East Barnet Joint Stock - a workbench

[Nick Holliday]

53 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

 

Here are some drawings and a photo of som of the GNR railcars - the drawings are labelled, the photo is of No 6 and they're from that Oakwood paperback 'British Steam Railcars' by R. W. Rush I brought back from Norwich (with the usual disclaimers - please respect copyright, these cropped photos are only on here for study):

 

 

 

I'm not entirely sold on the 'truncated loco with pruned coach' look, but I can't deny that they'd would make interesting modelling projects. I think the semi-elliptical roof of No 2 improves the look somewhat but that's probably because I hve a great fondness for that shape; the more consistent lines of coach body and loco roof of the No 6 are perhaps more pleasing. The loco part of No 7 looks a little odd and I wonder how accurate that is.

No. 7  & 8 were something only their mother could love. The drawing does seem to capture its ugliness. 
https://twitter.com/SleeperAgent01/status/1280269864175894529/photo/1

Edited October 30, 2023 by Nick Holliday
Adding No. 8

[Chas Levin]

17 minutes ago, Nick Holliday said:

No. 7  & 8 were something only their mother could love. The drawing does seem to capture its ugliness. 
https://twitter.com/SleeperAgent01/status/1280269864175894529/photo/1

 

Interesting photos, thanks Nick. The phrase "something only their mother could love" is so harsh but about right, isn't it?

 

I'm puzzled by the two photos that both seem to show "No 8": are these two views before and after the removal of the outer boiler cladding, as I can see you make reference to the resemblance "later on" to the No 1 & 2 GNR railcars? If so, what was the intended purpose of the cladding and when and why was it removed? A quick scan of the GNR chapter in my Oakwood Railcars book doesn't mention this change in the Avonside vehicles.

[Jon4470]

Hi Chas

 

If you are not keen on the locomotive bit I have a suggestion. How about just making 2 carriage portions and joining them together as a twin? It’s what Gresley did to them in the 1920s.

 

Jon

 

 

[WFPettigrew]

3 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

I wonder how accurate that is

 

Sadly Chas, the odds are not good. 

 

RW (Bob) Rush wrote a number of books, including two regarding the Furness Railway (also Oakwood Press).  Let's just say that the one that features drawings of locos, carriages and wagons contains numerous sometimes significant errors.  When he was asked - after publication - for the sources for some of the things in his book by Furness Railway historians, he apparently generally replied "I can't remember" and once that he probably had some paperwork on it, but it was the back of his wife's knitting cupboard, so he couldn't get to it.  (??!!) 

 

So I would treat this one with a huge dollop of caution, several pinches of salt, and probably only rely on that which is backed up by a second source. 

 

Now, that was the polite review.   @MarcD will probably be more, err, forthright.. 

[Chas Levin]

Thanks WF (if I may call you that?😉), very interesting and of course very valuable to be able to benefit from the knowledge of those who've been at this game rather long than I have!

It's not  problem at all for my current project - the Sentinel LNER railcar - as the book doesn't have anything that I'd planned to use in the way of info on that project, it was more a case of finding the book quite interesting for some of the more general writing about the background to the introduction of railcars, why they were considered a good bet economically and so on.

Mr Rush's research ethos does sound a little less conventional than some might like (how's that for diplomatic wording?😅) so it's good to be warned on that. Having said that, the GNR railcars I'd not known of at all, so this serves as an introduction to them and I'll do some more research in due course; it won't be something I'll be building in the immediate short term.

 

Before I start on the other book I bought on the Norwich trip - 'The Sentinel' by Hughes and Thomas 1973 - is that also one you're familiar with in terms of possible accuracy issues? That covers the history of the Sentinel company from 1875 to 1930 and has an entire chapter on the "Early Sentinel-Cammell Rail Coaches", so I'm hoping it might have some info that's more relevent to the current project...

[Chas Levin]

3 hours ago, Jon4470 said:

Hi Chas

 

If you are not keen on the locomotive bit I have a suggestion. How about just making 2 carriage portions and joining them together as a twin? It’s what Gresley did to them in the 1920s.

 

Jon

 

Actually Jon, building at least one artic pair or possibly triplet is on my to-do list anyway.

I will still build one of the GNR railcars eventually, even though I'm not so keen on the aesthetics, and I think my way to deal with my lack of keenness on the loco end will be to build one of the first Doncaster pair, 1 & 2, because they have the higher semi-elliptical roof, as discussed earlier.

That'll be some time in the future though, as my to-do list is quite long at the moment!

[WFPettigrew]

25 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

is that also one you're familiar with in terms of possible accuracy issues?

 

Sorry, no... Just Mr Rush's writings that I am wary of! The sad thing is that there are some accurate bits, it's just finding them amongst the fantasy or factually inaccurate.

 

You can call me whatever. Mr Pettigrew was Bill to his friends...

