Torre Station - Western Region in the 1950's in P4

[Captain Kernow]

Nice work with the diesels, Martin.

 

I find the original Heljan wheels in OO to be awful. The alloy they use seems to attract dirt and they definitely did not like the OO-SF pointwork I installed on 'Bethesda Sidings'. The locos concerned (a Hymek and a Class 33) also had Branchlines ('Black Beetle') coach wheels installed in the same way you did and they are fine now.

 

I've also used Branchlines wheels for some P4 conversions, such as my Class 128 DPU. It's a cost-effective way to convert such locos and the wheels are virtually guaranteed to be well machined.

 

[MPR]

… and one done (apart from a touch of black on the lamp irons)

This will be weathered at a later date, when I have got back into practice with my airbrush, but at least the bogies and wheels are no longer shiny and the end details are in place.

[MPR]

The Brush Type 4 is now as finished as it is going to be. It has had its buffer beams replaced and painted and the pipe work added. The bogies and fuel tanks have had a once over with a mixture of Matt black, grey and leather. I also sorted out an issue with the wiring that was stopping one of the bogies turning freely.

Like the Hymek, this locomotive will have a proper weathering exercise at a later date.

 

 

 

I’ve always been fond of the Heljan 47 and it is good to finally have one running (albeit under “rule 1” on Torre) as long as I don’t look too closely at its shortcomings.

 

Edited September 25, 2023 by MPR

[Cwmtwrch]

Rather curious that Heljan should choose the number of a loco which lasted less than 10 months with BR, being written off a few weeks after a collision at Shrewsbury in 1965, just over 8 months after delivery. In general, Class 47 on the WR were allocated to Canton or Landor initially, but both Bristol Bath Road and Old Oak Common had acquired allocations as well by mid-1965. These allocations were for maintenance, but the locos themselves could appear almost anywhere on the WR by 1966-7, so one at Torre is certainly possible.

[MPR]

On 26/09/2023 at 11:18, Cwmtwrch said:

Rather curious that Heljan should choose the number of a loco which lasted less than 10 months with BR, being written off a few weeks after a collision at Shrewsbury in 1965, just over 8 months after delivery. In general, Class 47 on the WR were allocated to Canton or Landor initially, but both Bristol Bath Road and Old Oak Common had acquired allocations as well by mid-1965. These allocations were for maintenance, but the locos themselves could appear almost anywhere on the WR by 1966-7, so one at Torre is certainly possible.

I picked up this model very cheaply s/h around the period that Hattons were selling them at below £50 new.

I don't understand that choice of identity either, particularly with the evocative names applied to others in the WR fleet.

I’m not surprised the prototype locomotive was written off ( I presume that most of the equipment was recovered and reused on the production line similar to the reuse of key components from DP2), the photos of the remains showed just how widespread the structural damage was, including both cabs.

My understanding is that the earliest visit of a 47 to the branch was the adjacent D1733 with the XP64 train.

Edited November 28, 2023 by MPR

[MPR]

Next on the list is a long delayed chassis upgrade for an Airfix 14xx. It was converted to P4 years ago, with a Perseverance chassis, DS10 and  Gibson wheels, very much according to that early MRJ article by the late Iain Rice. The body was also modified with the Mainly Trains detailing kit that he designed.By the time I had got it running, realised that the frames were too tall, had modified them and then reassembled, the whole lot was, well, somewhat wobbly!

I ordered a set of Ultrascales, and then a High Level chassis and there the matter stopped for some years.

So far, I have reread the instructions, found all the parts and cut out the mainframes, pressing out the rivets with a suitable compass point by lightly tapping with my back to back gauge. Next step would have been to open up the horn blocks and add the cosmetic springs, but work stopped when Poppy the spaniel decided that she wasn’t getting enough attention and started pawing me to go for a walk!

[MPR]

Another pleasant half hour saw the springs removed, cleaned and folded up. Next,  all the major components were labelled by number (or marked with an “x” if not required) and the spacers removed, cleaned up and drilled out where appropriate. I’ve taken the hint in the instructions and selected the P4Wide option for the rear frame extensions to allow a little more room for manoeuvre, at the expense of another 0.5mm width on each side.

