before starting on the main panel lining :).

Edited by Chas Levin
  • Like 5
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • RMweb Premium

The last few weeks have been considerably busier than usual with non-railway things, so there’s been less time and less energy for modelling, but some useful research time.

 

In planning out the side panel lining, I realised that one critical dimension isn't specified on the painting diagrams: the radius of the incurved corners. Not only is it a necessary dimension for the corners themselves, but it also dictates the lengths of the straights.

 

My first thought was that it wasn't specified because it’s obtainable from the given information and I spent some time in ultimately fruitless but interesting attempts to press a few tattered remnants of schoolboy algebra and geometry into protesting use, before concluding that it can’t be done. A key realisation was that you could reduce or extend the lengths of the straights whilst still maintaining their distances from the panel edges, with predictable consequences on the corner radii.

 

A quick look online brought relief in the knowledge that I’m not alone; an LNER Info Forum thread (https://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=10794) involving an enormous collective amount of modelling experience concludes that while this measurement can be found for later styles - BR and perhaps LNER - it hasn't been recorded for earlier pre-grouping GNR. Bill Bedford made the interesting suggestion there that the corner radii aren’t included on diagrams because the paint-shops had templates for them, which sounds very plausible to me.

 

So: what to do? Having been so excited at having authentic, original measurements from diagrams – all of which remains useful and valid - it seemed like a retrograde step to start measuring photos, but I couldn't think of another way. I entirely realise that this is probably somewhat over the top for the job in hand, but once I got started, it became something of a quest to try and determine exact measurements, even though I realised I'd probably end up measuring more accurately than I'll be able to paint.

The way to do it that occurred to me was to re-size a suitable photo at 4mm:1ft and then mark points to measure on that. I expect there are other ways to do it – please do suggest any that I should try too – but this seemed a good starting point - apologies for the long post...

 

Scaling & measuring photographs

 

Starting with as straight a side-on view of a square-tank C2 as I could find, I thought it would be easier to be sure about dimensions if I could mark them accurately in some minutely adjustable way, so I used Microsoft Word, which lets you add lines, shapes, arrows and text-boxes, change their colour, alter their positions incrementally and so forth. It’ll also result in a lining diagram with 4mm scale measurements which might be useful! I'm sure other software would do the job more efficiently but Word is one I already know and have.

 

In studying and measuring this image - and in comparing it to other similar ones - I came up against one or two peculiarities of optics that required some thought. I found that all the photos exhibited some small variations in dimensions between one end of the loco and the other: tiny, but perfectly perceptible. The height from footplate to bunker top might be half a mm greater than that from footplate to side tank top, for instance. In some cases, this may just be distortion of the original photo, or distortion that's crept in somewhere in the chain between the original and its final appearance in print. I worked from high resolution scans but still couldn't quite eliminate it. At 4mm to the foot, half a mm is 1 1/2” – enough to cause problems!

 

The other cause - I think - is to do with the width of the viewpoint and it explains why measuring from scale drawings is accurate in a way that doing so from photos usually isn't. When a scale drawing of something long such as a loco is produced, it's done from measurements, directly on to paper and is drawn as if the viewpoint is the same width (or length) as the loco - imagine if your eyes, or your camera aperture - were like a long letter-box, the full length of the loco itself. A photographer however is viewing a long object through the camera lens - a pinpoint, relatively speaking. That means that the distance from the camera aperture to different points on the loco varies - think of the middle compared to either end, which would be the greatest difference.

Another way to visualise the problem is to imagine a loco photographed through a fish-eye lens. That would exaggerate the problem grossly of course, but even the professional photographers who took these types of official portraits, using the best type of camera for such a subject (not my speciality subject so I don't know what they'd be called - full plate?) seem to have retained a very small amount of this perspective distortion, if that's the right term.

 

I decided the best way to minimise the problem for measurement purposes would be to use as narrow an area of the loco body as I could, so there'd be as little of such perspective distortion as possible. Looking at various photos, it appears to me (and I stress this is only a theory or an impression) that the photographers positioned themselves just slightly forward of the cab doors rather than dead centre of the footplate. The reason I came to that conclusion is because on several photos that were clearly intended to be straight side-on portraits, working forward from the back, measurements - such as the footplate to tank-top one I mentioned earlier - seem to agree from the rear end until somewhere around the middle of the side-tanks, where they then start to reduce. In a couple of cases, there even appears to be a visible curving distortion – like that from a wide-angle lens - of the front end of the loco, as if it's curving away from the plane of the photograph.

