3D printed Southern Electrics

[SteveCornford]

Hi Stephen,

Any chance you could let us know the make and colour detils of the various paints you have used on the 2-WIM?

 

Also what size and quantities of the various glazing bits needed for the 3-WIM?

I thought that you had mentioned this info and a suitable supplier for the HAL and SUB but now I can't find it.

 

I believe the locosnstuff.com universal spud replacement bogie is a non-starter as it is only suitable for wheels with diameter up to 12mm according to supplier.

 

The Branchlines 35mm wheelbase bogie is suitable but does project above the floorline.

 

Regards Steve

 

 

Edited September 16, 2021 by SteveCornford
correct spelling

[Eastleigh]

Bécasse

You may be right about the proportion of smoking to non smoking accommodation in the early 1950s.  Going from photos of the Southern Electric fleet in general at that time, non smoking accommodation seems to be about 25%.  Photos of the actual 2 Wim units are few and far between and not always very distinct but JH Aston's shot of 1812 at West Croydon clearly shows the first three bays (nearest the cab) of the driving trailer with No Smoking triangles.  I could not find a clear shot of the motor coach but would assume that it least one of the first class bays was originally designated no smoking.  Did it stay that way when suburban first class was finally abandoned post-war?  I don't know but maybe someone out there does!

Likewise, frosted glass 'smoking' signs.  The original 1909 South London Line stock was built by outside contractors and was quite unlike any other LBSCR stock of the era.  I cannot see any evidence of smoking designations on the windows in the few photos that survive from then, nor of the 1930 2 Wim rebuilds but that does not mean they weren't there.

 

 

Edited September 17, 2021 by Eastleigh

[NIK]

On 12/03/2021 at 16:27, 34017Ilfracombe said:

3D prints just in from Tim at CW Railways, well up to his usual high standard.

 

If all goes well, this will be the first of a family of Bulleid-type Subs, Hals, EPBs and Haps, designed to fit Hornby Bil/Hal donor chassis though, as contributors here have suggested, other options should be possible.

 

The tricky bit is going to be the sides - so thin they are translucent in order to get the glazing to fit as near flush as possibe.  Experience so far with the 1945-type augmentation trailer for my 1925 bull-nosed Sub suggests that the assembled model is reasonably robust; it's getting there without mishap that will be the challenge!

 

Hi,

 

Would it be possible to make the sides thicker and have a series of recesses where rectangles of glazing would be glued in after the body is painted?.

 

Regards

 

Nick

[SteveCornford]

I thought there were rectangular recesses, perhaps Stephen could clarify this for us.

Steve

[Eastleigh]

On 16/09/2021 at 10:28, SteveCornford said:

Hi Stephen,

Any chance you could let us know the make and colour detils of the various paints you have used on the 2-WIM?

 

Also what size and quantities of the various glazing bits needed for the 3-WIM?

I thought that you had mentioned this info and a suitable supplier for the HAL and SUB but now I can't find it.

 

I believe the locosnstuff.com universal spud replacement bogie is a non-starter as it is only suitable for wheels with diameter up to 12mm according to supplier.

 

The Branchlines 35mm wheelbase bogie is suitable but does project above the floorline.

 

Regards Steve

 

 

I use Phoenix Precision paints for most things.

In this instance the bodysides are painted P78 SR post-war malachite as that would have been what was in use when the units received their final overhaul (according to the late Laurie Mack, an expert on Southern rolling stock, Selhurst 'varnished' its intermediate overhauls by applying a single coat of paint, which would have worked well enough as the units had previously had a general overhaul in pre-war malachite.

From memory, the roofs of the model are painted with Precision Paints 'Roof Dirt' and the underframes in 'Dirty Black' with a dilute wash of 'Frame Dirt', which picks out the rivet detail on the units' characteristic massive plate frame solebars.

This model was one of my first attempts at using an airbrush.  Consequently the paint is too thick and I was spraying too close, resulting in the visible 'orange peel' effect.  I now dilute sprayed paint 20% with Phoenix Precision PQ9 airdrying thinners which seems to work better but I am still far from an expert!

