Wright writes.....

[Headstock]

Talking of J69's,

 

this photo was recently sent to me of 68491, when it was the shunter at Leicester goodsyard. It was eventualy replaced by the preserved N7 for a period. I believe that the guards van is an ex NER V4 type, experts may be able to confirm, either way what a great livery for modelling.

 

photo courtesey of J Marsh.

[johnarcher]

As someone generally of a more western disposition I must admit I do like J69's (and 68's and J15's).

And that's enough shameful secrets for tonight.

[Clem]

3 minutes ago, Headstock said:

Re BT 7, The roof is being constructed the old fashioned way, a plasticard skeleton of braced formers based on the end profile that will then be skinned. It may be of some interest to you that circa 1954/55 (and before),  there were three, three sets working the 4.05 PM Nottingham-Grantham and the 6.10 PM return on alternate days. The sets were formatted as BT(4) Thompson / CL (3-4) Thompson / BT (7) ex 60' GC.

Evening Andrew. I'm looking forward to seeing the finished BT 7, it's looking good.  Yes, I've certainly seen several photos of them on the Grantham-Derby line and the sets you describe certainly ring a bell, particularly that slightly incongruous placing of Thompsons together with a  GC carriage.

 

 I've not fabricated a roof using your described method before, I think I've always used MJT or Kirk (for non-gangwayed stock) roofs in my very limited passenger stock building history. But the method you've describes sounds spot on to get that GC roof profile.  I have to take my hat off to you for your incredibly detailed knowledge of passenger formations in my neck of the woods. When I can get to doing some carriage building, I really want to get that variation that you seemed to get around the early to mid 50s. 

 

Regarding the vans, most of the train hauled by the K2 has been put together in the few weeks. I've tried to get a bit of variation as you've suggested and that is still in progress. One other similar train that will be needed but not yet built, is the Burton-York beer train and in fact one or two of these vans may end up being part of it. But also included will be shock absorbing vans and opens, some beer tankers and some low fits with road  tanker trailers strapped on top. Looking forward to trying to put that one together.

 

For the AF container shackles , the screw shackle is a Roxy Mouldings brass fret. Above that, there is a short section of chain from Eileen's (just 3 links I think) fastened at both ends (to the screw and to the container at the top) with links made from 0.31N/S. Below the screw shackle, I've used 0.8mm tube (0.4mm inner diameter) to represent the spring link, threaded with 0.31mm N/S wire fashioned into hooks at each end. The top hooking into the shackle and the bottom into the container flat end side ring which is itself fabricated from 0.31 N/S wire. I'm not sure it would survive closer scrutiny but  from a reasonable distance it looks pretty convincing. 

 

 

 

[Atso]

11 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

In true Jesse fashion, I start a project before finishing countless others. Here’s the new project, no prizes on guessing what it is. It most definitely will not be perfect, but...she’ll do! 

 

Great start Jesse! I can't wait to see it finished. 

[Clem]

The J69 in my video is one of the last batch with the wide cab (68629 based at Colwick) and is from a Connoisseur kit.  The Leicester shunter (great photo btw) is one of the earlier batches with narrow cab and tanks but with side tanks subsequently widened as can be seen clearly in the photo. Its wheels suggest it is one of a batch designed for shunting rather that passenger work. J69s really are a great favourite with most steam locomotive enthusiasts. Something very appealing about them.

[thegreenhowards]

1 hour ago, Headstock said:

 

I'm sure it's nice and safe and cotton woolly over there but there are far too many sheep in the sheep pen knitting the same old jumper.

Well you'll have to make sure the LSGC comes out to play again so that we can all see what we're missing!

[Headstock]

15 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Well you'll have to make sure the LSGC comes out to play again so that we can all see what we're missing!

 

You know I love your jumpers really.

[Headstock]

42 minutes ago, Clem said:

Evening Andrew. I'm looking forward to seeing the finished BT 7, it's looking good.  Yes, I've certainly seen several photos of them on the Grantham-Derby line and the sets you describe certainly ring a bell, particularly that slightly incongruous placing of Thompsons together with a  GC carriage.

 

 I've not fabricated a roof using your described method before, I think I've always used MJT or Kirk (for non-gangwayed stock) roofs in my very limited passenger stock building history. But the method you've describes sounds spot on to get that GC roof profile.  I have to take my hat off to you for your incredibly detailed knowledge of passenger formations in my neck of the woods. When I can get to doing some carriage building, I really want to get that variation that you seemed to get around the early to mid 50s. 