Therefore, I decided to focus on the bunker side as my main measuring area. It's a fairly short section - relative to the whole loco length - and should therefore be reasonably uniformly reproduced in the photos.

 

After making a reasonably high-res scan of as straight a side-on view as I could find in decent quality, the next job was to re-size it to print out at 4mm to the foot. Using the measurement from the footplate top surface to the underside of the bunker beading as my datum point (it's prominent, clear, uncluttered by other fittings and fairly easy to measure by going in from behind the rear of the loco with the calipers, plus the change in background behind the loco aids accurate placing of the caliper jaws) the first thing I found was that this dimension is 17mm on the Isinglass drawing but 17.4 on my LRM model. I think that's down to my inaccurate construction, but I've used 17.4 (or 52 1/3” on the prototype) to scale the photo, as the point here it to produce lining measurements for use on this particular model.

 

I then added in 'marker lines', in various colours (in order to aid distinguishing between them where things get a bit crowded). These were positioned by zooming in on the photo to maximum size and, for final positioning, altering the stored position numerically for each line or, in the case of the circles used to match the incurved corners' diameters, altering their sizes numerically: you can go into the properties for an individual line once it's been created and alter its vertical or horizontal position by steps of 0.01mm. Almost everything can be marked by lines added to the bunker side, except of course the horizontal lengths of the side-tank lining.

Here's what I eventually came up with - I hope this is OK from a copyright point of view, as the original image is incorporated in another piece of own. Please note the image below is a cropped, low-resolution screenshot of the document for viewing purposes and is not to scale:

 

112229078_GNRC21013scale-printliningCL20210920ScrnShot(1).jpg.c895cd383172c46cec25ff3105726384.jpg

 

(All versions edited September 20th, to correct a labelling typo and to change the colour of the 'A-F' letters from white to red, so they show up on the 'loco-less' version).

 

Here's the same thing in a high resolution 4mm:1ft scale-print size, in pdf format, in case anyone wants to take a closer look - if you download this and print this one at actual size - no scaling - it will come out at 4mm scale:

 

GNR C2 1013 scale-print lining CL 20210920 (1).pdf

 

 

Another issue I came up against is the tendency of the line-drawing in Word to exhibit slight off-vertical or off-horizontal tilts which can't be corrected by typing into a ‘Properties’ box, as can the size and overall position. This can mean that the distance between pairs of coloured Word lines may vary, depending where along their length the measurements taken. My solution to this was to take all measurements from the point on the Word lines where they actually sit above what they're marking in the photo, positioning that was done as accurately as possible, under extreme zoom-in: for instance, the blue lines that mark the outer white lining on the loco were measured at the point where they actually intersect with the white lining on the photo.

 

I found this quite difficult to do at first because the very thin (¼ point) coloured lines are hard to see with the loco photo behind them... until it occurred to me that having got the coloured lines accurately positioned and saved, I could simply save another copy of the document with the original photo of the loco deleted, leaving the coloured lines much more easy to measure against a plain white background - again, please note this is a cropped, low-resolution screenshot, not to scale:

 

802413265_GNRC21013scale-printliningCL20210920NoLocoScrnShot(1).jpg.94bd81a53bf30169b5a2fdbafc0304a7.jpg

 

And as above, here's the same thing as a high-resolution pdf, which will print out - at Actual Size - at 4mm to the foot:

 

GNR C2 1013 scale-print lining CL 20210920 No Loco (1).pdf

 

 

Looking at the loco-less lines on paper, it also occurred to me to try putting in a suitably re-sized scan of another square tank C2 under my measuring lines to see whether they’d line up reasonably well. This didn't go quite as smoothly as I’d hoped, perhaps because - I suspect - the perspective distortion I mentioned above is either more pronounced in this photo, or because it varies between photos and has affected this one differently. Also, the only other suitable C2 photo (of 1009) I've found so far is more blurry than the one of 1013. But, allowing for some variation between the two, things lined up well enough to confirm the crucial measurements of curve radii and lining lengths. I was able to line up all the measurements on the all-important bunker side, even though further forward along the loco things were a little adrift, which again makes me think the perspective of that 1009 photo is slightly different to that of 1013.

