Traeth Mawr -Building Mr Price's house , (mostly)

[ChrisN]

What I found interesting was that the footboard was at platform height, so actually very easy for little ones to step into the coach without fear of them disappearing.

 

I will have to start measuring the height of footboards now.  The footboards on the Metropolitan stock are at the top of the solebar.  The one on the '100 Seater', as it was called appears to be either in the middle or at the bottom of a thin solebar.

 

 

It does appear to be a thin solebar, but if you look on their site, it is actually in the middle of it.  The Birdcage has its footboard at the bottom of a regular sized solebar.  This is where I would expect it to be and all my models are made like that.  The '100 Seater' was made in 1922 and is practically modern image.  It appears to have a battery box between the queen posts, (?), which the Birdcage does not have.  I have no idea why that is, and I am going to have to find out if GWR Clerestory coaches had them, queen posts not battery boxes.  (Shaun will understand about battery boxes as he is really modern image, 1940s!)

 

Now relative heights  compared to the platform,

 

 

The 100 seater and the Met coaches appear to have their footboards the same height.  Why was the Met footboard so high, when it was built before the Birdcage?

[ChrisN]

Another update.  I have been working on the MSLR Tri-composite, but also on other things.  

 

I have been painting the 645.  I had painted it and then rubbed it down as there were brush marks and where I had run the new paint into the old it was not mixing.  So I decided to repaint having thinned the paint.  I think I have done that two or three times, each one with more paint to thinners each time.  Each time there were brush marks, but more worryingly, there were streaks of matt paint, and streaks of satin/gloss.  I have given it a light sand, and next time I will spend quite a while stirring it to ensure that it is completely mixed.  I will then add minimal thinners and paint again.  

 

 

Now this is not a poor paint job and  Gary you need not worry that this is my interpretation of Stroudley teak.  This is a cardboard coach and I decided that I should paint it with Shellac.  This was due back in March, but shopping went out the window with the Lockdown.  I found that as they opened things up in April I could buy some for £10.99 from a DIY type place, or £15.99 plus delivery from Amazon.  I left it until the summer.  Now my wife is very protective as I am older than she is, (only six years!), and prefers if I do not go out to the shops so we she went to get some compost or something I asked her to get some Shellac.  "It is called 'Knotting'".  She came back with French Polish.  "That is what the man said I needed when I asked for Shellac".

 

The side does say it is Shellac, so I have covered it in it.  Well, I covered the cardboard bits of the chassis, and below the seats, then when it was dry used PVA to stick the chassis to the brake end and the coach.  I then painted the rest.  I am not sure if it should have more coats before it is primed.  I have not forgotten the roof, (honest!).  I have rolled it and shaped it as advised.  It is the first time rolling to obtain a curved roof has worked for me, I have tried on both brass and plasticard before.  I will roll again, and then Shellac.  Once it is hard I will add the oil tops.

 

Then will come the painting.  As everything I have painted recently is streaky that will be fine for teak/mahogany, except that as my painting skills appear to have disappeared it will probably be completely smooth.

 

Finally, in the background is a North British coal wagon.  I am told it is correct for the period, although I do not know how Mr Parry has has obtained coal from Scotland.  What I am not sure about is the lettering.  Was the 'NB' on the side of the wagon in 1895 or was it just the 'Clover' sign?

 

If you have been, thanks for looking.

Edited October 31, 2020 by ChrisN

[Northroader]

Looking at Nigel Digby’s “Liveries of Pregrouping Railways”, he states the large “N B” letters started to be introduced from 1896. I think having a load of Scottish coal, charged on a mileage rate, would be unlikely on the Cambrian, but there’s no reason against the wagon being used for general goods, say sacks of seed potatoes, perhaps?

[corneliuslundie]

I happen to have "Wagons of the LNER No. 1 - North British". There is a photo of open wagon  12173 which it states was photographed in 1895 after overhaul. It does not have N B, but does have the quatrefoil and the crescent.

However, there is also a photo of mineral wagon no. 55605, very similar to yours, new in 1896 and having N B as well as the quatrefoil and the crescent.

So take your choice.

Jonathan

PS I suspect that Nigel Digby used this source.

