Schooner's (Mostly Maritime) Musings

[Schooner]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

...he always used the name Mountford himself.

Who wouldn't?

[MrWolf]

1 hour ago, Schooner said:

Who wouldn't?

 

Exactly, it's a wonderfully rakish name, what?

[41516]

I thought about this last night, there are a couple of 'tells' if it's a College Models kit or Scratchbuilt  (if it was Underhill/Zero Zephyr/CSP kit it should probably have the right shaped dome, not something like looks like it should be on a Jinty......)

 

The CM kit will have a half-etched oval on the cab rear where there should be a round access panel - Builders and tank capacity plates are typically below this round panel, one immediately below, the other either on the top section of the lower cab panel or below the top lamp iron.

 

You can also see how the cab is clearly not far enough back and the rather coarse detailing from the previous owner/builder.  The rear spectacle plates also are a little too high and too far apart - it joins the laundry list of problems.

 

 

Second - With the body off, is there a circular hole in the cab front?

 

 

1536 here needs a fairly significant rebuilt to get to a point where I would be truely happy with it.  At the moment it's sat on my desk at home as something to ponder over while I'm working.  Eventually it will end up as 41536 just before she went on the grand adventure from Burton up to the C&HPR for a few months in 1955, helping recover former shedmate 47000 after the accident at Steeplehouse while up there!

 

 

 

 

Edited March 19, 2023 by 41516
ZephyR

[Schooner]

Are you sitting comfortably...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Schooner]

 

 

[Schooner]

Overall then...

 

...I'm still smiling :) Not perfect by any means, but I remain charmed and think the photos show someone took quite a lot of care in her building and finishing. There's an element of personality of the prototype and in her own right. She's also an absolute unit, over 1kg. Handy for dealing with the rough-riding kit-built stock she'll have to boss about!

 

However, there's obviously quite a lot to do to restore/improve a few things; aesthetically, electrically, and mechanically. I'm hoping she'll make a good first foray into this kind of carry-on, acting as a gateway if not to scratch-building locos at least into greater confidence in their maintenance and improvement. 

 

I'd really appreciate hearing the good, bad, and ugly to get this process rolling, so please don't hold back your thoughts.

 

Right, time to find an O rolling road... 

 

Edited March 19, 2023 by Schooner
Results of weight test vs bag of sugar, as per

[41516]

Very much the same as mine, so College Models without too much doubt.

 

30 minutes ago, Schooner said:

She's also an absolute unit, over 1kg.

 

My 1536 is also a heavy beast, stuffed with lots of lead.....lead and plasticine. It's going to be fun to try and get that cleaned out!

 

30 minutes ago, Schooner said:

 

I'd really appreciate hearing the good, bad, and ugly to get this process rolling

 

Visually, the dome and chimney are both not great and the most noticable thing to me at least. The chimney is a bit too thin, the dome just wrong!  The dome may be an issue as trying to match the paint with a reshaped/replacement might be problematic.

 

 

 

Short answer woulb be to probably do something with the chimney, sort out lamp irons and lamps, fire irons and heroic load of coal in front of the cab, crew and patch painting.

 

I can make a much longer list.... 

 

 

Edited March 19, 2023 by 41516

[Schooner]

Thanks for that, good to get info on the likely heritage, and agreed re the look of the chimney and dome.

 

My initial thoughts are to give a gentle clean to the pickups, motion etc and see how she runs. I imagine then it will be a dismantle job to get the running acceptable. This is Stage 1, about which I care quite a lot and which I think needs to happen sooner than later. Stage 1b is then to bed the loco into a layout - crew, coal, lamps etc. This can happen in due course, but is likely to match layout construction to help with motivation for each. Subsequent stages are far enough in the future not to worry about too much just yet.

 

11 minutes ago, 41516 said:

I can make a much longer list.... 

Please do if you have the time and energy! It's all taken on board, and all appreciated :)

 

[Schooner]

Just a little addendum to say that a proper layout planning thread has started in that section of the forum with this post.

It's mostly old news for those who read this thread, but sharing for maximum feedback.

[41516]

8 hours ago, Schooner said:

Please do if you have the time and energy! It's all taken on board, and all appreciated :)

 

Will do, as most things will also be my future working list.

[41516]

1536 would like to say hello to her long-lost sister.  The oversized dome should be the DNA test proving a common parent.

 

 

This might sound very much like a 'if I was going there I wouldn't start here', but then again I also like improving old kits!