 

At last: the elusive incurved corner radius measured!

 

So, some actual figures: I measure the GNR C2 lining’s outer corner radius as 1.25mm (3.75” on the prototype) and the inner corner radius as 1.55mm (4.65” on the prototype).

 

This makes the inner radius 24% larger than the outer one. (If I've got my calculations wrong, please don't hesitate to reply and let me know!). This is quite visible in the original photo, where the inner curves are clearly significantly broader - the upper right-hand side tank inner corner curve radius actually looks nearly flat, but I'm guessing that's some sort of photographic distortion and that it would have matched the others in reality.

 

On the LNER Info Forum thread mentioned above, there are several calculations and suggestions for these radii. 'John Coffin' suggests an inner radius 7” and an outer of 5” (a 40% increase, based on his study of a Doncaster 2-2-2 drawing and his considerable experience in GNR lining). Allowing for the change from 2” to 2 1/8” for the overall white-black-white lining (where I think we’ve referred to differing sources) this assumes that the two radii match in curvature, so that one can be calculated from the other by adding – or subtracting – the total lining width. That certainly looks to be the case on many LNER loco photos, where the inner and outer out-curved corners appear to match in curvature. As mentioned in my previous paragraph however, the C2 photos I've been studying show the outer curves as very clearly tighter than the inner ones. This is very apparent on 1013: the inner curves look to me to be like small sections taken from a far larger radius circle. I wonder if this might be another area of variation between different locos or paint shops, perhaps more varied in GNR days, being more standardised after Grouping?

 

'61962' refers in the thread to another painting diagram in Leech & Boddy's “The Stirling Singles” (a book I hadn't come across before, but which sounds interesting). Like other diagrams referred to, it doesn't give radii either, but he calculates them - by scaling from the measurements given - as being 3 1/2” inside, 5 5/8” outside. Unless that's a typo - reversing inner and outer? - this suggests to me that there were changes in the lining style and that perhaps this diagram was from an earlier style, where the inner curve was the tighter of the two.

 

I took a look through the Stirling volume of RCTS; to my eye, the Singles do seem to have incurved corners of a very similar looking radius, which seemed to support the theory of different earlier styles... until I carried on through the volume! The next locos, 0-4-2 Well Tanks, have a lined panel on the bunker with the same feature as the C2, where the inner curve appears to come from a far larger radius circle. The same is true of the long side-tank panels on the 0-4-4T G3s and G4s, F2s and F7s and the 7'6” 2-2-2s. Were the Singles a special case? Well, whatever the case for them - and for their painting diagrams - I believe it's the case that in general, the inner curves of GNR incurved corners were a wider radius than the outer curves.

 

Outer lining to panel edge distances

 

I measure the GNR C2 vertical spacing of the outer white lining, measuring in from the tank front and from the bunker end (and also from each side of the door), as 2mm, or 6” on the prototype and all the square tank C2 photos I can find appear to show these vertical spacings being consistently the same.

This doesn’t agree with the painting diagrams I have which give 8” for these distances, but that’s on the side of a tender - a different loco - and we’ve already noted that these diagrams may show earlier and slightly different lining styles.

 

Whilst not directly relevant to this square tank C2 build, I learnt from studying various photos that the round tank locos are not at all consistent in this measurement. Measuring from straight side-on photos of 1504, 1509, 1529 and 1535, while the spacing from the outer white lining to each side of the door is the same (it would look odd if it weren't!), the spacing of the outer white line from the tank front is generally 10-12% less than that from the door, while the spacing from the rear bunker edge is anywhere between 30-50% narrower. I thought this variation might be due to lining being applied at different paint shops, but according to the RCTS book all 60 of the class were built at Doncaster, so it must simply be that such dimensions were not fully standardised at this date.

 

One spacing that is fully consistent across both square and round tank C2 versions in photographs is the horizontal alignment of the lining panels: I measure the spacing between the outer white lining and the upper and lower panel edges at 1mm, or 3” on the prototype, for both side tank and bunker lining.

This is at odds with the painting diagrams I have, which give 4 1/2” from the lower white down to the footplate but 3 1/8” upwards from the upper white line to the panel edge. However, these figures are for the lining on a what I believe is an earlier Stirling tender, which has additional lining bands between the outer dark green area and the start of the tender flare, so it's effectively a different lining design. Having checked this measurement on six good side-on photos of C2s (two square, four round) and found it consistent, I think I'm safe in taking 1mm / 3” as being correct.