Edited October 31, 2020 by corneliuslundie
Typo and update

[Compound2632]

@corneliuslundie just beat me to it with 55605. This is the reference for the Oxford model; they've reproduced the crescent with the date of construction, last major repair,/overhaul, or last repaint, whichever was the most recent. So if you're no earlier than 1896, this wagon is OK. This makes it incompatible with the Hornby 3-plank wagon in NBR livery, which carries the date 1922...

 

On the initials, I fear Mr Digby did not dig deep enough. The photo of the NER Forth Bank Goods Station, stated to have been taken in 1893, shows a tatty old NBR wagon without the initials and a smartly-painted one with, so c. 1892/3 seems more probable:

A couple of linked threads from last year:

 

[ChrisN]

21 minutes ago, Northroader said:

Looking at Nigel Digby’s “Liveries of Pregrouping Railways”, he states the large “N B” letters started to be introduced from 1896. I think having a load of Scottish coal, charged on a mileage rate, would be unlikely on the Cambrian, but there’s no reason against the wagon being used for general goods, say sacks of seed potatoes, perhaps?

 

14 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

I happen to have "Wagons of the LNER No. 1 - North British". There is a photo of open wagon  12173 which it states was photographed in 1895 after overhaul. It does not have N B, but does have the quatrefoil and the crescent.

However, there is also a photo of mineral wagon no. 55605, very similar to yours, new in 1896 and having N B as well as the quatrefoil and the crescent.

So take your choice.

Jonathan

PS I suspect that Nigel Digby used this source.

 

Thank you both.  As I am looking at March 1895 it would seem I need to remove the 'NB'.  To put it another way, 'To self, nb., remove the letters.  Have to look into how to do it.

 

Sacks of seed potatoes sounds good.  I have plenty of sacks; have to have a look inside them to see if they are potatoes.

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, ChrisN said:

Thank you both.  As I am looking at March 1895 it would seem I need to remove the 'NB'.  To put it another way, 'To self, nb., remove the letters.  Have to look into how to do it.

 

Sacks of seed potatoes sounds good.  I have plenty of sacks; have to have a look inside them to see if they are potatoes.

 

No, not necessarily, but you do need to backdate the number in the crescent. 

 

Seed potatoes were suggested for my G&SWR wagon, coming to the Midlands from Ayrshire. But things must have been slack in the coal trade for a mineral wagon to be spare for potato traffic?

[ChrisN]

Now I have put the wagon under my magnifying glass and seen the number I think I might just weather the wagon.  95 is possible but it would need to have been done in January or February, so it will need to be possibly 94.  We shall see.

 

Last night we were baby sitting for two of our grand children, ( 2 of 4, last night: 2 0f 5 this morning  ).  Having my laptop with me after having put cutting instructions on the files I have not cut yet for the Silhouette, my attention turned to this picture that @Bedders originally posted.

 

 

Now, I blame @Mikkel, .  It has nothing to do with me, honest guv.  Whiling away time making a Silhouette file, so that it will go in my pile of 'to do coaches' and eventually, maybe, have a display cabinet with a picture at the back and the coach at the front.

 

Now one of the first things I do is to resize the pictures/diagrams to the correct size.  I do not know how long it should be but helpfully it has a scale at the bottom which when applied makes it 22' 2".  My drawing could be wrong so I checked the wheelbase, which came out to 16' 9" which I thought rather strange.  I have searched but cannot find any details of this coach apart from the picture, (which I cannot pull up now on the internet).  If it was a single First and three Third Class compartments that would make 22' but does anyone know for certain, or if not could you point me in the right direction?  Thanks in advance for your help.

 

If you have been, thanks for looking.

[Mikkel]

49 minutes ago, ChrisN said:

2 of 4, last night: 2 0f 5 this morning

 

Congratulations Chris! You'll be even busier then! 

 

The display cabinet will look great I'm sure. Here's a challenge: Get it done before grandchild no.  6 arrives!

[corneliuslundie]

Well, assuming that the wheels are the usual 3 ft 7 then the scale is correct.

Looking at what little I know of early Cambrian carriages, they came in lengths of 23 ft 11 in, 24 ft, 25 ft 6 in and 25 ft 7 in, so nothing quite so short. The 25 ft example is a 4-compartment composite.

So what about other companies?

