Building a Midland Railway Kirtley Goods: working on the motion.

[J. S. Bach]

17 hours ago, Florence Locomotive Works said:

Took the time this evening to put a light wash over the station. And what a difference it made! It now looks properly caked in soot. The building is by Vollmer, and I believe called “large workshop.” The retaining walls will get the same treatment, but some more black paint needs procuring. 
 

 

Douglas

A thought on the steps leading up to the door; remove some of the wash where the workers shoes would have kept it clean. Oh, and polish the doorknobs.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Florence Locomotive Works said:

Help is also need building a 1870s goods train. My main question is what did the brakevans look like? I know wagons pretty much looked like edwardian ones, only with less brake gear.

 

The classic Midland brake van with a verandah at one end came in in 1877. Before that you want this:

 

 

... from Mousa Models. Still not quite finished, I'm afraid. The early style of 3-plank dropside wagon predominated; bashable from the Slaters kit or from Mousa again, the type with wooden brake blocks.

 

This is the overall look you're going for, though the engine is in earlier condition than you're planning, MRSC Item 60637.

 

 

 

[Mikkel]

2 hours ago, Florence Locomotive Works said:

I'm hoping to super-detail the layout, and add some sort of plaster under the rails up to the height of sleepers,

 

Yes please, I do like that look . A few thoughts, for what they're worth: I think plaster/polyfilla could be tricky if you're intending to use your already laid track? It's easy enough with handbuilt track because you can lay it smooth between the sleepers before fitting track and chairs, but with ready-made track the plaster or polyfilla solution tends to get very messy and sticks in the chairs. For that you may instead be better off with DAS á la Chris Nevard, or Chincilla sand using the ordinary PVA method. I've been experimenting with the latter on Peco track this week, and find the results reasonable so far.

 

Edited January 22, 2021 by Mikkel

[Dave Hunt]

Douglas,

 

Regarding the plan - for the cab that your kit has the model quite rightly needs a B boiler but the first B boilers weren't fitted to the 700 Class engines until 1881 and they had Johnson flush riveted smokeboxes with dished doors. 

 

Sorry to muddy the waters again. 

 

Dave  

[Florence Locomotive Works]

18 minutes ago, Dave Hunt said:

Douglas,

 

Regarding the plan - for the cab that your kit has the model quite rightly needs a B boiler but the first B boilers weren't fitted to the 700 Class engines until 1881 and they had Johnson flush riveted smokeboxes with dished doors. 

 

Sorry to muddy the waters again. 

 

Dave  

I wonder how close it and a Kirtley boiler and cab would be. It looks like maybe a difference in OD of an inch or so. Is there another class of outside frame goods that had a narrower boiler but Kirtley smokebox? I’ll check Summerson Vol II.

[Florence Locomotive Works]

26 minutes ago, Dave Hunt said:

Douglas,

 

Regarding the plan - for the cab that your kit has the model quite rightly needs a B boiler but the first B boilers weren't fitted to the 700 Class engines until 1881 and they had Johnson flush riveted smokeboxes with dished doors. 

 

Sorry to muddy the waters again. 

 

Dave  

Dave, after a quick consultation of Summerson Vol II, the 480 class got there first B boilers in January of 1865, beginning with No 514, and they had them fitted over riel until the last in September 1888. With the engines being virtually identical I suppose the model will be of a 480 then. 

[J. S. Bach]

35 minutes ago, Florence Locomotive Works said:

I wonder how close it and a Kirtley boiler and cab would be. It looks like maybe a difference in OD of an inch or so. Is there another class of outside frame goods that had a narrower boiler but Kirtley smokebox? I’ll check Summerson Vol II.

Oh no! I hope that friend Douglass is not starting to count rivets!

 

PS: I was once PAID to count rivets!

[Compound2632]

Rivets are there for counting.

[Dave Hunt]

Sorry Douglas, the 480s had differently shaped frames . With the Ks kit you are really stuck with a B boilered 700 as rebuilt by Johnson. A Kirtley boilered engine would have a slightly, but noticeably, different shape of cab as well as different dome, chimney, firebox safety valve and smokebox. Also, the rear end of the tender would be different. If you want a green engine it will have to be the lighter Johnson green to portray an engine as running from late 1881 to perhaps 1888 and it will have to have a Johnson smokebox with a dished door.