 

Having now established the missing dimensions, I think I'll also do some proper practice - and compare the Phoenix Precision and Humbrol gloss whites for lining use - by going back to the GNR green test panel, which I used earlier to practice the red-black lining - the abutting white-black-white lining required is a step up from the black-red on the chassis. There's space for the two panels  - side-tank and bunker - in scale, on the piece of test brass, a happy accident!:)

Edited by Chas Levin
  • Like 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 3
  • Craftsmanship/clever 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

While considering other possible measuring activites, I was itching to get some paint onto something - it's been too long! So, I did some 'quick and dirty' tests to compare Phoenix Precision and Humbrol white gloss. The idea here wasn't to see how good I could get the lines, but to see how well the two paints flowed, straight out of the tin, with no special preparation and, in particular, to see how quickly they started to go off in the pen blades to the point where the lines deteriorated: I moved fast and didn't worry about break-up. I used two sides of a scrap card box that I'd primed and sprayed with the Express Paints colour-matched GNR green when I was spraying the loco body, for possible use in this way later: it has a finely pitted surface, as I also wanted to see whether those lines that went on fairly even and straight stayed that way as they dried, or whether the paint spread out into the tiny depressions. The actual loco body is of course far flatter - not quite glassy, but nothing like these box sides. Here are the results - interestingly, the lines didn't spread much at all:

 

108092696_LRMC1220210918Liningprep(1).jpg.c7d9025234ec1dca9898bd8ad22fc341.jpg

 

 

Here's a closer view of the Phoenix Precision side - you can see that the paint started to go off a little at the tip about half-way down and I had to refresh it:

 

1666673407_LRMC1220210918Liningprep(5).jpg.4fd12434cb8b7912608f27c8e443b176.jpg

 

 

And here's the Humbrol one, same problem though it kept going a little longer:

 

296227357_LRMC1220210918Liningprep(6).jpg.564c2eecf46f10639a932808dc6ac3ae.jpg

 

 

The Humbrol was thicker in consistency, yet seemed to flow a little easier. The PPP, although it seemed thinner, needed more care to get to flow, but the colour seems more solid - that doesn't come across in these photos but you can see the difference in real life.

 

I referred above to 'refreshing' the paint at the tip. I'm setting the distance between the blades by drawing a post-it note (0.04mm) through them and tightening them until it will only just move through. Once I've got going, I find that the paint at the tip starts to dry out, so I then draw a small, cut out rectangle of post-it note through the last few mm of the paint-loaded gap, which seems to draw off the dried part and pull through some fresher paint from higher up - like this, though I'm showing it here with a clean pen. I slot the paper in, a few mm up from the tip, and pull it down through the tip - towards the left, in this picture:

 

133683810_LRMC1220210918Liningprep(3).jpg.e16316ed1caa3b921f98672443354b1d.jpg

 

 

I found I need to use scissor-cut pieces, because when you tear post-its, the fibres of the paper become detached and clog the paint.

 

Also visible in the first photo above is the ruler I use where possible for lining. It's a small and very old steel rule, to the back of which I've stuck a thin strip of adhesive-backed rubber pad - the type you used to get with things like audio equipment, to stick underneath the metal casing and stop the corners scratching wooden surfaces; it means I can rest the ruler on painted surfaces without the metal edge damaging the finish. Here's a closer view:

 

439125952_LRMC1220210918Liningprep(2).jpg.acc8791d3bbbf97447c63e8ba24fe15d.jpg

 

 

Next job is to find suitably sized washers - or similar - to use as guides for the curves. I started looking through what I have, but then realised that as I have some more measuring to do to confirm my first findings, I should put off that stage:

 

1577183472_LRMC1220210918Liningprep(7).jpg.da227a0b741cb9bcbbbcd3178687c229.jpg

 

 

As you can see, that scrap brass test panel I used to test the GNR green cellulose aerosols I got from Express Paints turns out to be just large enough to allow practice panels to be lined on it in scale: that wasn't planned, it's just a gift from the Model Railway Gods :).

 

Edited by Chas Levin
  • Like 7
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

In response to my post last Thursday about measuring, Mike Trice very kindly sent an extremely high resolution side-on photo of 1528. Although it's a later round-tank C2, the resolution of the photo was so much better than I'd had before that I thought it would be interesting to compare measurements on that too, using the same 'scale to 4mm' method.