 

Regarding the vans, most of the train hauled by the K2 has been put together in the few weeks. I've tried to get a bit of variation as you've suggested and that is still in progress. One other similar train that will be needed but not yet built, is the Burton-York beer train and in fact one or two of these vans may end up being part of it. But also included will be shock absorbing vans and opens, some beer tankers and some low fits with road  tanker trailers strapped on top. Looking forward to trying to put that one together.

 

For the AF container shackles , the screw shackle is a Roxy Mouldings brass fret. Above that, there is a short section of chain from Eileen's (just 3 links I think) fastened at both ends (to the screw and to the container at the top) with links made from 0.31N/S. Below the screw shackle, I've used 0.8mm tube (0.4mm inner diameter) to represent the spring link, threaded with 0.31mm N/S wire fashioned into hooks at each end. The top hooking into the shackle and the bottom into the container flat end side ring which is itself fabricated from 0.31 N/S wire. I'm not sure it would survive closer scrutiny but  from a reasonable distance it looks pretty convincing. 

 

 

 

 

I accidentally sat on a D&S roof, fortunately before it was on the carriage. Having killed it stone dead, I had to teach myself how to make roofs. It's not too difficult just a fair amount of repetitive accurate filing and cutting. The good news is that having succeeded, the world is your oyster in terms of any roof profile that you possible require.

[Clem]

19 minutes ago, Headstock said:

I accidentally sat on a D&S roof, fortunately before it was on the carriage. Having killed it stone dead, I had to teach myself how to make roofs. It's not too difficult just a fair amount of repetitive accurate filing and cutting. The good news is that having succeeded, the world is your oyster in terms of any roof profile that you possible require.

Having made the skeleton, what do you use to 'skin' it? 10 thou plasticard?

[Jack P]

16 hours ago, Clem said:

Thanks Jamie and Andy for the video advice. I'll give it a go.... First of all here's the latest couple of additions to the layout.

 

 

Excuse me for asking Clem, but what do you use for your chains and shackles please?

[Jesse Sim]

12 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

Love the P1 project. Is that a Heljan O2 underneath? DMR do the tender ‘as converted for use by B2’. I don’t know how different this was from the original, but worth considering.

 

https://www.phoenix-paints.co.uk/products/dmr/dmrlnerloco/dmr-lnerloco-4mm/4r-t2

 

Andy

 

Hi Andy, indeed it is an o2 underneath, I do believe the wheels are smaller then those used on the P1, but if we keep it a secret, know one will notice........

 

many thanks for the link, I’m going to try and do the whole build without using any sort of soldering. Kind of proof that you can make/alter something without being scared and or using the one thing some modellers are scared off; Soldering.

 

Talking with Graeme King of this parish, he knocked his tender up by using a Hornby donor. But if worse comes to worse, I’ll keep the link and use the brass one, thanks again. 

[jwealleans]

If you are going to build a brass tender, PDK do the P1 as a kit and therefore can supply the correct one.

Edited September 25, 2019 by jwealleans

[Clem]

6 hours ago, Jack P said:

Excuse me for asking Clem, but what do you use for your chains and shackles please?

 Hi Jack - I gave a description in an answer to Headstock on the last page.  I'll save you the tedium of searching for it.... :-) 

 

"For the AF container shackles , the screw shackle is a Roxy Mouldings brass fret. Above that, there is a short section of chain from Eileen's (just 3 links I think) fastened at both ends (to the screw and to the container at the top) with links made from 0.31N/S. Below the screw shackle, I've used 0.8mm tube (0.4mm inner diameter)  about 2.5mm long to represent the spring link, threaded with 0.31mm N/S wire fashioned into hooks at each end. The top hooking into the shackle and the bottom into the container flat end side ring which is itself fabricated from 0.31 N/S wire. I'm not sure it would survive closer scrutiny but  from a reasonable distance it looks pretty convincing. "

 

What I didn't mention was that each link was progressively soldered up taught as I went along as per Geoff Kent's method. The distance between the tab for ring on the container and the ring on flat (i.e the length of the link) was approximately 18mm.

 

I hope that helps.

[micklner]

11 minutes ago, Clem said:

 Hi Jack - I gave a description in an answer to Headstock on the last page.  I'll save you the tedium of searching for it.... :-) 

 

"For the AF container shackles , the screw shackle is a Roxy Mouldings brass fret. Above that, there is a short section of chain from Eileen's (just 3 links I think) fastened at both ends (to the screw and to the container at the top) with links made from 0.31N/S. Below the screw shackle, I've used 0.8mm tube (0.4mm inner diameter)  about 2.5mm long to represent the spring link, threaded with 0.31mm N/S wire fashioned into hooks at each end. The top hooking into the shackle and the bottom into the container flat end side ring which is itself fabricated from 0.31 N/S wire. I'm not sure it would survive closer scrutiny but  from a reasonable distance it looks pretty convincing. "

 

What I didn't mention was that each link was progressively soldered up taught as I went along as per Geoff Kent's method. The distance between the tab for ring on the container and the ring on flat (i.e the length of the link) was approximately 18mm.