TVR 25 ft 11 in. 4 compartment compo

Rhymney 26 ft 2 in, 6 compartment third

B&M 22 ft 2 in. 4 compartment compo

The others are all longer or newer or both

But the B&M carriage is the same length as yours., built by Metropolitan in 1881. MIke Lloyd shows the wheelbase as 12 ft.

In fact I think this is one of them, as sold to the BCR.

Jonathan

[Sasquatch]

16'9" wheel base sounds spot on. Shame we're not both on the same side of the pond, I could knock you up a cabinet in no time!

[corneliuslundie]

But at a rough measurement that drawing of your shows a carriage a bit over 26 ft long, not 22 ft 2 in. That put the wheels where I expected them for that wheelbase.

Interesting that the panelling style is rather similar to the B&M vehicle.

And congratulations on the new grandchild. You'll catch us up soon.

Jonathan

[ChrisN]

On 03/11/2020 at 19:28, corneliuslundie said:

Well, assuming that the wheels are the usual 3 ft 7 then the scale is correct.

Looking at what little I know of early Cambrian carriages, they came in lengths of 23 ft 11 in, 24 ft, 25 ft 6 in and 25 ft 7 in, so nothing quite so short. The 25 ft example is a 4-compartment composite.

So what about other companies?

TVR 25 ft 11 in. 4 compartment compo

Rhymney 26 ft 2 in, 6 compartment third

B&M 22 ft 2 in. 4 compartment compo

The others are all longer or newer or both

But the B&M carriage is the same length as yours., built by Metropolitan in 1881. MIke Lloyd shows the wheelbase as 12 ft.

In fact I think this is one of them, as sold to the BCR.

Jonathan

 

 

Jonathan,

Thank you.  I have just gone back and remeasured, as the only other 22' coach I know is a Cambrian 4 compt 2nd.  Having looked again I find that it has grown by four feet so it is 26' 2".  It must have been a longer day than I thought.  Also thought, why not check the size of the compartments?  There are at least two Firsts, which is what I would expect, and measuring the model again the other two are probably Seconds as a Fist is 7' and a Second is 6'.  That makes 26'.  Sorry, you can see my brain working, which cn be quite painful to watch sometimes

 

Edit:  Posted before I saw your last post.  Thank you.

On 03/11/2020 at 19:30, Sasquatch said:

16'9" wheel base sounds spot on. Shame we're not both on the same side of the pond, I could knock you up a cabinet in no time!

 

Shaun,

Thanks.  I would have thought 17' or 16' 6" , but if you are happy then why should I not be?

 

You could probably get the cabinet done long before I get the coach done!

Edited February 25, 2021 by ChrisN

[Nick Holliday]

I've got confused as to which coach is being talked about, as I can't find the original reference, but here is a 21 ft 6 in Cambrian composite on a 12 foot wheelbase.

[ChrisN]

10 hours ago, Nick Holliday said:

I've got confused as to which coach is being talked about, as I can't find the original reference, but here is a 21 ft 6 in Cambrian composite on a 12 foot wheelbase.

 

Nick,

The 22' Second that I was talking about is in fact a 21' 6" coach.  Now it is down in C. C. Green's Cambrian Album Vol 1 page 26 as a 4 Compartment Second, but in Mountford's list of absorbed coaches it is down as a Composite.  The original number being 21.  What is interesting is that the diagram that you have put up has an extra panel which is not seen on the photograph.  It surprises me as I would have expected another one between the First and the Third on the other side.  Which numbers were these?

 

Edited November 4, 2020 by ChrisN

[Nick Holliday]

9 hours ago, ChrisN said:

 

Nick,

The 22' Second that I was talking about is in fact a 21' 6" coach.  Now it is down in C. C. Green's Cambrian Album Vol 1 page 26 as a 4 Compartment Second, but in Mountford's list of absorbed coaches it is down as a Composite.  The original number being 21.  What is interesting is that the diagram that you have put up has an extra panel which is not seen on the photograph.  It surprises me as I would have expected another one between the First and the Third on the other side.  Which numbers were these?

 

Also, in trying to make sure I had the right information I have measured the coach side of Cam Kit's Composite which is supposed to be 25' 6" long.  The coach side is a scale 18" shorter than this which intrigues me as I am sure Richard knows what he is doing 

The number is rather faint, but it looks like No 2.

I don't know which one the Cam Kits kit is, but there is a 24' composite, which may be the one.

 

[Nick Gough]

Congratulations for the latest grandchild Chris. 