 

There are slight differences. Both in-curved corner radii are slightly smaller on 1528 than on the square-tank 1013 (the inner by 7% at 1.45mm / 4.35", the outer by 13% at 1.1mm / 3.3") and while it's difficult to know whether those differences are errors due to the poor resolution of the 1013 photo I used, or whether it's another of the slight differences between the square-tank and round-tank liveries, the difference is too small to affect things at 4mm (where they're 0.1 and 0.15mm respectively).

 

While the height of the vertical lining is the same on both locos, with the same spacing between it and the panel upper and lower edges (as I'd also measured on other square-vs-round tank photos) the horizontals are 2" longer on 1528 than on 1013. This makes perfect sense, because the lining panels extend to nearer the front edge of the side-tanks and the rear edges of the bunker sides on the round-tank locos.

 

So, I think we're good to go :).

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Today I started practising my white lines... and learned more about how much skill is required!

 

733594839_LRMC1220210921(1)Crop1-PPP2onHumbrol.jpg.642df23870e2849f812025d32014522b.jpg

 

 

The first pair (looking horizontally) of lines was actually done yesterday with PPP white. Far too wide. Below it are three done with Humbrol this morning, which are more like an acceptable width. I had been setting the pen gap using a post-it note and stopping when there was friction, but this time I went tighter, to the point where the paper will only just move through and drags heavily on the blades.

Cleaning up operations though produced the same problem I'd had with the Oily Steel paint on the black smokebox door, where the lighter colour spreads on the darker background. I went over that thicker PPP line again this morning quite firmly with a cotton bud and WS to try and get rid of the white 'halo' and also to see how much working over like that they'd withstand without it affecting the base line - a fair amount, though it has started to break up.

The lower Humbrol lines though show the spreading effect after first cleaning, the method of stroking the edges with a brush. As the gap between the two white lines will be filled in black, the trick will be to try to move any excess into that gap and not outside the lines and that will require extremely accurate lines to start with.

Edited September 25th: re-reading Ian R's book again I realised I'd fogotten the 'dry cotton bud' technique on page 61 - waiting a coupel of days for the paint to dry thoroughly and then using a dry bud to rub off stray paint. Counter-intuitive, but it doesn't half work well! Presumably the stray material has already been half lifted with white spirit and isn't well bonded to the base surface...?

The lowest line in the set above was my first by-eye attempt to put a second line alongside an existing one and I realised I need a great deal more practice at this, so I went back to those two cardboard box halves I'd covered with quickie lines previously. I went through and put a second line next to each of the first ones, this time taking more care and trying to get better lines, same as last time comparing PPP and Humbrol:

 

1213375568_LRMC1220210921(2).jpg.db51911471d24cc003faf932a63b374d.jpg

 

 

Practice certainly works - I'malready  finding it easier to get consistent lines at an acceptable width. I'm getting more used to judging the right angle at which to apply the pen and the speed to move.

A more difficult issue is placing parallel lines sufficiently accurately so close together! They'll look terrible if they're anything other than parallel. One thing that'll be easier on the loco is having the panel edges to line up as guides, but what I'd really like to come up with is some sort of jig, needs to be 0.6mm, that can be positioned to align the two white lines a consistent distance apart. I know the pros do it by measuring, marking and experience, but I can't help thinking that some sort of template would help...:scratchhead:

 

Edited 22nd: a half-decent night's sleep produces the idea of pieces of 0.6mm brass, one slightly longer than the two panels (say 90mm), other shorter ones; about as wide as allows being held, from above, along the ruler edge with the left hand, to check alignment - between one and two inches perhaps. Plus one or two much narrower piece to pop between obsructions such as lamp irons, to check alignment / line separation... Hm.