 

I hope that helps.

Roxey also do a "Hook and Eyes" etch , I have one for my Containers to be done in due course.

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

Hi Andy, indeed it is an o2 underneath, I do believe the wheels are smaller then those used on the P1, but if we keep it a secret, know one will notice........

 

many thanks for the link, I’m going to try and do the whole build without using any sort of soldering. Kind of proof that you can make/alter something without being scared and or using the one thing some modellers are scared off; Soldering.

 

Talking with Graeme King of this parish, he knocked his tender up by using a Hornby donor. But if worse comes to worse, I’ll keep the link and use the brass one, thanks again. 

Good morning Jesse,

 

The O2s had 4' 8" drivers and the P2s 5' 2" - a 'scale' difference of 2mm, meaning that the loco will ride a mil' lower than it should do (assuming new tyres).

 

Perhaps no one will notice!

 

There's also a difference in the size of the pony wheel. The O2s had tiny ones.

 

Why modellers should be 'scared' of soldering, beats me. Anyway, you'll have to solder the rest of your C2 (which went to Australia last year) in order to finish it. I'm afraid I don't have time. I've got it up and running, so there you go! 

 

See you soon. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited September 25, 2019 by Tony Wright
typo error

[Jesse Sim]

15 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Jesse,

 

The O2s had 4' 8" drivers and the P2s 5' 2" - a 'scale' difference of 2mm, meaning that the loco will ride a mil' lower than it should do (assuming new tyres).

 

Perhaps no one will notice!

 

There's also a difference in the size of the pony wheel. The O2s had tiny ones.

 

Why modellers should be 'scared' of soldering, beats me. Anyway, you'll have to solder the rest of your C2 (which went to Australia last year) in order to finish it. I'm afraid I don't have time. I've got it up and running, so there you go! 

 

See you soon. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Now that you’ve mentioned it all, they will notice it!! 

 

Whats left to do on it Tony? 

 

I thought Geoff Haynes was going to paint it? Honestly I’m not in any rush for it and I’ll happily wait, I’m worried about not finishing it to such a high standard. I’d love to have a loco built by you, as a sort of keep sake for many years from now.

 

 

[Tony Wright]

6 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

Now that you’ve mentioned it all, they will notice it!! 

 

Whats left to do on it Tony? 

 

I thought Geoff Haynes was going to paint it? Honestly I’m not in any rush for it and I’ll happily wait, I’m worried about not finishing it to such a high standard. I’d love to have a loco built by you, as a sort of keep sake for many years from now.

 

 

There's a fair bit left to do, Jesse,

 

However, if you'r prepared to wait, I'll complete it; but not in time for your visit.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[MarkC]

7 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

The O2s had 4' 8" drivers and the P2s 5' 2" - a 'scale' difference of 2mm, meaning that the loco will ride a mil' lower than it should do (assuming new tyres).

 

But it will probably look OK across the flanges, won't it? (Which is, as we all know, an argument which has been well used in the past). Certainly as a 'layout loco' it will do very well, and I look forward to it being completed. Nice one, Jesse.

 

Mark

[APOLLO]

20 hours ago, Headstock said:

Talking of J69's,

 

this photo was recently sent to me of 68491, when it was the shunter at Leicester goodsyard. It was eventualy replaced by the preserved N7 for a period. I believe that the guards van is an ex NER V4 type, experts may be able to confirm, either way what a great livery for modelling.

 

photo courtesey of J Marsh.

 

Nice photo - I like the Tri-ang Brake Van !!

 

 

Brit15

 

 

[Jesse Sim]

7 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

There's a fair bit left to do, Jesse,

 

However, if you'r prepared to wait, I'll complete it; but not in time for your visit.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Morning Tony, 

 

Id love to have it completed by you Tony, If that’s alright. I am in no rush for it at all. 

 

I really appreciate it. 

[Clive Mortimore]

I have been experimenting with different approaches to making coaches. I have had a few problems, I wasn't happy with the CCT(E) sides when I first bent it and made the turnunder, so a re-read of Mr Kent's article in MRJ and I put a backing piece behind and that sorted it. I also had problems with the roof. I was going make it of strips of 20 thou plastic card over formers.... it dipped between the formers so I built it up using Gerald Scarborough's laminated method to get complicated shapes as I have done with the steel body BG. I remain a little unhappy with the dome ends of the BG. When compared to a Kirk kit it is nearly there, and also with one of my cut and shut Hornby "shortie". It is when comparing it with a Hornby BG they do not match. The Hornby BG is a real fatty, BGs should be narrower than other coaches, I hadn't noticed it before.