 

All the best

 

Neil

[MarcD]

3 hours ago, WFPettigrew said:

 

Sadly Chas, the odds are not good. 

 

RW (Bob) Rush wrote a number of books, including two regarding the Furness Railway (also Oakwood Press).  Let's just say that the one that features drawings of locos, carriages and wagons contains numerous sometimes significant errors.  When he was asked - after publication - for the sources for some of the things in his book by Furness Railway historians, he apparently generally replied "I can't remember" and once that he probably had some paperwork on it, but it was the back of his wife's knitting cupboard, so he couldn't get to it.  (??!!) 

 

So I would treat this one with a huge dollop of caution, several pinches of salt, and probably only rely on that which is backed up by a second source. 

 

Now, that was the polite review.   @MarcD will probably be more, err, forthright.. 

Neil

You know me to well. IMHO the work of Rush does have some parts that are based on fact, the photos. As for the rest, drawings, facts etc in the written form I have seen better attempts at draftsmanship from the likes of Claude Monet. There is another who should be Added to the list of impressionist railway artists that of Hardy Osborne. 

Marc

[Compound2632]

6 hours ago, MarcD said:

As for the rest, drawings, facts etc in the written form I have seen better attempts at draftsmanship from the likes of Claude Monet. There is another who should be Added to the list of impressionist railway artists that of Hardy Osborne. 

 

In Monet's defence, his railway paintings weren't intended as aids to the modeller. A quick google for Hardy Osbone didn't turn up anything but if he was a relative of Walter Frederick Osborne, I see what you mean:

 

 

[Hastings Railway Station, Walter Frederick Osborne (1859-1903), embedded link.]

 

Now those carriages could have usefully been more sharply defined - there's clearly a birdcage brake there, but what else?

[MarcD]

11 hours ago, WFPettigrew said:

 

Hardy Osborne was a contemporary of Rush. His artworks were published as drawings and articles in the Railway Modeller in the 60's and 70's. In  both cases  their information should not be used as it's less truthful than a novel.

As a word of warning there is a manufacturer of some Furness railway carriage stock "kits" who has used Rush and Osborne to produce his etches. And in the case of the Furness steam rail motor it doesn't match the photo published in the same book. This and other errors have been pointed out to him over the years but he still hasn't changed anything.

Marc

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, MarcD said:

less truthful than a novel.

 

There's an observation attributed to a very highly esteemed modeller, now deceased, that such-and-such drawing is "better than the ones we haven't got". I'm unconvinced by that mantra. So-called modellers' drawings to often conceal more than they reveal and certainly need to be used with other sources of information, especially photographs. If one understands how wagons go together, it is much easier to build a model from a good (or even indifferent) photo than a bad drawing. But there's no substitute for an original works drawing, if one is available - and even there, checking against photos is highly desirable. 

[WFPettigrew]

8 hours ago, MarcD said:

Hardy Osborne

 

I think @MarcD means W Hardin Osborne, who was a prolific drawer of rolling stock, certainly at least of the Furness Railway, and had his drawings published in the Model Railway Constructor way back when, 1960s possibly.  He was born near Greenodd just a couple of months before the infamous storm that blew a train over onto its side on the Leven Viaduct between Cark and Ulverston in 1903, in and lived there (his father was a Baptist Minister at the little church at Tottlebank) until 1922 when his father retired from being the Minister of the Baptist Church at Tottlebank. 

 

He also wrote an article of his memories of the FR branch through Greenodd to Windermere (Lake Side) (as it was called in those days) for The Iron Horse, the journal of the Lakeside Railway Society.  (I should declare a sort of interest here - the LRS is now defunct but it morphed into the Furness Railway Trust, a registere charity, of which I am a Trustee.)  

 

These were clearly memories of child/teenager, and I think back to what I can remember of railways in the 70s and 80s when I was a child/teenager, and think therefore that some of the detail might be somewhat untrustworthy, but the bigger mental images are probably accurate.  

 

16 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

such-and-such drawing is "better than the ones we haven't got"

 

In the cases of both W Hardin Osborne and RW Rush, at very best their drawings would be a "better than nothing".  Or to put it another way, if someone doesn't have draughting skills, then their guesses about what a wagon's critical dimensions might be taking from one grainy photo, could be seen as being helpful.  But to quote Ron Allison, the expert on Furness Railway wagons, re the drawings of WHO "Not to be relied on but treat them as nice sketches".   I think that sums them up.  And yes Stephen, if the "information" they contain is properly cross checked against other available information, ideally works drawings (but yes even these might not protray what was actually built) and photos, then we stand a chance of getting the model "right". 

 

All the best

 

Neil 

 

 

[MarcD]

I couldn't agree more. Even a "Good" GA can be classified as a guide to building and might not be 100% correct. 