Edited by Chas Levin
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

While ruminating on a parallel lining jig-template and practising with the bow pen, I thought I'd look again at a way to hold the cab roof whilst lining it. As it attaches to the body by means of two 14BA bolts (courtesy of Daddyman's excellent suggestion a while back :)) I thought a piece of scrap brass, suitably drilled and folded, could be used to attach it to the Rathbone Stand. First, the basic foldup:

 

391392951_LRMC1220210922(1).jpg.e153eb1427d4212cdcbc367d17eb6cd7.jpg

 

 

84955848_LRMC1220210922(2).jpg.3ee0a61a5b719433735c35d9fa4c43b1.jpg

 

 

Then, the addition of a captive nut and voila:

 

533407671_LRMC1220210922(3).jpg.99b4f7bd724f2dd8c40c8407d9aa2a76.jpg

 

 

933045797_LRMC1220210922(4).jpg.b294d105b5f509dec8405936a2603020.jpg

 

 

It needs a bit of tweaking - the sections that protrude either side will get in the way of the bow pen and it's sitting a bit wonky - but an hour well spent I think...

Edited by Chas Levin
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • RMweb Premium

Things have been even more slowed recently, down due to a relatively minor but persistently painful shoulder injury that refuses to heal speedily, but I've been soldiering on (or should that be 'shouldering' on?:D) with lining practice - and if you think ruling straight lines is difficult, try brushing in curves! Here are some of my practice pieces:

 

741748935_LRMC1220210930liningpractice.jpg.39b9601d73bb7e0b364bc4d4f71bef2a.jpg

 

 

It only occurred to me after going ahead with these first efforts that a better idea would be to learn to draw larger curves and then scale it down!! :blush: I think it's good to post my mistakes - hopefully others won't feel alone...:)

 

Things haven't all been about thin lines though: last weekend I felt like a change, popped some coal in a wagon and thought I'd show how I now do this, in case anyone's looking for an alternative to the wood or polystyrene base block systems that are widely used. I'd tried both and found each to be a little awkward in different ways: shaping a piece of wood seems a lot of work for an unseen coal-covered base, while polystyrene, though easily shaped, gives glue problems.

Realising the base beneath the coal heap need not support significant weight, I thought of moulding a piece of plastic card - black, to save having to paint it - using (very) hot water. The difficulty of holding it in position over a suitable former while immersing it in hot water was solved by making the former in the photos below, a sort of half-egg shape made from Milliput. It has two pinholes in the top, into which pins are pushed, through a rectangle of plastic card, cut slightly larger than the wagon floor area. The half-egg with the card pinned to it is then immersed in boiling water and held in place by something suitable (in this case an upturned egg-cup) while the pins stop the card sliding around - hopefully this sequence of three photos makes it clear:

 

351954974_Wagoncoaling20210902(1).jpg.404a43efdcb0e4616b196e961f481073.jpg

 

 

1957495799_Wagoncoaling20210902(2).jpg.7cef27c4c6301d32be7ffa5ea241e37f.jpg

 

 

1616261994_Wagoncoaling20210902(3).jpg.dd4975821da59204f88cb0add0a33fe9.jpg

 

 

And here's the result, fitted - after a little trimming, which is why I start with  a piece larger than the wagon floor, to allow for the distortion reducing the covering area:

 

180056772_Wagoncoaling20210902(5).jpg.e1460eb4f7677377813c0f3027894fb3.jpg

 

 

Some glue and crushed coal follow - I'm still using the crushed pieces from a single lump I asked if I could have on a visit to a heritage railway many years ago:

 

1523279_Wagoncoaling20210902(9).jpg.15a76b4404ae320382425ce4196e2653.jpg

 

 

Some of the plastic card bases come out fairly flat and I glue and coal them in one go, but this one had quite a pronounced hump, so I did it over two days so that each half could stay horizontal while it's coal layer dried.

Here's the finished wagon, next to another well-know RTR one I did some time ago:

 

451674134_Wagoncoaling20210902(11).jpg.1355184883d167fa7079b75cfadb13f2.jpg

 

Edited by Chas Levin
  • Like 9
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I made a start today on some lining, the white around the cab roof beading:

 

38846159_LRMC1220211006(4).jpg.1f1df640bd0f015899643d8a490b6660.jpg

 

 

Still some cleaning up to do, but I'm not too worried about the sides of the lines that face the beading because I'll edge up the black of the beading to make a decent line where they meet. The less than glass-like finish of the green that I considered acceptable at the time is coming home to roost though, as it makes achieving a straight edge on the white - even the side that faces the flat surfaces - more difficult than it should be. Needless to say it looks much better in real life, at normal size... Today's lighting also cooled the green somewhat: so unpredictable!