Southern green is an elusive thing!  Some say that the shade of green darkened slightly in early BR days, others that SR post-war malachite continued in use on Southern multiple units until about 1959 when the shade certainly did darken.  The Phoenix Precision range offers:

P78 SR post-war malachite

P114 BR multiple units to 1954 (or 1959 for Southern EMUs)

P119 BR multiple units 1954-1959 (but not Southern Electrics)

P124 Southern Electrics from 1959 

They also offer yet another shade of green for Southen Region locomotive hauled stock post 1956

I have followed their framework for my own model railway, not least because it profides me with subtle variations of shades but a small voice in my head questions whether Eastleigh, Selhurst, etc. would really have kept stocks of paint in all of these similar shades or was it more a case of paints fading and weathering over time?  Also, was the science of mixing paint as precise then as it is now, or rather was it a case of 'a bit of this, a bit of that and stir well'?

Photos are not all that much help as the shade of green in a 1950s colour photo had as much to do with the film used as with reality whilst distance, atmosphere and sunlight also affected the colour.  One thing I can't see is any obvious difference in the shade of green on loco hailed stock and on multiple units!

I would be interested to hear what the experts on this forum think.

[Eastleigh]

On 16/09/2021 at 10:28, SteveCornford said:

Hi Stephen,

Any chance you could let us know the make and colour detils of the various paints you have used on the 2-WIM?

 

Also what size and quantities of the various glazing bits needed for the 3-WIM?

I thought that you had mentioned this info and a suitable supplier for the HAL and SUB but now I can't find it.

 

I believe the locosnstuff.com universal spud replacement bogie is a non-starter as it is only suitable for wheels with diameter up to 12mm according to supplier.

 

The Branchlines 35mm wheelbase bogie is suitable but does project above the floorline.

 

Regards Steve

 

 

Glazing for the 2 Wim:

Doors 7mm wide x 15mm deep (36 needed, plus a few contingency spares for mishaps)

Double windows 17.5mm x 17.5mm (22 needed, plus spares)

End windows and MBC motorman's droplights 8mm x 17.5mm (10+)

Cab windows 10.5mm x 14mm (4+)

 

I use Deluxe Materials 'Glue n Glaze' as it does not affect the plastic and is not too runny (avoid cyanoacrylates, which can cause fogging)

 

York Model Rail offer a bespoke laser cutting service that certainly saves a lot of time and repetitive effort.  I specify 0.5mm clear acrylic when ordering.  Don't do what I did and complain that the supplied windows were not very clear - there is a protective film on both sides to be removed before assembly!

 

[Eastleigh]

7 hours ago, NIK said:

Hi,

 

Would it be possible to make the sides thicker and have a series of recesses where rectangles of glazing would be glued in after the body is painted?.

 

Regards

 

Nick

Eastleigh sides have a lattice structure to strengthen the thin sides.  Counter-intuitively, experiments showed that this works better than solid thick sides above and below the window line.

The lattice is also useful for locating and glueing in glazing.

Stephen

 

[bécasse]

CUL1457 and CUL1458 in the RCTS photo collection show 1811 at Wimbledon in October 1950 and show just two non-smoking compartments plus, I think, a Ladies Only compartment next to the van in the other carriage. They also show that the righthand window in each smoking compartment had the (SMOKING) signs etched into the glass.

 

Incidentally, the fact that the SL sets were built by contractors and not by the LBSCR themselves isn't relevant in this particular respect. The LBSCR was an all non-smoking railway with smoking banned not only in trains but on stations as well. In early Southern days, probably when the SL trailers were converted to the 2-WIM units (although I am not sure that that was how they were described until the last few years of their lives), the etched (SMOKING) signs were added to indicate where smoking was permitted and the SR-style NON-SMOKING signs followed soon(?) afterwards (or during WWII?). BR-style NO-SMOKING signs were substituted for the SR-style ones at the first overhaul after nationalisation so a few sets may never have displayed them.

[SteveCornford]

Hi Stephen,

I have sent Tim a request for a 2-WIM kit and a motor bogie housing assuming it is ok to use with the 2-WIM.

The 2-WIM was not listed on the order form so I just put the request in the query box.

By the way, the tick boxes are more or less invisible on the order form screen, and so is the tick itself.

 

Would it be possible to be able to design an optional internal end part for those of us who do not have to negotiate curves as tight as radius 2 with the internal buffers?

Or details of the the correct buffer centres so that I could add them myself?

Would I be right in assuming that Markits SECR oval sprung coach buffers would be suitable?

   

 

[bécasse]

Southern suburban electric units only had a single central (and quite short) buffer between carriages within the set. One ex-SUB all-steel trailer was converted to a non-powered de-icer vehicle c1960, with the intention of running it between two 4-car sets (in service if necessary, although I only ever saw it being used with the two sets not in service). Apparently the fitment of ordinary buffers plus buck-eye couplings at each end proved so troublesome, and thus expensive, that a continuation programme was cancelled and a number of 2-car self-contained de-icer units converted from otherwise redundant vehicles instead.