[Captain Kernow]

Hi Martin - these chassis kits are lovely and I doubt you'll be disappointed with the finished article.

 

[MPR]

Thanks Tim,

I’ve bought a few of these over the years whenever I came across suitable spare bodies (most recently a 94xx) and thought I should actually build one up rather than open the box once a year and put it back in the cupboard!

I’m going to try out plunger pick-ups on this one, although I will fit top acting wipers if they are not fully satisfactory. The only thing that worries me about the build is fitting the worm to the Mashima motor without bending the shaft!

[Captain Kernow]

4 hours ago, MPR said:

I’ve bought a few of these over the years whenever I came across suitable spare bodies (most recently a 94xx) and thought I should actually build one up rather than open the box once a year and put it back in the cupboard!

Is that the new(ish) Bachmann 94XX? If so, did we have a conversation about the convertibility of this particular body to P4?

 

4 hours ago, MPR said:

The only thing that worries me about the build is fitting the worm to the Mashima motor without bending the shaft!

What I do, which seems to work every time, is to very gently open the worm shaft out with a suitably-sized 5-sided broach, until the motor shaft is a bit easier to fit (but never loose, of course) and then secure with adhesive of choice.

 

[MPR]

16 hours ago, Captain Kernow said:

Is that the new(ish) Bachmann 94XX? If so, did we have a conversation about the convertibility of this particular body to P4?

 

What I do, which seems to work every time, is to very gently open the worm shaft out with a suitably-sized 5-sided broach, until the motor shaft is a bit easier to fit (but never loose, of course) and then secure with adhesive of choice.

 

Hi Tim,

Yes, I bit the bullet and ordered a body shell from Bachmann spares. The body split seems similar to the 57xx/8750 but I don’t yet know how the fit around the splashers will work. I'll measure up and compare with the 57xx over the weekend to see if the splashers will need thinning.
Thanks for the broach suggestion (just ordered a set).

Regards

Martin

Edited November 1, 2023 by MPR

[MPR]

On 31/10/2023 at 16:14, Captain Kernow said:

Is that the new(ish) Bachmann 94XX? If so, did we have a conversation about the convertibility of this particular body to P4?

Hi Tim, the 94xx seems very similar in design to the Bachman 8750 - & the two High Level Chassis designs are identical in the key dimension (ie wheel centre to frame top).

The splasher front-splasher front interior dimension is a little narrower at 21.45mm rather than the 22.83mm of the 8750 ( Mainline 57xx was 22.73mm, Bachmann 64xx was 24.32).

The other key dimension was footplate underside to splasher top interior, where the 94xx is 5.57mm deep, compared to the 5.06mm of the 8750. (The 57xx was 5.93mm, the 64xx was 4.78mm)

So I think that it should all fit ok, with some thinning of the splasher fronts if necessary. In the worst case, all you would have to do is remove the splasher fronts entirely and fabricate a new front for each - you wouldn’t have to hack the splasher tops away from the footplate!

 

[MPR]

I have made a little more progress with the 14xx chassis…

The springs were folded over with the half-etch on the outside, and crushed flat between two pieces of plywood. I then introduced a little Carrs green label flux into the gap with an old paint brush, drawing the flux in by capillary attraction.

The bit was well tinned with 145 solder and I touched the gap with point of the iron, holding the spring laminations together with an old file. The flux fizzed and flashed to steam and the solder flowed to fill the gap.

The frame location and spring fronts were now fluxed and tinned in the same way - the final assembly made by holding the two sides together, fluxing in the gap, and applying a hot soldering iron until the fizzing stopped and solder was seen to flow.

This made the assembly strong and stiff enough to remove the axle holes without fear of damage - I filed up and down from the holes to split the axle location into two, then bent the halves back and forth until they snapped out along the half-etched lines.

[Captain Kernow]

20 minutes ago, MPR said:

Hi Tim, the 94xx seems very similar in design to the Bachman 8750 - & the two High Level Chassis designs are identical in the key dimension (ie wheel centre to frame top).

The splasher front-splasher front interior dimension is a little narrower at 21.45mm rather than the 22.83mm of the 8750 ( Mainline 57xx was 22.73mm, Bachmann 64xx was 24.32).