 

I've also been doing more practice in drawing circles. Following on from my previous realisation that starting large might be easier, I used the row of washers in the photo below to paint the series of concentric circles in the middle of the panel - the smallest is an 8BA, not too much larger than the Markits axle nut I'll use for the actual inner curves:

 

1112303879_LRMC1220211006(6).jpg.62ddf8141e19a8e5377451612ef5feac.jpg

 

 

It's a lot harder than it looks - I'm no a trained artist by any stretch :rolleyes:!

Edited by Chas Levin
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

G'day Chas

 

I use a piece of MDF, cut to shape, for wagons then covered on coal and glue, fairly flat though but after a wagon has run 20 miles or so the coal always seems to flatten out.

 

manna

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, manna said:

after a wagon has run 20 miles or so the coal always seems to flatten out.

 

2806.jpg

 

Cricklewood (Brent) sidings, March 1905.

 

[DY 2806, released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) licence by the National Railway Museum.]

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Thanks gents, good points well made (verbally and photographically!) and I've seen the flattened out coal load effect in a lot of photos too. The early ones I did were flatter (the Cozy Fires wagon in the last photo of the two wagons is one of those) but I began to think they looked less realistic than ones where the load had shifted about a bit, or hadn't yet settled after loading. The idea was based on photos I'd seen online too - that's the thing about the internet isn't it: you can find almost anything to support a point of view - but I must admit I'd not seen that Cricklewood one Stephen :blush:.

 

The next ones I do will be a compromise, somewhere between flat and hilly...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, Chas Levin said:

Thanks gents, good points well made (verbally and photographically!) and I've seen the flattened out coal load effect in a lot of photos too. The early ones I did were flatter (the Cozy Fires wagon in the last photo of the two wagons is one of those) but I began to think they looked less realistic than ones where the load had shifted about a bit, or hadn't yet settled after loading. The idea was based on photos I'd seen online too - that's the thing about the internet isn't it: you can find almost anything to support a point of view - but I must admit I'd not seen that Cricklewood one Stephen :blush:.

 

The next ones I do will be a compromise, somewhere between flat and hilly...

 

I think it may be a question of both date and colliery - manually-loaded wagons, I suspect, were loaded flat to the raves; machine-loaded ones would come out heaped. Bur I'm not at all sure what the time line is here. Fleetwood Fish is a RCH 1923 wagon and Cosy Fires, whilst being Hornby's near-miss of an RCH 1887 wagon is clearly in a 20s/30s livery.

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
11 hours ago, manna said:

G'day Chas

 

I use a piece of MDF, cut to shape, for wagons then covered on coal and glue, fairly flat though but after a wagon has run 20 miles or so the coal always seems to flatten out.

 

manna

G'Day Terry :), I've always been a bit nervous of working MDF other than sawing and even that outdoors, ever since being told that it's got nasty stuff in it so you're supposed to avoid inhaling the dust from things like filing. Mind you, that was 25+ years ago and it's probaby safer these days, plus I  know I tend to err on the side of caution...:rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I think it may be a question of both date and colliery - manually-loaded wagons, I suspect, were loaded flat to the raves; machine-loaded ones would come out heaped. Bur I'm not at all sure what the time line is here. Fleetwood Fish is a RCH 1923 wagon and Cosy Fires, whilst being Hornby's near-miss of an RCH 1887 wagon is clearly in a 20s/30s livery.

That's very interesting: of course, makes perfect sense (the differnece between manual and machine loading. The heaped ones I've seen would certainly be what I'd expect from a machine drop, I'd never thought about that before.

 

As to timeline, well early 20s would suit what I generally go for on the layout, as it allows late pre-grouping survivors to sit alongside early LNER. But, to be honest, my coal train is really something of a mixture, a sort of 'these are a few of my favourite wagons' affair, made up over the years. Rule No 1 and all that... :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

As to timeline, well early 20s would suit what I generally go for on the layout, as it allows late pre-grouping survivors to sit alongside early LNER. 

 

I don't know about "late pre-grouping survivors" - in the early 20s the vast majority of rolling stock of all types would be of pre-grouping origin, some of it very nearly brand new. 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
Just now, Compound2632 said:

 

I don't know about "late pre-grouping survivors" - in the early 20s the vast majority of rolling stock of all types would be of pre-grouping origin, some of it very nearly brand new. 