 

Dave

 

PS, No Midland engine got a B boiler in 1865 - Johnson didn't arrive until 1873 after Kirtley's death.

Edited January 22, 2021 by Dave Hunt

[Florence Locomotive Works]

32 minutes ago, Dave Hunt said:

Sorry Douglas, the 480s had differently shaped frames . With the Ks kit you are really stuck with a B boilered 700 as rebuilt by Johnson. A Kirtley boilered engine would have a slightly, but noticeably, different shape of cab as well as different dome, chimney, firebox safety valve and smokebox. Also, the rear end of the tender would be different. If you want a green engine it will have to be the lighter Johnson green to portray an engine as running from late 1881 to perhaps 1888 and it will have to have a Johnson smokebox with a dished door.

 

Dave

 

PS, No Midland engine got a B boiler in 1865 - Johnson didn't arrive until 1873 after Kirtley's death.

Hmmm, 

 

So, as I don’t like the light green, I suppose crimson or black are now the only options. Or I suppose I could just ahead and use the B boiler and cab etc and just have a loco that’s still in dark green but had the Kirtley smokebox door removal somehow omitted by the studious fitters of Derby. 
 

 

This then begs the question of what has happened to the engine seen below that @Compound2632 supplied me with. 

To be honest, after looking at pictures of this engine and the kits that @Mrkirtley800 built, the Keyser boilers do seem overly wide for a b boiler, but the cabs are also to tall, even for the aforementioned type. 

 

Perhaps I could do the engine below but paint it something other than dark green?

 

Douglas

[Florence Locomotive Works]

1 hour ago, J. S. Bach said:

Oh no! I hope that friend Douglass is not starting to count rivets!

 

PS: I was once PAID to count rivets!

If I do complete the engine with the rivet laden smokebox, then it will have the correct number were possible. 

[Florence Locomotive Works]

4 hours ago, Mikkel said:

 

Yes please, I do like that look . A few thoughts, for what they're worth: I think plaster/polyfilla could be tricky if you're intending to use your already laid track? It's easy enough with handbuilt track because you can lay it smooth between the sleepers before fitting track and chairs, but with ready-made track the plaster or polyfilla solution tends to get very messy and sticks in the chairs. For that you may instead be better off with DAS á la Chris Nevard, or Chincilla sand using the ordinary PVA method. I've been experimenting with the latter on Peco track this week, and find the results reasonable so far.

 

I think I’ll try Chris’ method, you can get that clay in gallon jars here quite cheap from memory. I will have to remove the track and I suppose press it in afterwards, and maybe find a thinner for the clay.

 

thanks,

 

Douglas

[Florence Locomotive Works]

So the new plan for just the engine.

 

I will be doing the Kirtley smokebox, with Johnson boiler and chimney, painted dark green. Is it accurate? Not really, but it’s what I think will make me most satisfied with my not insignificant investment in it. Of course, Gibson wheels, a modern motor, and probably a brass roof will be fitted. The smokebox will indeed have the correct number rivets, and the handrail. 
 

Douglas

Edited January 23, 2021 by Florence Locomotive Works

[Caley Jim]

9 hours ago, Florence Locomotive Works said:

I think I’ll try Chris’ method, you can get that clay in gallon jars here quite cheap from memory. I will have to remove the track and I suppose press it in afterwards, and maybe find a thinner for the clay.

You can thin DAS with water.  Put a few chunks in a container with an airtight lid, add some water and leave for a day or so.  Use a spatula or similar to chop up the DAS each day as it softens until it has all reached the same consistency.  If it's too thin, add some more DAS, or if too thick add water.  You can also colour it by adding powder or acrylic paint, but be aware that it takes quite a lot of paint and will dry much lighter.  You can also blend a new area into an existing one, or modify the latter, by wetting it with a brush or dropper.   I use this technique all the time for scenic surfaces.  It's much more resilient and lighter weight than plaster.   See some of the posts in my layout thread in my signature.

 

Jim

[Dave Hunt]

15 hours ago, Florence Locomotive Works said:

 

Perhaps I could do the engine below but paint it something other than dark green?

 

 

Douglas

 

Apart from having one of the early built-up Johnson chimneys, that engine is late Kirtley - Kirtley boiler, dome, safety valves and cab plus the tender would have had an open frame rear end. To be honest, about the only things you could use from the Ks kit would be the loco frames and tender tank.

