Great Southern Railway (Fictitious) - Signalling the changes...

[Skinnylinny]

Well, the CAD mojo has definitely returned! The next project appears to be an LB&SCR D53 horsebox. Apparently the 16' LSWR one (shown here for comparison) wasn't short enough, especially with my new-found taste for tiny rolling stock. So! A 14' LB&SCR one it shall be...

Now, how do I translate this new-found energy into work...?

[Skinnylinny]

Work CAD (and preparation for some upcoming little local model railway show near Birmingham later this month) has taken over for a little bit, although the LBSC horsebox is still on-the-go. However, I recently acquired a second-hand Rapido SECR open wagon for a very good price, albeit in BR engineers black. What to do with it?

Well, I know that these wagons are rather too modern for my layout, although the late-livery versions as-produced may appear occasionally. However, a pleasant evening with some lighter grey paint and pressfix transfers has resulted in a rivet-counter detector wagon! It has been painted in the earlier Wainwright grey livery as suitable for Linton Town, even though these wagons did not yet exist when that livery was in use. It will likely only appear when I wish to wind people up, but as a bit of fun, why not?

[Compound2632]

6 hours ago, Skinnylinny said:

(and preparation for some upcoming little local model railway show near Birmingham later this month) 

 

Good.

[Skinnylinny]

Well, I've finally given in and ordered two Hattons Genesis coaches - specifically a 6-wheel full brake, and a 6-wheel brake third, to compare with the Hornby ones I've been slowly modifying. It's been a bit of a faff getting them to arrive (not helped by Royal Mail) but they have been safely delivered to a fellow club member now, and hopefully I should be getting my hands on them tomorrow. 

The Hornby "totally-not-Stroudleys-honest-guv'" carriages have a fair few details that point to their "inspiration", but those smooth Stroudley duckets and end windows on the brake ends really give the game away, even at a distance (unlike the lack of bolection mouldings, for example). However, when repainted and lettered into GSR blue-and-white they still look rather nice, although the blue on the beading shows up my shaky hands somewhat!



I'm still pondering what to do to "de-Stroudleyify" these further. They'll be getting vacuum brake gear, possibly footsteps (at a more reasonable height than the Hornby ones - I'll probably try to match the Hattons ones for height), and I may try changing the commode handles (although they do have a family resemblance to those on my Triang clerestory conversions...).

[Skinnylinny]

I've now had a chance to look at the Hattons 6-wheelers, and I am delighted.

The bodyside and roof profile are pretty similar to the Hornby not-Stroudleys, meaning they don't immediately stick out like a sore thumb in a mixed rake. While some of us had been hoping for at least some variation, to represent different generations of stock, this isn't the end of the world for me. 

The livery application is beautiful, but not long for this Earth on my models, which are being repainted into GSR blue and white. Dismantling the models for repainting is relatively straightforward, although I wish a little less glue had been used on the glazing - I broke one piece while removing it from the full brake (fortunately not anywhere visible) - lots of gentle persuasion with a scalpel tip is the name of the game here. However, while the door droplights on the Hornby models are printed on the glazing, they are moulded into the bodyshell on the Hattons models, requiring a steady hand to pick out in an appropriate polished wood colour.

Lengthwise, the Hattons and Hornby 6-wheelers match up perfectly, with the same wheelbase. The Hornby carriages are, of course, Westinghouse braked (owing to their Brighton heritage) while the Hattons ones are vacuum braked, with fairly comprehensive brake rigging modelled. I'll need to sort that on the Hornby ones. 

One thing I especially liked about the Hattons carriages over the Hornby ones is that the Hattons 6-wheel brake third has compartments spaced as per their 4-wheel third. The Hornby 6-wheel brake third has very wide compartments. Unfortunately, in both ranges, the 6-wheel full third has 5 widely-spaced compartments. If I wanted consistent compartment spacing for my third-class passengers, I would have to cut-and-shut two Hattons coaches to produce a 6-compartment full third. 


Top: Hornby 4-wheel third
Middle: Hornby 6-wheel brake third and 6-wheel third
Bottom: Hattons 6-wheel brake third and 6-wheel full brake

[Compound2632]

52 minutes ago, Skinnylinny said:

One thing I especially liked about the Hattons carriages over the Hornby ones is that the Hattons 6-wheel brake third has compartments spaced as per their 4-wheel third. The Hornby 6-wheel brake third has very wide compartments. Unfortunately, in both ranges, the 6-wheel full third has 5 widely-spaced compartments. If I wanted consistent compartment spacing for my third-class passengers, I would have to cut-and-shut two Hattons coaches to produce a 6-compartment full third. 