 

My non-exhaustive list from tonight includes:

 

Buffers - Not great, missing corner bolts. Unsprung, heads too small. Should be MR short with packers as built

Buffer beams too thick

Bufferbeam holes too high - Should be at base of bufferbeam

'Pocket' on bufferbeam for drawhook should not be there. Coupling hook is oversized and wrongly shaped.

Lamp irons - Top lamp iron should be on the top of the smokebox as built, 3 in front bufferbeam

Smokebox door - Correctly flat profile. Two lowest locking dogs at 5 o'clock and  7 o'clock should not on 1528 as built, should be single dog at 6o'clock

Globe lubricators on tank fronts as built missing

Flush riveted smokebox as built - rivets to remove

MR cast numberplate to replace decals

Chimney too thin/wrong shape?

Dome is wrong!

Bolts on cylinder covers missing

Tank fillers should have elliptical hinges

Clack valve/boiler mounts a bit weak

Gap between tank and boiler not as large as prototype

Tank straps should have prominent mounting bolts and pass through square(ish) plates over the boiler cladding

Tank top depth should be slightly greater

Cab rain strips too tall

Cab rivets/bolts should be snap rivets even on first batch locos (i.e. raised)

Builders/water capacity plates needed

Cab steps should have straight back for 1st batch locos

Cab ventilator sits too high

The rear spectacle plates also are a little too high and too far apart- probably means issues at the front too

Steam dome/safety valve mount too tall/too far forward - should be up against cab front

Sandboxes too short and wrong shape

Brake shoes too far away from wheels (& missing on front wheels in kit?)

No hole in frames between wheels

Crossheads do not match prototype well

Simplified Cylinder drain cocks

 

Possibly valve gear issues - not looked at this in great detail yet.

 

Edit - mine has correctly fluted rods - yours look plain?

 

Whew?

Edited March 20, 2023 by 41516
speeeling

[Schooner]

That's all well and good for now...but then what am I going to do tomorrow?!

 

Thanks for those, much appreciated and very useful. I'll have a look through that list with the model under decent light in the next day or few. Till then...

Barrow Hill (Staveley) shed, likely 1930s. On one of the shed’s approach lines is ‘Deeley ‘0F’ Class 0-4-0T LMS No. 1529' – seen here facing in the direction of the headshunt.    Built at the company’s Derby Works, she was brought into service during September 1907. Since the Nationalisation of 1948, she was always a Staveley (18D later 41E) engine until withdrawal by BR in the April of 1961.

 

...and Paul Gilbert's fetching treatment of the 7mm CSP kit

I wonder if he'd like to swap... 

[41516]

Note 1529 has gained longer buffers (no packers) and a new snap rivetted smokebox by the time of that later LMS photo.  It's also reminded me that the steps will have the edges bent up by the LMS and should be flat as-built.

 

16 minutes ago, Schooner said:

...and Paul Gilbert's fetching treatment of the 7mm CSP kit

 

But proves the peril of using only provided parts in a kit- a dished smokebox door that seems to have only appeared with the 2nd batch (and then swapped around in later days).   I think there's also some other odd bits with the Underhill kit - If it's anything like another I have on the bench, there are some areas of loose interpretation or purely inferred detail by the creator.

Edited March 20, 2023 by 41516

[Schooner]

Apropos of absolutely nothing, I was cruising Getty (thanks @Compound2632!) and came across this, which I thought might make us all smile

...but then I read the caption and found myself surprisingly moved. Poor b*ggers could've had it much worse, but were still in for a bit of a ride.

 

29th June 1938: Pupils of the Jews Free Boys School in Bishopsgate, London, working on a model railway made in their wood and metalwork classes in the school playground. (Photo by William Vanderson/Fox Photos/Getty Images)

 

Edited March 20, 2023 by Schooner
Happy now, Censor?

[Compound2632]

A compressed air engine? Though it's very posed - what fine adjustment is about to be made with that hammer?

 

Looking at Bishopsgate Goods Station on the NLS maps site, I found myself waylaid into reading about the Old Nichol Slum and Boundary estate:

https://lookup.london/arnold-circus-history/

[Schooner]

Unless one is inflating the seat cushions and the hammer is there for Quality Control...

Edited March 21, 2023 by Schooner

[41516]

It's quite a nice representation of a Bagnall

 

 

Edited March 21, 2023 by 41516

[Schooner]

So many charming shunters so little time!

[Metropolitan H]

15 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

A compressed air engine? Though it's very posed - what fine adjustment is about to be made with that hammer?

 

Looking at Bishopsgate Goods Station on the NLS maps site, I found myself waylaid into reading about the Old Nichol Slum and Boundary estate:

https://lookup.london/arnold-circus-history/

I suspect - from previous experience - that the foot pump is for creating a draught while steam raising - prior to the loco being hot enough to use the blower.