[SteveCornford]

Hi bécasse,

If you look at one of the RCTS photos (CUL1458) that you most usefully referenced, I think you will see that the 2-WIM did have the normal pair of buffers arrangement between the coaches.

 

However Stephen has chosen to omit these on the model for the reasons given in the prototype notes available on the Eastleigh Models website, from which I quote:-

"Unlike the Southern Railway’s large fleet of 3-car suburban d.c. electric units, these two car
units were not close-coupled, retaining their original side buffers and screw couplings at the
inner ends. (The intermediate side buffers have not been included on the model in order to allow
the units to negotiate Radius 2 curves whilst maintaining a realistic gap between cars.)"

 

The two pictures you referenced are the best ones yet that I have seen depicting the 2-WIM set, so thank you for drawing them to our attention.

 

They show some of the toplights (is that the right word) plated over in both coaches.

It might even be possible for someone with more knowledge than myself to determine what trailing bogies were employed on these units.

 

Regards Steve

 

 

[bécasse]

1 hour ago, SteveCornford said:

 

If you look at one of the RCTS photos (CUL1458) that you most usefully referenced, I think you will see that the 2-WIM did have the normal pair of buffers arrangement between the coaches.

 

 

 

They show some of the toplights (is that the right word) plated over in both coaches.

 

 

I must admit that, without having looked again at the RCTS photos, I did wonder whether the WIMs (and SLs) were coupled normally within the set. As you say, the RCTS photos show that the WIMs certainly were, and one suspects the SL sets also.

 

The plating over of some toplights was to enable the SOUTHERN RAILWAY legend to be "painted" in its normal position, it certainly still appeared on 1811 in October 1950 and quite possibly until withdrawal.

[Nick Holliday]

19 hours ago, bécasse said:

Incidentally, the fact that the SL sets were built by contractors and not by the LBSCR themselves isn't relevant in this particular respect. The LBSCR was an all non-smoking railway with smoking banned not only in trains but on stations as well. In early Southern days, probably when the SL trailers were converted to the 2-WIM units (although I am not sure that that was how they were described until the last few years of their lives), the etched (SMOKING) signs were added to indicate where smoking was permitted and the SR-style NON-SMOKING signs followed soon(?) afterwards (or during WWII?). BR-style NO-SMOKING signs were substituted for the SR-style ones at the first overhaul after nationalisation so a few sets may never have displayed them.

The LBSCR  was not an all non-smoking railway! It was, back in the mists of time, as, at the time of the start of railways, according to 

Simon Bradley in 'The Railways' The habit (of smoking) was widely considered eccentric, rather foreign and mildly disgusting ..... regarded as a bachelor habit.  No surprise that the Liverpool and Manchester Railway in 1831 used its first by-law to ban smoking in first class carriages 'even with the consent of the passengers present', on the grounds the lingering effects would annoy those using the vehicle afterwards." Most other lines had similar bans, and there was a forty shilling fine, with the additional punishment of ejection from the train without a ticket refund, although some guards were open to persuasion! Even the Prince of Wales was  caught, allegedly, for transgressing the ban. 

In the early days smoking was not only uncommon, but fairly pungent, but gradually more sophisticated smoking experiences were developed, and cigarette smoking began to grow after the Crimean War.  Some lines did introduce smoking compartments from around 1854, whilst the Railway Regulations Act of 1868 included a section decreeing that smoking compartments were to be designated on any train consisting of more than one carriage of each class.

By 1905, if not much earlier, the railway companies' (including the LBSCR's) by-laws contained details of fines and punishment for smoking in non-designated carriages and station areas. The Brighton Appendix to the WTT for 1922 notes: The proportion of smoking accommodation provided in Main Line Trains should be 50 per cent. and in Suburban Trains 75 per cent. of the total seating for both 1st and 3rd classes.

The LBSCR used a  number of methods to indicate the smoking/non-smoking status of a compartment, as this photo shows.

As can be seen there is a notice (etched?) on the window glass and, above the head of the door, is an enamelled sign. However, both indicators were not always present.  In addition, a Brighton smoking aficionado could tell by the ventilator bonnets:-  Smoking compartments generally were fitted with a more open ventilator, whereas non-smoking had the less draughty 'louvred' type, so it was possible for the keen-eyed to spot where the smokers were, from a distance, although it was always possible that the designation had been changed without modifying the ventilators.  The company also tended to install more robust seat coverings in smoking compartments, more resistant to burns, such as leather in first class.