[ChrisN]

1 hour ago, Nick Holliday said:

The number is rather faint, but it looks like No 2.

I don't know which one the Cam Kits kit is, but there is a 24' composite, which may be the one.

 

 

Nick,

Thank you.  I cannot see a number but I suppose it is possible if it is faint it might be 21.  However on the picture, which I cannot post due to copyright, I cannot see a panel in the middle, but it is a fairly poor photograph.  If it is 'No 2' then this coach was withdrawn in 1904.  I shall have to go back and look at the books and see if I can glean any more information.

 

I have to say in my list of composites I do not have a 21' 6" one so this is a discovery, and with a drawing as well means it will, eventually, be built.

[corneliuslundie]

The photo in CRA looks to me like 21. I am doubtful about it having had any first class though: the window spacings seem even and 21 ft 6 divided by four is only about 5 ft 3 in, allowing 6 inches for the the structure, hardly enough for a First Class compartment even at that date. Also, surely if there was a First Class compartment the gaps between the windows would be greater on both sides, not just on one.

Also I don't think the gaps between the windows fit with Nick's drawing.

Which does not mean that there were no carriages matching Nick's drawing, just that this isn't one.

What do others think?

I would love more information about early CR carriages, as it is very thin, and equally so for early wagons.

Jonathan

[ChrisN]

19 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

The photo in CRA looks to me like 21. I am doubtful about it having had any first class though: the window spacings seem even and 21 ft 6 divided by four is only about 5 ft 3 in, allowing 6 inches for the the structure, hardly enough for a First Class compartment even at that date. Also, surely if there was a First Class compartment the gaps between the windows would be greater on both sides, not just on one.

Also I don't think the gaps between the windows fit with Nick's drawing.

Which does not mean that there were no carriages matching Nick's drawing, just that this isn't one.

What do others think?

I would love more information about early CR carriages, as it is very thin, and equally so for early wagons.

Jonathan

 

Jonathan,

I think you are right, the photograph is of a four compartment Second, although Mountford says it was a composite.  The space gained on three Seconds to three Thirds would allow for a First.  I thought I had found an image of it but I was wrong and so I am still looking.  

 

What is interesting about the diagram is that it is the first one I have seen of an early carriage except for the Third Class Saloon.  The Saloon diagram makes it look as if the top is flush with the bottom and the beading is proud of this, where in this diagram it looks more like panelling, with the beading on the lower layer.  It makes more sense of what is happening around the windows but I shall have to go back and look at the later First class ones as well.

[corneliuslundie]

Yes, I was very interested to see Nick's drawings as I had not seen them before. Can he tell us where they came from please?

Jonathan

PS I am about to redraw an HMRS drawing which may interest you Chris: a Cambrian Ballast Break Van. Wooden brake blocks so definitely old enough for your line. When I have cleaned it up for the HMRS and then redrawn it I will let you have a copy.

Jonathan

[ChrisN]

21 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Yes, I was very interested to see Nick's drawings as I had not seen them before. Can he tell us where they came from please?

Jonathan

PS I am about to redraw an HMRS drawing which may interest you Chris: a Cambrian Ballast Break Van. Wooden brake blocks so definitely old enough for your line. When I have cleaned it up for the HMRS and then redrawn it I will let you have a copy.

Jonathan

 

Jonathan,

Thank you, that is very kind.  I have a drawing of a single veranda goods brake but any others would be most welcome.

[ChrisN]

Things are progressing on several fronts, which means I am fliting between projects, but there is progress.  The MLSR 4 wheeler.

 

We left it with two flimsy solebars.  I decided that as they would have to fit between the buffer beams I would put these on first.  The diagram states 4" thick I think, which is 1.5mm.  I only have 2mm x 4mm and it is a long way to the shop which is difficult to get to and may not have it and........  I decided that 2mm was fine but I would file a little notch in the side to make it look like 1.5mm.  You are barmy, I hear you say.  Probably, but that is what I did, and surprise, surprise, it worked quite well and made a nice securing place for the solebars.

 

 

Before fixing them to the coach I drilled out the holes for the buffers, then opened them out to the right size with a broach.  To make sure they are perpendicular to the floor I put two supports of 2 x 4 mm.  These will eventually act as the supports for the, er, tension lock couplings.