 

Now I my advice to Hattons, which they preferred in this instance not to take, was that being carriages off the same block, the 6-wheel brake third should be a brake-ended version of the 6-wheel third, with two or three compartments of the same width (nominally 6' 3" between partitions), rather than match the 4-wheel third, with its 5' 6"-ish compartments. The 4-wheel third has a matching knee-locker brake third.

 

The other relevant bit of advice contributing to your annoyance was that the 5-compartment 6-wheeler was about as generic a 19th century carriage you can get, being by an overwhelming majority the most common type of carriage on the LNWR, MR, GWR, NER, GS&WR, etc. 

 

This has to be factored in with Hattons choosing a length of 32 ft over body, which is a little on the long side of the average although by no means unprecedented - it was the length of the NER thirds, compared to the MR ones at 31 ft (6' 0" compartments) or GS&WR at 30 ft (5' 10" compartments). A slightly shorter length would have been more thoroughly generic but I'm probably biased.

 

Those companies that did build 6-compartment 6-wheel thirds, either for high-density suburban traffic (GNR) or out of parsimony (HR) generally ended up with slightly longer carriages - 5' 6" compartments gives you 34' over body. That's the length you will end up with splicing two Hattons 4-wheel thirds.

 

A longer 6-wheeler becomes operationally awkward, both at full size and as an 00 model.

Edited November 21, 2022 by Compound2632
sp. - splicing not slicing

[Skinnylinny]

9 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Those companies that did build 6-compartment 6-wheel thirds, either for high-density suburban traffic (GNR) or out of parsimony (HR) generally ended up with slightly longer carriages - 5' 6" compartments gives you 34' over body. That's the length you will end up with slicing two Hattons 4-wheel thirds

It's interesting you should say this - it may be that the brake third has slightly shorter compartments then - certainly to my eye the innermost compartment wall is *directly* above the centre axle, which would imply that I could get a 32' 6-compartment third out of two brake thirds... but as you say, at 5'4" compartments, we are getting firmly into LNER Quad-Art territory! I was hoping for a mixture of 4- and 6-wheel stock in the same train, but having such large compartments in the 6-wheel third right next to a 4-wheeler with the same number of compartments seemed a bit off!

What to do, what to do...

[Edwardian]

13 minutes ago, Skinnylinny said:

It's interesting you should say this - it may be that the brake third has slightly shorter compartments then - certainly to my eye the innermost compartment wall is *directly* above the centre axle, which would imply that I could get a 32' 6-compartment third out of two brake thirds...

 

 

Yes, I believe you can

 

13 minutes ago, Skinnylinny said:

but as you say, at 5'4" compartments, we are getting firmly into LNER Quad-Art territory! I was hoping for a mixture of 4- and 6-wheel stock in the same train, but having such large compartments in the 6-wheel third right next to a 4-wheeler with the same number of compartments seemed a bit off!

What to do, what to do...

 

Well, in the link below is my analyses of the Hattons compartment widths. Essentially the 4-compartment coach makes a good Second and too wide for Thirds for the LB&SCR and other smaller companies (like the WNR!).  Yet, the Third class compartments are too narrow for anything other than an inner-suburban knee-knocker. We, therefore, need something between the two, which does not exist in either the Hattons or Hornby ranges. 

 

 

As I've mentioned on Castle Aching what I am planning to do is to have 5-compartment sides made for a 30' coach - essentially a Billinton 30' Third - and cut down the Hattons chassis.

 

I have already proved that one can remove and replace the sides on the Hattons coaches, with care. My next task is to see if I can successfully reduce a Hattons u/f by 2'. 

 

 

 

 

[Compound2632]

This is good. A RTR model range provoking real modelling. If Hattons had simply made accurate models of real WNR carriages, where would we be?

Edited November 21, 2022 by Compound2632

[Edwardian]

6 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

This is good. A RTR model range provoking real modelling. If Hattons had simply made accurate models of real WNR carriages, where would we be?

 

Less nerve wracked.

 

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by Edwardian
spelling

[Skinnylinny]

On 21/11/2022 at 17:42, Compound2632 said:

This is good. A RTR model range provoking real modelling. If Hattons had simply made accurate models of real WNR carriages, where would we be?

Having to bash them more to represent GSR stock!

I have to admit, whenever I am painting carriages, I find myself wondering why I picked a panelled livery, especially one with white panels on such a dark background colour... this until I finish them up, then I remember.

Being hand-painted, these will never reach the same level of regularity and perfection that a manufacturer with a tampo printing machine can manage, but they still have a certain charm to me, as well as being unique. They don't look too bad mixed in with the Hornby ones either, although I'll want to add some roof plumbing for the gas lamps to the Hornby ones, I think, and rearrange my roof ventilators. 