 

12 hours ago, Florence Locomotive Works said:

So the new plan for just the engine.

 

I will be doing the Kirtley smokebox, with Johnson boiler and chimney, painted dark green. Is it accurate? Not really, but it’s what I think will make me most satisfied with my not insignificant investment in it. Of course, Gibson wheels, a modern motor, and probably a brass roof will be fitted. The smokebox will indeed have the correct number rivets, and the handrail. 
 

Douglas

 

Sorry, no such beast. With a Johnson boiler went a Johnson smokebox. You can have a Kirtley boiler with a Johnson smokebox and chimney but not vice versa.

 

Dave

 

Dave

[Florence Locomotive Works]

1 hour ago, Dave Hunt said:

 

Sorry, no such beast. With a Johnson boiler went a Johnson smokebox. You can have a Kirtley boiler with a Johnson smokebox and chimney but not vice versa.

 

Dave

No worry’s Dave, I’ll try my best to make the engine look like a Kirtley through and through beast. The cab and spectacle plate will need lowering though, and the whistle plinth/boiler inspection manhole will need making. The spectacle plate is already to tall even for a Johnson boiler, so it would need lowering anyways. 

[Florence Locomotive Works]

Layout update time! (And more)

 

All of the retaining walls have had a heavy north midland sooty wash applied. The unpowered sector plate has now been extended to accept tender engines, and a wagon turntable is being built. Cyril the shunting horse is getting a brake at the moment. A long piece of back construction paper needs fleeing behind all the retaining walls, as the gaps aren’t completely perfect and I haven’t enough shrubbery's to fill them all. 


 

 

 

 

 

The loco arrives today, and hopefully a chassis will be done by 10:00 pm. It has been decided that it will have a Kirltey boiler and smokebox, so the safety valve will need a tad of modifying along with the cab. 
 

Douglas

Edited January 23, 2021 by Florence Locomotive Works

[Florence Locomotive Works]

Alright new plan for the engine.

 

A specific prototype has been found.

 

Below is ex Midland Railway No 750, built by John Fowler & Con (Leeds)*, in 1870. 
 

(MRSC)

Obviously here it’s 2750, presumably remembered, and it’s seen at Brecon Shed on the GWR.

 

It will be painted in fully lined crimson, or at least as much lining as I can manage. The cab will be lowered to scale height, and the salter springs will probably be replaced with something more scale from brass or styrene. The dogleg door will also be kept. 

* I’ve got a fanatic book on them, so I wanted an engine built by them. However, according to Kirtley’s notes, they weren’t of the finest quality!

 

Douglas

[Dave Hunt]

That's a good choice Douglas. Although it doesn't matter in view of your decision, I have to correct a mistake I made in my last post when I stated, 'You can have a Kirtley boiler with a Johnson smokebox and chimney but not vice versa.' It should have read, 'You can have a Kirtley boiler with a Johnson chimney but not vice versa.' The smokeboxes were not interchangeable because they wouldn't fit the other boilers.

 

Number 2750 was actually built as number 960 by Dubs in November 1872 and renumbered 2750 in 1907. It was rebuilt with a B boiler in October 1877 and withdrawn at the end of 1931. The one built in April 1870 by Fowler as number 750 was renumbered 2662 in 1907 having been rebuilt with a B boiler in May 1886 and was withdrawn in May 1933.

 

The smokebox door in the photograph of 2750 is one of the third Deeley  type with a wide seating ring on which the dogs were mounted, no grab handle and straight handrail. That type was first seen in 1910. The first Deeley type was also a dished door but the seating ring was narrower with the dogs mounted partially on it and partially on the smokebox front plate, there was a grab handle on the right-hand side and the handrail curved over the door. The second type was the same arrangement but the door was flat and it didn't last long due to problems with leakage, hence the return to a dished door and seven dogs instead of six on the third type.

 

The boiler clacks on the sides as seen in the photograph was typical of the 700s but there were some that had the clacks on the firebox backplate in the cab. Due to boiler changes, either type could be seen on any particular locomotive depending on the date.

 

Once again, I hope that the above is of some help. Best of luck with the build and I look forward to seeing it progress.