 

I then glued a 1.5 x 1.5 mm L strut to the top of the solebar to give it strength and some surface so I could glue it to the coach.  (Sorry forgot to take that picture, but the result was:-

 

 

So there we are.  Notice some seat backs have come out, I will have to try with superglue, the coach plastic does not seem to glue very well with solvents, well not the ones I have used.  

 

Opps, run out of time.  If you have been, thanks for looking.

[Nick Holliday]

On 06/11/2020 at 15:25, corneliuslundie said:

Yes, I was very interested to see Nick's drawings as I had not seen them before. Can he tell us where they came from please?

Jonathan

PS I am about to redraw an HMRS drawing which may interest you Chris: a Cambrian Ballast Break Van. Wooden brake blocks so definitely old enough for your line. When I have cleaned it up for the HMRS and then redrawn it I will let you have a copy.

Jonathan

TBH I cannot remember where that particular drawing came from.  I acquired off eBay a set of prints for a number of Cambrian Coaches, having been described as LBSCR stock, which carried letters for each diagram, e.g. A and A1, but some letters were missing and I somehow managed to fill most of the gaps by trawling the web.

[ChrisN]

I will try and finish my update.  We left the coach with what looked like little feet, but unfortunately it actually needs wheels to make it go.  I have some MJT W irons which at this point I stuck to the floor with Blu-Tak, to make sure the ride height was correct.  It does appear so, which is comforting.

 

I am not sure that I mentioned this but quite early on after having made to footboards I sat down with my computer and made a set of instructions of what I had to do and it what order.  (I probably ought to read them again I suppose.)  In it it said, "Use the holes in the footboard to position the holes in the running board."  Great!  How am I suppose to do that?  I felt like having serious words with the person who wrote the instructions, in fact I did, and he did not know either.

 

The running boards are a piece of plastrut 15 x 125 thou with a length of 1.5mm 'L' shape glued to one side.  I thought about using masking tape to stick one on top of the other but the lip of the 'L' pushes the footboard too far forward.  (You can guess how I know.) So, before I glued the footboard to the coach I stuck both the footboard and the running board to some masking tape:-

 

 

I then drilled the holes in line with the ones on the footboard.  (Yes I know the running board is longer than the solebar/footboard piece, it is meant to be.  It has been extremely accurately put in the correct position. "Umm, that looks about right."  As I look I can see that one hole is out.  Oh dear too late.)

 

My thoughts then turned to axleboxes and springs.  The axlebox is an MJT Attocks.  It became obvious that the solebars were too wide for the springs to touch the W irons.  Rethink.  Now you may ask why I did not realise that earlier.  Good question, to which the answer is the same reason that I am still a novice at chess.  I find it very difficult to see more than one move ahead.  I worked out eventually that I needed a 1mm strip on either side.  It was of course not just against the solebar but the 'L' piece I had glued to the solebar to make it rigid and able to glue to the coach.  "Ah," I hear you say, "why did you just not glue a 2mm piece to the solebar and save the bother?"  The answer is that I was thinking about solebars, not about W irons and wheel widths.  I future I will do that for 4 wheelers, of which there will be some, but the experience gained with this will help with 6 wheelers.  (Watch this space.)

 

I looked at the W irons and they have a projection which by sliding in pieces of plasticard I found to be 40 thou, (1mm).  I decided that it would help the rigidity of the floor if I glued a 10 thou piece along the bottom.  I could have made it 20 thou but I was concerned that it would begin to be obvious.

 

 

So on the left are the two 1 x 4mm spacers.  Next to it is the 10 thou floor strengthener, with holes for the protrusions.  It seemed easier to do it that way than to bend the protrusions down.  The plasticard has been glued on to the W irons with superglue.  The coach has its buffers as it is easier to check the ride height with them in place.  I glued in the spaces, then the floor piece which fitted between them, both using Plastic Weld.  I then marked on the solebar/spacer the position on each side where the wheels should be. 

 

I then superglued the springs in place, then using polystyrene cement I attached the W irons.  This meant that I could manoeuvre the wheels to the correct position, and when I was happy I then ran plastic Weld down either side securing it.  Simple!  Actually, not bad.

 

 

The springs are GCR 6' 6" leather strap which hopefully is not too far out.

 

Next time I have an exciting announcement.

 

If you have been, thanks for looking