I've also been experimenting with a different paint for the white panels - the two top carriages have been done with Revell 05 "Matt White" which is a rather warmer, almost slightly salmon shade of white than the bluer, "titanium" shaded Citadel "Corax White" I have previously been using. I suspect the carriages that use the Citadel colour may end up with a slightly-yellowed varnish coat over the top as, now that I have a comparison, the white looks far too bright!

...having read @Edwardian's thread, I may have to figure out a luggage composite or third at some point, though...

Edited November 24, 2022 by Skinnylinny

[Skinnylinny]

Oh, I forgot to add - I'll be travelling down to Birmingham tomorrow for the Warley show, so if anyone's there and spies me - I'll be the one with the shoulder-length bright purple hair! - please come and say hi. I'll probably be spending most of my time working at the Rapido stand, where I won't be able to chat for long, but it's always nice to put faces to names (or screen names)!

[Din]

On 24/11/2022 at 16:13, Skinnylinny said:

Oh, I forgot to add - I'll be travelling down to Birmingham tomorrow for the Warley show, so if anyone's there and spies me - I'll be the one with the shoulder-length bright purple hair! - please come and say hi. I'll probably be spending most of my time working at the Rapido stand, where I won't be able to chat for long, but it's always nice to put faces to names (or screen names)!

 

Saw you zipping about while chatting with Corbs! Good work on the stand that weekend.

[Skinnylinny]

Thanks - it was a bit hectic but it was a fantastic show. Good to put so many faces to names, too - I count at least half a dozen people I've now met for the first time from RMWeb (and a couple of lurkers in my thread too - hello!) 

I'm very thankful to be just about finished with the GWR B set for work, and I've been poking at a couple of personal projects. The LSWR 380 has sort of stalled - I'd like to get back onto that over the Christmas break, and I'm looking into how to draw up my own lining transfers. 

The LBSC horsebox has been on pause also, what with the boom in work in the run up to Warley. It'll get there.

However, I've just today received a slightly-early Christmas present, and while it's note quite period-appropriate for Linton Town, it's certainly a very pretty beast. I've not built a K's kit before, so I'm a little nervous, and the thought of all that lining makes me want to hide the box away forever, but... What a pretty thing it would be!



It even comes with the motorising kit, although I suspect the wheels (at the very least the driving wheels!) may get replaced. Despite everything being still vacuum-sealed to the cards, there are signs of rust around the tyres already...

[Andy Hayter]

Forget the motorisation unit. They have a terrible reputation.  The wheels are iffy too.  If you can put them on carefully and then from preference never take them off again, they will be fine; but the quartering "D" in the nylon centre tends to become damaged with repeated putting on the axles and removing again.

[Skinnylinny]

18 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

Forget the motorisation unit. They have a terrible reputation.  The wheels are iffy too.  If you can put them on carefully and then from preference never take them off again, they will be fine; but the quartering "D" in the nylon centre tends to become damaged with repeated putting on the axles and removing again.

My current plan is to replace the driving wheels with Scale Link ones, and as for the motor, well, it'll get thoroughly tested before I decide whether or not to install it. 

The leading and tender wheels can be assembled and checked for trueness and back-to-back before going into the model, so I am less concerned about these, but the driving wheels are definitely a concern.

[Skinnylinny]

Not much to add since last time - the basics of the loco have been put together, and I've ordered and received a complete new set of wheels from Scale Link. I was hoping at least that the tender and front pony wheels might be useful, but when I tried to fit the tender wheels to their pinpoint axles, one of the wheel centres shattered excitingly! I also noticed that the driving axles and the front pony axle seem to be missing... which doesn't bode fantastically.

Poking around at the chassis, it's very basic (slabs of brass with holes drilled in, screwed into spacers). I may very well look into drawing up a new 3D printed chassis. With the cast whitemetal bodyshell it ought to have enough weight, and I could design the new chassis around whatever motor/gearbox combination I want. 

Sadly no time to make up a virtual Christmas card this year, so have a photo of the mostly-successful test run of the SE&CR pull-push set on the club's big roundy-roundy. The only difficulties it seemed to have were on spots of track that had poor rail or board joints, and it worked beautifully being propelled around the layout. Lining the other side is still in progress, and then all will be varnished before glazing and interiors are fitted.

[Skinnylinny]

Well, the Falcon is... sort of underway? This is my first attempt at a K's kit, and it's... let's just say a challenge! I splashed some paint on a few parts before assembly to see whether I was happy with the paint - an old tin of Phoenix Precision P400 LSWR Beattie Loco Brown (no longer available). It's certainly a fairly purple red, much more than I was expecting, and what you see is two thin coats, brushed on, plus a lot of filler. 