The other key dimension was footplate underside to splasher top interior, where the 94xx is 5.57mm deep, compared to the 5.06mm of the 8750. (The 57xx was 5.93mm, the 64xx was 4.78mm)

So I think that it should all fit ok, with some thinning of the splasher fronts if necessary. In the worst case, all you would have to do is remove the splasher fronts entirely and fabricate a new front for each - you wouldn’t have to hack the splasher tops away from the footplate!

 

Thanks, very useful info.

 

In order to avoid completely spoiling a complete 94XX, I've recently obtained a spare body from Bachmann Spares, in order to experiment with thinning the splasher sides.

 

All being well, I'm then hoping to use the spare body on the original chassis and sit a set of Ultrascale 57XX wheels in, opening out the bronze bearings and worm wheel from 3mm to 1/8", in the same manner as the chap who converted a new Bachmann J72 to EM in MRJ a couple of years ago.

 

[jbg]

I have tried to P4 the Bachmann 94XX using the High Level kit. It needs some significant modification as it is a thick “Mazak” casting rather than the plastic footplate from the 57XX. The clearance behind the splashers is also inadequate and even thinning them as far as is reasonably possible there isn’t sufficient clearance. 
 

For the moment it’s gone back in the “too difficult” pile but I look forward to seeing how you both approach it. Good luck!

 

Jeremy

[MPR]

After a couple of false starts, the frames are now finally erected.
The front spacer folds up into a lop-sided “u” shape, which makes for a precisely located and torsionally stiff setup. In my haste, I did not check that the “u”was evenly bent, which introduced a degree of twist that could not be tweaked out. The only way out was to desolder the chassis,  correct the bending, then clean up and start over. Fortunately, the etched slots in the frames allow the whole lot to be clipped together for checks - once I was satisfied with the angular alignment I soldered one side, checked, tack soldered the other side and rechecked, then added the rear frame spacer to lock everything in place. Lastly, I refluxed each of the joints and made a full seam joint on each, followed by the three middle spacers (the very centre one is only slotted in place for now)

I am now happy with the alignment and can move on!

Edited November 11, 2023 by MPR

[Captain Kernow]

On 05/11/2023 at 18:27, jbg said:

I have tried to P4 the Bachmann 94XX using the High Level kit. It needs some significant modification as it is a thick “Mazak” casting rather than the plastic footplate from the 57XX. The clearance behind the splashers is also inadequate and even thinning them as far as is reasonably possible there isn’t sufficient clearance. 
 

For the moment it’s gone back in the “too difficult” pile but I look forward to seeing how you both approach it. Good luck!

 

Jeremy

Thanks for the info about your attempts to make sufficient clearance behind the splashers. I must admit that I was hoping that sufficient material could be removed to make the conversion possible.

 

It looks as if major surgery is now required to the splashers. I wasn't going to set about mine anytime soon, anyway, so more time to think about it!

 

[MPR]

The rear axle boxes are a very neat three layer assembly. The first step is to ensure that the centre is a good sliding fit in the horn guide - this requires some filing of the cusped edges of both pieces. The front piece on the left has a tongue that is bent through 90 degrees and pins all the layers together. Each was carefully cleaned up with 600 grade paper, then all three pieces were pressed together with tweezers, aligned by the tab and the axle bush. A brush load of green label flux was applied to the edge, then was touched with the tinned soldering iron bit - the flux boiled off and solder flashed into the joints. A little more flux and a second application of the iron completed the joint. The assemblies were then rubbed with the 600 grade until they were an easy sliding fit.

When I was happy with the axle boxes, the outside frames were soldered in place. 
Next… driving wheel axle boxes and coupling rods.

[MAP66]

Looking good and your soldering is a lot neater than mine, I’m building the same over at Tyteford Halte, also in P4. Are you going for the full inside motion? I found it a bit of a challenge but worth the effort. By the way, the main axle horn blocks are nice to assemble and fit, good luck with the rest of the build.

Cheers,

Mark

[MPR]

9 hours ago, MAP66 said:

Looking good and your soldering is a lot neater than mine, I’m building the same over at Tyteford Halte, also in P4. Are you going for the full inside motion? I found it a bit of a challenge but worth the effort. By the way, the main axle horn blocks are nice to assemble and fit, good luck with the rest of the build.