 

Dave     

[Florence Locomotive Works]

1 hour ago, Dave Hunt said:

That's a good choice Douglas. Although it doesn't matter in view of your decision, I have to correct a mistake I made in my last post when I stated, 'You can have a Kirtley boiler with a Johnson smokebox and chimney but not vice versa.' It should have read, 'You can have a Kirtley boiler with a Johnson chimney but not vice versa.' The smokeboxes were not interchangeable because they wouldn't fit the other boilers.

 

Number 2750 was actually built as number 960 by Dubs in November 1872 and renumbered 2750 in 1907. It was rebuilt with a B boiler in October 1877 and withdrawn at the end of 1931. The one built in April 1870 by Fowler as number 750 was renumbered 2662 in 1907 having been rebuilt with a B boiler in May 1886 and was withdrawn in May 1933.

 

The smokebox door in the photograph of 2750 is one of the third Deeley  type with a wide seating ring on which the dogs were mounted, no grab handle and straight handrail. That type was first seen in 1910. The first Deeley type was also a dished door but the seating ring was narrower with the dogs mounted partially on it and partially on the smokebox front plate, there was a grab handle on the right-hand side and the handrail curved over the door. The second type was the same arrangement but the door was flat and it didn't last long due to problems with leakage, hence the return to a dished door and seven dogs instead of six on the third type.

 

The boiler clacks on the sides as seen in the photograph was typical of the 700s but there were some that had the clacks on the firebox backplate in the cab. Due to boiler changes, either type could be seen on any particular locomotive depending on the date.

 

Once again, I hope that the above is of some help. Best of luck with the build and I look forward to seeing it progress.

 

Dave     

And progress there has been Dave.

 

The kit arrived today.

 

After a careful unboxing, and a going over to see that everything was there, construction commenced. 
 

 

I started with the flat brass frames. Really I would have liked to buy the chassis kit for a Brassmaster 4f and done it that way, but needs must. Anyways the bearing were soldered into their respective holes. 
 

 

As you can see, I decided to keep the motor after discovering that: A, it has acres to replace the brushes. and B, it’s five pole. If it was anything less I would have put it in the draw o’ bits. The outside frame is just sat there.

 

 

Work then moved onto the body. I cut out the vertical pieces in the frame slots, as only Neilson engines had those. Everything fit relatively well, but as you can see in the above and below picture there is still much room for filler. The cab was also lowered very painstakingly.
 

 

Douglas

[Dave Hunt]

Lookin' good Houston.........

 

Dave

[John-Miles]

Just to be really pendantic (I used to be an academic so I did this for a living), before 1923, Brecon shed was Brecon and Merthyr and Cambrian although the Midland rented space in the Cambrian shed. Brecon is interesting, although the Midland didn't own a yard of track at Brecon, for a long time it was the centre of their South Wales operation. I once saw an allocation of shunting time at Brecon. It was split between the 4 companies who used the station and the Midland had the largest share which suggests they were moving more traffic through there than the other companies.

[Compound2632]

12 minutes ago, John-Miles said:

Brecon is interesting, although the Midland didn't own a yard of track at Brecon, for a long time it was the centre of their South Wales operation. I once saw an allocation of shunting time at Brecon. 

 

I get the impression that the Brecon & Merthyr had the status of a Midland Protectorate, more or less, except during the period when the Mahdi Watkin fomented rebellion.

[Florence Locomotive Works]

More progress chaps and ladies,

 

After the last post milliput was applied copiously where needed over the body, and the result is quite good. The handrails stanchions have also been attached, same with the boiler fittings. Some filing still needs doing in places. The contacts for the engine have also been fitted, but the copper still needs trimming and connecting to the motor. A sheet of thin styrene was also cut to size and installed as the roof. 
 

The handrails will be removed for painting. 

 

It does look there’s a bit of a gab under the center part of the roof, but this is just a shadow.

 

 

I am however unsure about how to remove the massive hump from footplate, which I would like to do as I’ve got a Victorian engine crew from Modelu awaiting assignment. Should I just carefully melt out the center bit with a soldering iron? Or should I get some paint thinner and let it remove the glue around the whole piece? I’m not sure how I would complete the bottom 3/4s of the backhead either. 
 

Douglas

[ChrisN]

I am amazed at how quickly you work.  The last couple of days would have taken me at least six months!