The problem with the South London electric units is that, for some reason, the company, for some reason, failed to place any external notification, and used the same type of ventilator bonnet throughout.  Notwithstanding this lack of identification, there were, indeed, smoking and non-smoking areas in both motor brakes and the first class intermediate coaches.  The carriages were opens, with low partitions and a gangway on one side, so to separate the two areas there was a full height partition, presumably with a door, between the zones.  There were four of both in the driving cars, and four smoking (with leather seats) and five non-smoking in the first class trailers.  These figures don't quite match up with the target percentages noted above, but I suspect the average was made up by the vast number of workmen's carriages still extant which probably were considered as mainly smoking.

[Eastleigh]

On 18/09/2021 at 11:13, SteveCornford said:

Hi Stephen,

I have sent Tim a request for a 2-WIM kit and a motor bogie housing assuming it is ok to use with the 2-WIM.

The 2-WIM was not listed on the order form so I just put the request in the query box.

By the way, the tick boxes are more or less invisible on the order form screen, and so is the tick itself.

 

Would it be possible to be able to design an optional internal end part for those of us who do not have to negotiate curves as tight as radius 2 with the internal buffers?

Or details of the the correct buffer centres so that I could add them myself?

Would I be right in assuming that Markits SECR oval sprung coach buffers would be suitable?

   

 

Hi Steve

Thank you for your order!  The Hornby motor bogie housing is universal and fits all Eastleigh Southern Electric motor coch underframes.

Thanks also for your feedback on the ordering process.  We are just starting out and feedback of this kind is very helpful for ironing out any problems.

On Eastleigh kits the buffer beam forms part of the underframe rather than part of the inner end of the coach body.  All you would need to do to fit buffers to the inner ends of the 2 Wim would be to drill suitable diameter holes 22.5mm apart and 14mm above rail level (that is exactly half way up the bufferbeam itself).  The Markits SECR/LBSCR oval sprung coach buffers look right to me, judging by the RCTS photos referenced by others in this thread and by the attached image of an LBSCR 54ft coach on the Isle of Wight Steam Railway.  The LBSCR also used round headed buffers but these were confined to 48ft and shorter rolling stock.

I hope the kit building goes well!

Stephen

 

[Eastleigh]

On 18/09/2021 at 18:29, Nick Holliday said:

The LBSCR  was not an all non-smoking railway! It was, back in the mists of time, as, at the time of the start of railways, according to 

Simon Bradley in 'The Railways' The habit (of smoking) was widely considered eccentric, rather foreign and mildly disgusting ..... regarded as a bachelor habit.  No surprise that the Liverpool and Manchester Railway in 1831 used its first by-law to ban smoking in first class carriages 'even with the consent of the passengers present', on the grounds the lingering effects would annoy those using the vehicle afterwards." Most other lines had similar bans, and there was a forty shilling fine, with the additional punishment of ejection from the train without a ticket refund, although some guards were open to persuasion! Even the Prince of Wales was  caught, allegedly, for transgressing the ban. 

In the early days smoking was not only uncommon, but fairly pungent, but gradually more sophisticated smoking experiences were developed, and cigarette smoking began to grow after the Crimean War.  Some lines did introduce smoking compartments from around 1854, whilst the Railway Regulations Act of 1868 included a section decreeing that smoking compartments were to be designated on any train consisting of more than one carriage of each class.

By 1905, if not much earlier, the railway companies' (including the LBSCR's) by-laws contained details of fines and punishment for smoking in non-designated carriages and station areas. The Brighton Appendix to the WTT for 1922 notes: The proportion of smoking accommodation provided in Main Line Trains should be 50 per cent. and in Suburban Trains 75 per cent. of the total seating for both 1st and 3rd classes.

The LBSCR used a  number of methods to indicate the smoking/non-smoking status of a compartment, as this photo shows.

As can be seen there is a notice (etched?) on the window glass and, above the head of the door, is an enamelled sign. However, both indicators were not always present.  In addition, a Brighton smoking aficionado could tell by the ventilator bonnets:-  Smoking compartments generally were fitted with a more open ventilator, whereas non-smoking had the less draughty 'louvred' type, so it was possible for the keen-eyed to spot where the smokers were, from a distance, although it was always possible that the designation had been changed without modifying the ventilators.  The company also tended to install more robust seat coverings in smoking compartments, more resistant to burns, such as leather in first class.