 

I built one of the BGs bogies wrong but that has been corrected. The other one I seem to have made the side frames too narrow and it shows with the big gap between it and the solbar.

Steel body BG. There is still a lot of filler to be applied before any other work.

 

The Anglo-Scottish Car Carrier CCT(E). There were three batches of CCTs and one of PMVs. One batch of CCTs were rebuilt from ex GER  Ilford stock displaced by the Shenfield electrification, as were the PMVs. The model is going to be from the second batch again converted from Ilford stock but these were LNER built coaches to 54ft long and had secondhand Fox bogies. The last batch were made from standard 51ft CLs and only had two doors on the side. 

 

 

[jwealleans]

Morning Clive,

 

Is this going to be the D45 BG, the one with no trussing, or the D198?  I'm guessing the later one as it had vents at the top of the doors where the D45 had droplights.

 

Mike Trice posted a good photo of a D198 on my workbench thread.

 

You're right about BGs, by the way, they were 6" narrower than passenger carrying vehicles.  As were the guards sections of carriages, which is why they had that distinctive step in.  Does anyone know why that originated, btw?

[Tony Wright]

7 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

I have been experimenting with different approaches to making coaches. I have had a few problems, I wasn't happy with the CCT(E) sides when I first bent it and made the turnunder, so a re-read of Mr Kent's article in MRJ and I put a backing piece behind and that sorted it. I also had problems with the roof. I was going make it of strips of 20 thou plastic card over formers.... it dipped between the formers so I built it up using Gerald Scarborough's laminated method to get complicated shapes as I have done with the steel body BG. I remain a little unhappy with the dome ends of the BG. When compared to a Kirk kit it is nearly there, and also with one of my cut and shut Hornby "shortie". It is when comparing it with a Hornby BG they do not match. The Hornby BG is a real fatty, BGs should be narrower than other coaches, I hadn't noticed it before.

 

I built one of the BGs bogies wrong but that has been corrected. The other one I seem to have made the side frames too narrow and it shows with the big gap between it and the solbar.

Steel body BG. There is still a lot of filler to be applied before any other work.

 

The Anglo-Scottish Car Carrier CCT(E). There were three batches of CCTs and one of PMVs. One batch of CCTs were rebuilt from ex GER  Ilford stock displaced by the Shenfield electrification, as were the PMVs. The model is going to be from the second batch again converted from Ilford stock but these were LNER built coaches to 54ft long and had secondhand Fox bogies. The last batch were made from standard 51ft CLs and only had two doors on the side. 

 

 

That's great modelling, Clive,

 

Exactly the sort of work we all should be encouraging - personal, creative, self-reliant and inventive! 

 

With regard to Hornby's current gangwayed Gresleys, speaking with Gilbert Barnatt yesterday we both agreed what a huge disappointment they are. Incorrect body shape, beading in the wrong places on some and what an opportunity missed? He doesn't use them and I certainly don't (other than as donors), yet, had they been right at source (or even near right), they would have formed the backbone of our respective Gresley fleets. Instead, it's been conversion/kit-building for me and quite an expense for him in the form of beautiful Willetts/Studley cars. 

 

The question is frequently asked as to whether Hornby will ever revisit the Gresley range. I think that's highly unlikely (though I certainly don't know), but looking at the firm's more recent offerings for the other Big Four companies (which are generally excellent; as are the non-gangwayed Hornby Gresleys), then it would be great if they would. Not great for the kit-makers (who continue to provide what's required), but great for those who can't build these beautiful examples of wooden-bodied rolling stock. That said, from what I've seen in the media and at shows of late, many are happy to use the Hornby Gresleys as they are. That being the case, why should Hornby invest money in expensive new tooling? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited September 26, 2019 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[Clem]

1 hour ago, jwealleans said:

You're right about BGs, by the way, they were 6" narrower than passenger carrying vehicles.  As were the guards sections of carriages, which is why they had that distinctive step in.  Does anyone know why that originated, btw?

 

Morning Jonathan. Presumably to allow for the guards' buckets without compromising the loading gauge ??

[Bucoops]

6 minutes ago, Clem said:

 

Morning Jonathan. Presumably to allow for the guards' buckets without compromising the loading gauge ??

 

I always assumed it was to annoy the hell out of modellers?

 

Alternatively, I also assumed it was for gauging (although did the 6" variance change when they went from 9' to 9'3" wide bodies?