 

Regards

Chris H

[Schooner]

I was going to write up some thoughts on the London show - which layouts resonated with me and why - but I got a bit distracted doing some (whisper it) modelling.

 

So, a quick question: Why is this sort of carry-on a thing in the flight sim world (and frankly, a Spit is at the entry-level end of things)

 

and yet I can't sit behind

to play trains?

 

Serious question - is it a software thing that stops greater hardware interface with DCC? Or just a market thing - you can only fly one plane at once, but most (?) people drive more than one train at a time, and also play at being signalman at the same time? On a scale of One to Really Difficult, does anybody want to take a guess how hard it would be to wire a regulator, brake, reverser etc into a DCC system? I'm trying not to have a good idea, but it's very tempting... 

[Tom Burnham]

6 hours ago, Schooner said:

 

Serious question - is it a software thing that stops greater hardware interface with DCC? Or just a market thing - you can only fly one plane at once, but most (?) people drive more than one train at a time, and also play at being signalman at the same time? On a scale of One to Really Difficult, does anybody want to take a guess how hard it would be to wire a regulator, brake, reverser etc into a DCC system? I'm trying not to have a good idea, but it's very tempting... 

As someone whose last layout to actually run trains (50 odd years ago) was controlled by a Hammant and Morgan Duette, I'm reluctant to comment on this, but it seems to me that as in interest in full size railways, there's something of a division between those mainly interested in details of rolling stock and those who appreciate the railway as a complete system. Maybe those who get to build layouts of any complexity are more likely to fall into the second group?  In terms of the Spitfire analogy they perhaps see themselves as the Group Captain watching the WAAFs pushing little blocks around on the big board? But who like to take a kite up themselves once in a while?

Incidentally, I used to feel DCC was an added complication, but having seen layouts at exhibitions with DCC sound, I do feel the sound really adds something to the experience.

[WFPettigrew]

7 hours ago, Schooner said:

and yet I can't sit behind

to play trains?

 

Serious question - is it a software thing that stops greater hardware interface with DCC? Or just a market thing - you can only fly one plane at once, but most (?) people drive more than one train at a time, and also play at being signalman at the same time? On a scale of One to Really Difficult, does anybody want to take a guess how hard it would be to wire a regulator, brake, reverser etc into a DCC system? I'm trying not to have a good idea, but it's very tempting... 

 

Controversial view - DCC sound is brilliant for diesel/electric, but rubbish for steam, not just because it is almost impossible to synch up chuffs and wheel revolutions (and once you spot these are out, it's hard to "un-spot"), but particularly because steam locos, even light engine but especially with a train behind them will roll for ages when the steam is shut off until a brake is applied.  Yet how many times have you seen a loco with DCC sound chuffing to a stand?  It's just WRONG!   Maybe if DCC had been designed by Americans who were into steam, then it would actually properly replicate the sounds of a steam engine.  And you're right here - having controls that actually mimicked what is on a footplate would help. 

As for your lovely image of Britain's oldest working steam locomotive footplate, well having fired that engine numerous times, driven it too, and being a Trustee of the charity that owns it, I would say that being on that footplate to "play trains" is really quite special!   

 

All the best

 

Neil 

[ChrisN]

In a recent 009 news someone who had built a contracted Snowdon Mountain Railway, not only had conventional controls but also a mini cab; 'the regulator, reverser and brake are potentiometers, with a button injector.  The pressure gauge is driven by a servo motor, and the boiler water gauge is 3 mini LEDs.'  The is an Arduino built into the layout for all the controls, either traditional or back of cab.  He continues, 'Balance it right and the engine will progress to the summit, with a decent amount of water and pressure, but get it wrong, and the engine will lose steam and run back down the hil, (until the emergency brake kicks in).'

Edited March 24, 2023 by ChrisN

[Schooner]

On 24/03/2023 at 07:59, Tom Burnham said:

Maybe those who get to build layouts of any complexity are more likely to fall into the second group?

Yes, I think this is definitely part of it - the dream for many (myself included) is a Little Empire (as harmless a way of becoming a Little Empero as any, I guess). Still, there are lots of layouts around - mine, for a start, but lots of shunting puzzle types, or those with little industrial spurs to a quarry or a dairy or whatever - where it's much more about roleplaying being a loco driver. It'd be interesting to find out how big an interest there is in really driving a loco, especially given the rise of DCC and radio control where it really is the engine being driven rather than just the track power varied.