All of the wheels have been replaced for various reasons. I wasn't planning to use the K's driving wheels with their D-shaped axles... which was made an even easier choice as all three loco axles were missing from my kit for some reason! As for the tender wheels, I made a silly mistake in assuming the wheels would fit onto the supplied pinpoint axles. Alas, the second wheel I attempted to fit onto an axle disintegrated into a pile of tiny, sharp pieces of black plastic and a steel tyre. An order was thus placed with Scale Link.

I discovered when the Scale Link package arrived that (of course!) K's didn't use 26mm pinpoint axles for the tender. Theirs were about 1.5mm longer. However, for some reason, the bearing holes in the tender frames were straight-edged (despite the pinpoint axles!), meaning that top-hat pinpoint bearings dropped straight in, and took up the missing length in the axle. 

I have not yet looked into motorising the loco, but as things stand, it's very front-heavy meaning there's very little weight where it's needed (over the driving wheels). The lack of a cab means there's not much more chance to add this weight, so my current thoughts are leaning towards having the (quite hefty) tender putting weight on the drawbar, to press the rear of the loco down. That being said, the chassis that comes with the kit is rather basic, so I may look into 3D printing my own, with pockets in various places to take metal pieces for weight. 

Oh, and those tender handrail knobs are coming out and being replaced straight! 

Edited December 30, 2022 by Skinnylinny

[Jack P]

I'm not sure what the inside of the tender looks like, but it might be a good candidate for a motor mounted in the tender, with a shaft driving the wheels?

[Skinnylinny]

9 hours ago, Jack P said:

I'm not sure what the inside of the tender looks like, but it might be a good candidate for a motor mounted in the tender, with a shaft driving the wheels?

Hmmm, possibly. The tender is a 5-sided box (no floor) and is completely empty. Trying to mount a motor might be interesting though, as there's no available surface to which to actually attach the motor. 

 

The other issue would be arranging the drive shaft. I imagine it would have to run under the footplate (with an open cab it would just be too visible otherwise) and the height of the driving wheels (all 6'6" of them!) means the driving axle is at an awkward height for slinging a gearbox either above or underneath. 

[Caley Jim]

6 hours ago, Skinnylinny said:

The other issue would be arranging the drive shaft. I imagine it would have to run under the footplate (with an open cab it would just be too visible otherwise) and the height of the driving wheels (all 6'6" of them!) means the driving axle is at an awkward height for slinging a gearbox either above or underneath. 

The arrangement I use for tender mounted motors driving the loco via a shaft below the footplate can be seen in this build of a CR 6ft 2-4-0.  I used the same arrangement in a 7'ft 2-4-0 some time ago, but in it I angled the driveshaft down from the tender so that it ran under the rear driving axle.

 

Jim

[burgundy]

I would be tempted to stay with the Mike Sharman method, of making the tender into a semi trailer that bears on the rear of the loco to balance the weight at the front. The difficult bit is to get the balance right so that enough of the tender weight is bearing on the loco but the tender wheels still stay on the rails. 

I am currently wresting with just this issue!

Best wishes 

Eric  

[burgundy]

Illustrating the idea in the post above, this photo shows the mechanism to give the two leading axles on the tender some vertical flexibility. The slots for the bearings are oval and the bearings should be able to move upwards, so that the weight of the front of the tender will bear on the rear of the loco. Spring wire presses down on the bearings so that they stay in touch with the rails. This photo shows the first attempt in which the wire was much too stiff; in short lengths, wire is remarkably rigid. I have had another go with rather thinner wire. It also shows that I struggled somewhat to solder steel wire which needs a rather aggressive flux to adhere. I put a layer of paper between the back of the bearing and the frame to avoid soldering the bearing solidly into the frames! The pinpoint axles are sacrificial and there to ensure alignment. They will be replaced with EM length axles. 

Loco and tender (without wheels), with the axleboxes resting on top of the pinpoints of the front and centre axles. The next trick will be to get the drawbar between loco and tender at exactly the right height. 

Tender by 5&9 Models. Loco from a set of etches for a Craven 2-4-0 by Ian White.

I hope that this helps.

Best wishes 

Eric  

[Northroader]

Couldn’t you do it by mounting the two rear axles of the tender on a bogie arrangement, mounted on a fixed pivot point, then having the leading tender axle floating, with enough springing to keep the wheels on the rails? This would allow you to transfer as much weight as you want from the leading end of the tender body on to the drawbar.

[Caley Jim]

51 minutes ago, burgundy said:

 This photo shows the first attempt in which the wire was much too stiff; in short lengths, wire is remarkably rigid. 

You could use phosphor/bronze wire, which is more flexible (and easier to solder), or you can increase the flexibility of the springs by introducing a coil into them.  Each coil increases the physical length of the wire, and so the effective length of the spring, by pi x d, where d is the diameter of the coil, without increasing the length the spring occupies.

 

Jim