The problem with the South London electric units is that, for some reason, the company, for some reason, failed to place any external notification, and used the same type of ventilator bonnet throughout.  Notwithstanding this lack of identification, there were, indeed, smoking and non-smoking areas in both motor brakes and the first class intermediate coaches.  The carriages were opens, with low partitions and a gangway on one side, so to separate the two areas there was a full height partition, presumably with a door, between the zones.  There were four of both in the driving cars, and four smoking (with leather seats) and five non-smoking in the first class trailers.  These figures don't quite match up with the target percentages noted above, but I suspect the average was made up by the vast number of workmen's carriages still extant which probably were considered as mainly smoking.

That's a fascinating piece of social history and also the first explanation I have seen of the two different types of door ventilator that were often to be found on the same LBSCR vehicle.  Roof mounted torpedo vents also seemed to be fitted - or not- in a random manner.  Could this too have been associated with smoking vs non smoking compartments?

 

[Nick Holliday]

1 hour ago, Eastleigh said:

That's a fascinating piece of social history and also the first explanation I have seen of the two different types of door ventilator that were often to be found on the same LBSCR vehicle.  Roof mounted torpedo vents also seemed to be fitted - or not- in a random manner.  Could this too have been associated with smoking vs non smoking compartments?

 

The Brighton was fairly parsimonious with regard to roof ventilators.  In the main they confined them to smoking compartments on bogie vehicles when first built, but, as always, there were exceptions, such as some full thirds which received vents to all compartments, and it is difficult to tell whether the electrics had any.  There were, also, many subsequent changes, as smoking habits fluctuated, mainly perpetrated by the Southern.

By the way, the type of ventilator fitted to the smoking compartment doors was know as the Anderson Ventilator (Thanks to Ian White and his quartet)

[Ceptic]

 

On 04/02/2021 at 07:31, 34017Ilfracombe said:

Thanks for the suggestions and I am following up the High Level option, which could avoud the problem of the motor housing intruding into the coach interior.

I have successfully used a mix of etched sides and 3D printed ends on previous projects but I could not get etched sides to bend to match precisely the Bulleid Subs' characteristic profile and high roofline, even after 3D printing a press for the specific purpose.

My concern had been that it would not be possible to 3D print sides thin enough for flush glazing but an experiment with the 1945-type augmentation trailer in my 1925 bull-nosed Sub unit has worked out well (though my first attempts at spray painting have worked out less well!)

Although these coaches were built using traditional methods with a wood and canvas roof, the profile is the same as the 1946 all-steel units and the model has the high roofline but with a plastic strip added at cantrail level and the area above painted grey.

Next on the stocks is a 4111-series all-steel Sub.

 

On 04/08/2021 at 10:20, 34017Ilfracombe said:

Trying to fit the body of 4111 to a pair of Hornby 2 Hal underframes, modified to close-couple at the inner ends, has convinced me that this is NOT the way forward!  The model is almost complete (though not yet fit to be photographed) and it will be OK in the end - it was just a lot of hard work!

 

Instead, it was back to the drawing board to design bespoke underframes, bogies, etc. so as to make up a complete kit, less motors.  I have been working with Tim Evans of CW Railways to set up a joint venture to produce and market these models and - ta-da! - we are today launching Eastleigh Model Rail (eastleighmodelrail.co.uk) with an initial range of post-war all-steel 4 Subs (both the final 'standard' 4621 type and an earlier version with an all-compartment layout and EE339 motors), 'Tin Hal's and the unique 2700.

 

The complete kits are inevitably rather pricey but we offer the option of only buying the bits you need for those who want to do their own thing.  Re-scaling to 2mm may also be an option - contact Tim through the website to discuss possibilities.

 

Bulleid-type EPBs and HAPs are in the pipeline, as are some older EMUs - more anon.

 

Do please have a look at our website at eastleighmodelrail.co.uk and let us know what you think.  Ideas welcome!

 

Stephen Grant

Hi ,  This pic may help.

I note that your illustrations, so far, show rather small radii applied to the corners of the door droplights and to the compartment quarterlights. These were quite generous prototypically, and different. The photo also shows the cornice convergence between bodyside and roof,

 Regards

 

Edited December 8, 2021 by Ceptic
Deletion of superfluous images

[Eastleigh]

Apologies for not responding earlier - I have not been on this site in a while.  In fact I rather wish I had seen it before now as I have just this afternoon completed the sides for our forthcoming SR-type EPBs!  Your illustration and dimensions are very helpful and I will correct the window radii accordingly.  Back to the drawing board!