 

On 24/03/2023 at 08:47, WFPettigrew said:

...I would say that being on that footplate to "play trains" is really quite special!   

I should hope so too! That's a very cool thing you've got to do, just a little envious. When I've got my 'home cab' all set up, you'll be the one to pop over for a QA test then! More generally regarding DCC, I agree really, I felt no compulsion to dive into DCC when I had a perfectly viable, if venerable, DC controller. With a small stud on a small layout some of the main advantages are lost; sound fitted...well, let's just say I tend to find it unconvincing. But...

 

...starting fresh in O, I will appreciate the slow-running benefits; a shunting layout means constant speed changes which helps mitigate the irritation of obviously looping sound files; and, crucially, I think the addition of syncronised water-based smoke pushes the model through the uncanny valley of sound but no soul into something more entirely convincing. 

I suspect, like good slow running on DC, that there is much more possible than most realise/perhaps are willing to find out. The benefit of only having one or two locos is the incentive it provides to get every ounce of immersion out of them. Quite looking forward to finding out what all the DCC fuss is about!

 

On 24/03/2023 at 09:07, ChrisN said:

'Balance it right and the engine will progress to the summit, with a decent amount of water and pressure, but get it wrong, and the engine will lose steam and run back down the hil, (until the emergency brake kicks in).'

Isn't that more fun than selecting Speed Step 20, or however it works?! Love an opportunity for a good cock-up :)

 

Shall we have one of those photos of some rollers next to some floaters?

 

Alternative version here. Both high res, but different brightness and contrast brings out different details.

 

Aberdovey/Aberdyfi in...opinions differ...but I like 1891. Do the wagons give anything away? My basic understanding of Cambrian livery is

On 20/06/2022 at 16:28, Schooner said:

• 1860s - Dark grey, numbered on the ends, lower plank, otherwise unmarked
• 1880s - Light grey, numbered on the ends, upper plank, otherwise unmarked
• 1899 - CAM \|/ RYS, numbered ends, tare LH solebar, loading weight under feathers
• 1915 - CAMBRIAN bit of a rare and mongerel livery
• Post-grouping standard 16" GW 

and although I was skeptical about the lack of tare or loading weights on the early liveries it does look to be so, likewise light grey and numbers on the upper end plank, as can be seen on the third wagon from the left. A similar photo of 1901 shows a little dropside looking fine with its feathers, suggesting that the wagons on the quay were proper Cambrian vehicles not any kind of internal/private user thing, although I imagine they spent an awful lot of their lives shuttling between slate quarries and slate-exporting quays.

 

There's lots of fun stuff with the boats, but plenty on the railway side too. I like that loading ramp, not at all sketchy. I like the background PO wagon, and the variety in the quayside quartet. I really like that the crews have started signing the quay wall, Oh, and the hats. Good hats.

 

Small quay at the end of a short harbour branch from the (single) platform loop, which itself has a private siding to a mill and what looks to be a narrow but thorough-going goods yard...hmmm. Nice spot

 

 

Edited March 26, 2023 by Schooner
The usuals

[WFPettigrew]

8 hours ago, Schooner said:

I think the addition of syncronised water-based smoke pushes the model through the uncanny valley of sound but no soul into something more entirely convincing. 

 

That smoke certainly does help. 

 

However (here he goes again).  If you were driving a real steam loco on a length of track that short, about 6 chuffs would probably be more than enough to then roll to the end.  On the first return trip the driver is accelerating at not much more than a loco length away from the end of the siding, and that would never happen - not all steam loco brakes are that powerful/reliable, and a good driver would also be mindful that a brutal braking would send all the water in the boiler up to to the front end, exposing the firebox crown.   And a good driver would also remember their years as a fireman, and would only use the steam that was needed to do the job.

 

I think part of the problem is that while DCC has "intertia" settings that can be built in, these apply per loco (and a loco running light engine will accelerate far faster than one hauling a heavy train, obviously).   And secondly with any sort of rotary knob controller that mimics the old DC style, how does the system know when to "ease off"?   

 

I will readily admit that I don't own a DCC system, and haven't massively researched them because I want to go down the radio control route when I get round to building a loco.  But it seems what is really needed is a centre off control knob, where centre is a "no power applied, no braking" and turning clockwise is an ever increasing application of power, and turning anticlockwise is an ever increasing application of the brake.   Such a system may already exist but I have not seen it when I have had a chance to play with a DCC handset, and certainly I haven't seen such a system being used, given how it would be audibly very apparent very quickly if it were. 

 

Sorry, rant over. 

 

Neil