Absolutely: apologies, I was a little unspecific there! The period of my layout more properly covers a period from the early 1920s to the early 30s: sometimes the accent's on the earlier end of that span, with mainly pre-grouping (the problem there being I haven't yet built enough pre-grouping locos and stock to fill even my small layout, though there's nothing wrong with the occasional quite day...) but at other times, it's more of a 1930s thing, with RTR black freight locos and one or two green passenger ones too. Likewise carriages - I can muster a reasonable rake of RTR LNER teak passenger vehicles but so far, my pre-grouping carriages will only provide a NPCS working (a favourite one, so that's not a bad thing).

 

Not that the layout's seen a great deal of action of late, as any spare time I've had has been put into modelling rather than running. Have to rectify that...

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Lining continues, with the cab front next for its white:

 

1465540326_LRMC1220211013(1).jpg.e98fa08a124e65b9ab47cd985fe46e44.jpg

 

 

Still a small amount of cleaning up to do, but overall it's come out fairly well I think. Cleaning up now has several stages, to deal with the paint that inevitably spreads as you stroke the line edges with a dampened brush and which, in a case like this of a very light colour on  dark one, is very visible. Some I've found can be lifted straight away, using the same brush or, if the area's large enough, a cotton bud very lightly dampened with white spirit and blotted, like the brush. These methods rely on not touching the lines themselves though, while they're still wet, as they lift. The next day, the dry cotton bud technique works wonders most of the time but, in the case of this cab front, there was quite a bit of stubborn reidue that the buds wouldn't shift, so I used a clean cocktail stick, moistened in spirit to visibly dampen the wood but then surface blotted. This can be used to work away, very gently, at the stubborn areas and from what I can tell, the combination of tiny amounts of spirit released by the end of the stick along with the friction of the soft end of the stick moves on the parts other cleaning methods cannot reach. A wipe over with a dry bud afterwards shifts any stray pieces worked loose by the stick but still dawdling.

 

The circles and the border were both done using the divider bow pen, the former by going round the inside of the spectacle openings, the latter by following the outside beading edge. Both the bow pens I'm using are giving much better and much more consistent results now, partly following some further careful honing and partly as I've become more confident and I keep the paint flowing more of the time.

 

It all looks a bit bare at the moment without the black beading, but I plan to let this white harden for a few days before starting in on the black, so that if - no, when - I need to remove black that's strayed onto the white, I can do so with as little damage to the white as possible.

Edited by Chas Levin
  • Like 6
  • Craftsmanship/clever 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The latest areas to be lined are the buffer and drag beams:

 

1183718964_LRMC1220211019(1).jpg.81205b55d4e25f1de09047190d6ef897.jpg

 

 

1674638795_LRMC1220211019(2).jpg.6338b43a7b8cfe952c885c407cf38055.jpg

 

 

I thought they'd be relatively straightforward, but the various obstructions prevent use of the bow pen for more than about three quarters of the lines, the rest needing brushing. Needless to say, my brushing is improving, though nothing like as much as my ability to remove paint from where it shouldn't be! As with the cab roof, I haven't tidied up the outside edges of these lines too much as it'll be overpainted in black.

 

Fairly pleased with them, though the buffer beam's lines are slightly too wide, while the drag beam's ones are slightly too narrow - they don't look too disparate in these photos, the difference is a little clearer in real life (though as usual I've probably been spending too long looking at things under high magnification). While I know the narrower lines are more prototypical, I have to admit to finding the brightness and prominence in front rather attractive... I should be able to thin them ever so slightly when the black edging goes on though, plus the flattenign effect of varnish...

Edited by Chas Levin
  • Like 11
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

For a bit of variety I thought I'd try some of the cab roof's black beading alongside the white lining:

 

1877406623_LRMC1220211022(1).jpg.a1d6a0bbbf878babc831291a76b590c5.jpg

 

 

365355193_LRMC1220211022(2).jpg.3d710190916cbca8a46a2593111741a6.jpg

 

 

Fairly fiddly, edging up to the white, but made much easier with the spirit-dampened brush trick to remove paint from where it shouldn't be:).

Edited by Chas Levin
  • Like 7
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

That's absolutely superlative, Chas. Your following of the line is very impressive, and there's nowt wrong with adjusting the line with thinners - the big boys do it too: https://www.westernthunder.co.uk/threads/painting-and-lining.2310/ (are you aware of this thread?) 

 

On the next loco you'll have a glassy-smooth gloss airbrush finish (;)) and it will be even better - and easier to line! 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
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...