Cheers,

Mark

Thanks , I think it’s down to the 145 solder and Green Label flux combination, I find 183C PbSn or 220C CuSn solders much messier, even the versions with added silver. I’m definitely going for the full inside motion option, it would be a shame to compromise with a kit as well designed as this. I’m taking it slowly, I just do one or two steps each modelling session and walk away if it isn’t going well until I am in the right frame of mind. I’ve started on the horn blocks - I’ve bought some spares ready for another project, but expect them to work at the first attempt.

I think that these kits are very good value for money - certainly on a cost per hour of enjoyment basis. They are thoroughly well executed.

[MPR]

On 27/11/2023 at 22:04, MAP66 said:

….

By the way, the main axle horn blocks are nice to assemble and fit, good luck with the rest of the build.

Cheers,

Mark

 

The horn-guides were even easier than I thought - four folds and you are done on each. As the front ones will need to be filed a little to clear the inside motion etch, I'll add a little solder to them, but it is certainly not required for most applications. Even with final tweaks and polishing yet to be completed, the axle boxes are sliding freely.

Edited November 29, 2023 by MPR

[MAP66]

Yes, there beautifully engineered and designed those horn block assemblies. I'm completely new to chassis building (this is my first build) and if I can put them together without any difficulty, then they must be good. Well done for identifying that the front ones will need the collars filed down a tad to clear the inside motion. I missed that point and had to take evasive action later. I'll mention it any way, but the driven axle bushes need the collar completely filed off to clear the gearbox. I found that the flange of the horn block etch was an ideal place for clamping tight to the side frame when soldering them in place. The wooden peg in the back ground has nothing to do with this engineering feat, it's simply there to prop up the chassis for the photo 😀

 

[MPR]

9 minutes ago, MAP66 said:

Yes, there beautifully engineered and designed those horn block assemblies. I'm completely new to chassis building (this is my first build) and if I can put them together without any difficulty, then they must be good. Well done for identifying that the front ones will need the collars filed down a tad to clear the inside motion. I missed that point and had to take evasive action later. I'll mention it any way, but the driven axle bushes need the collar completely filed off to clear the gearbox. I found that the flange of the horn block etch was an ideal place for clamping tight to the side frame when soldering them in place. The wooden peg in the back ground has nothing to do with this engineering feat, it's simply there to prop up the chassis for the photo 😀

 

I have a couple of sets of horn-block alignment jigs, one of which has springs to compress the axle boxes against the frames - I’ll try these first. Also, the etched hole on the frame has a corresponding one at the correct height on the horn-block - I think they are for 0.4mm, so once you have put a pin through them, all you have to to is to tweak the angle at which the horn-block sits.

[MAP66]

13 minutes ago, MPR said:

I have a couple of sets of horn-block alignment jigs, one of which has springs to compress the axle boxes against the frames - I’ll try these first. Also, the etched hole on the frame has a corresponding one at the correct height on the horn-block - I think they are for 0.4mm, so once you have put a pin through them, all you have to to is to tweak the angle at which the horn-block sits.

Yes, absolutely try your way first. I resulted to my method as when I opened up the reference holes in the frames for the 0.4mm wire for locating the horn blocks I drilled on the wonk and not perpendicular to the side frame and this threw the horn block off centre. I couldn't then use the wire, so instead I positioned the horn block assembly centrally within the cut away and with the tab hard up against the top edge, clamped it all and soldered in place. Very unconventional, but I seem to have gotten away with it. I have a Poppies chassis jig and it was only a bit later that I realised that this was the way to do it. Problem was, it does not have a means of holding the chassis tight against the wall of the jig, no springs or anything like that and the witness axles kept on dropping out. I have now found some slip collars to fit over the witness axles which tighten onto the axles with a grub screw and so its all held tightly and squarely in place. Would be interesting to know which jigs you have and are they still available to buy?

[MPR]

53 minutes ago, MAP66 said:

Would be interesting to know which jigs you have and are they still available to buy?

I bought them years ago and can't remember who the manufacturer was*. One set are in steel, with springs and with the ends turned down to 1.5mm, the others are aluminium, with tapered  ends. (I much prefer the steel ones)

 

* Puffers / LRM respectively (IIRC).

Edited November 29, 2023 by MPR
remembered...