Rule 1) get as many photos of your chosen subject as you can lay your hands on. Hopefully ones from different angles.

Rule 2) find a works GA and check it against the photos. There maybe more than one version of the GA. Also sometimes a GA is produced but the object was never built.

 

Case in point LNWR 4plank on a steel underframe. GA published in LNWR wagons book and also held by HMRS and NRM York. No photos exist and there is no mention in the order books. Was it built?

 

In the case of the Furness steam rail motor there is a number of good photos taken from a number of angles. There is also two drawings a GA signed by the CME and the one in Rush. The first drawing matches the photos the second barely represents the prototype. Which one should be used to design a kit?

Marc

[Compound2632]

15 minutes ago, MarcD said:

Even a "Good" GA can be classified as a guide to building and might not be 100% correct. 

 

Yes indeed, as that was its original purpose. But I think one can take the marked dimensions as intended to lay down the law. Much also depends on the size of the organisation and the degree of standardisation of components.

[Chas Levin]

Nothing to disagree with here, gents.

 

Happily for us, many - perhaps almost all - of the photos we usually study date from before the era of digital manipulation and are from that golden age when you could still say 'the camera doesn't lie'. As for drawings, that area strikes me as similar to the way in which more experienced internet users learned early on to sort through the results of online searching and distinguish between fact and fiction (though as an aside, that skill seems to be increasingly under threat in our current 'post-truth' era).

 

My wife - a keen fan of Impressionism - would be much amused at the invoking of Monet's name as a yardstick for draughtsmanship 😅. I probably won't mention it 🤨.

 

I'm never sure what to make of people who make mistakes or behave poorly, have their errors pointed out to them, but continue in the same way (in reference to authors whose published errors remain uncorrected). Acknowledging and correcting honest mistakes only enhances your reputation; ignoring them does quite the opposite. Each to their own...

[Compound2632]

5 hours ago, Chas Levin said:

I'm never sure what to make of people who make mistakes or behave poorly, have their errors pointed out to them, but continue in the same way (in reference to authors whose published errors remain uncorrected). Acknowledging and correcting honest mistakes only enhances your reputation; ignoring them does quite the opposite. 

 

Often, I should think, there is little opportunity. There's a single print run; the probability of a reprint - certainly of a second edition - is nil. In large-scale commercial publishing, there are occasional instances of authors being found out at the pre-publication review copy stage, which can result in the publisher recalling and pulping the book, but that's very extreme. 

[Chas Levin]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Often, I should think, there is little opportunity. There's a single print run; the probability of a reprint - certainly of a second edition - is nil. In large-scale commercial publishing, there are occasional instances of authors being found out at the pre-publication review copy stage, which can result in the publisher recalling and pulping the book, but that's very extreme. 

 

Yes, I'm sure that's right in many cases; in this case though, from Neil's description, it sounds as if this author had little interest in improving his work and I've also known one or two people in the area of music who ignored efforts to revise writing that later research had thrown into question.

I would worry about what people thought of my work and even if a new edition were impossible, I'd try to get corrections disseminated in some other way; but in the main yes, opportunity is a key point...

Edited October 31, 2023 by Chas Levin

[Chas Levin]

Having got the bogies and chassis to a basic running state (the rest of the work on the bogies is purely cosmetic) I felt like a change and went back to the body pillar bases. These were discussed a little while back - here's a photo with with one of them circled I posted at the time, as I realise they're not one of the most widely recognised features of a rail vehicle!

 

 

John Redrup of London Road Models had suggested filing down a piece of brass right-angle which is a very good way of producing the necessary shape, but with 1mm X 1mm angle being the right size, filing a sufficient number to a degree of uniformity that'll pass muster at 4mm scale took a little planning.

 

The first thing was to work out how many pieces needed to be made and how many of each orientation - they're in right- and left-handed form. After spending some time studying all the photos I have so far found, here's what I came up with - hopefully this screenshot of a Word document makes it clear:

 

 

 

Having already counted that there are 30 in total, I was interested to find that they are in fact half left-hand, half right-hand - 15 of each. That may sound like it should have been obvious, but having spotted that they don't simply alternate between left and right, I was quite prepared to find that there were different numbers of each!

 

I decided that one way to produce 30 of them would be to have a section of vertical 1mm brass to use as a guide, positioning the 1x1mm angle against it. There's always a risk with that method that you'll starting filing down the guide too and I toyed with putting black marker pen on it to use like Engineer's Blue, showing me if I was going to far, but the vertical 1mm high piece is only 0.25mm or so thick so that wasn't very practical so I decided to press on and do it by eye, as the error shouldn't be visible at this scale.

 

Here's the jig I constructed, soldering two pieces of 1mm X 3mm brass angle (the 3mm side gives a greater area to solder) to a piece of copperclad so that the 1mm side is vertical, to be used as the guide to work against, with a 1mm strip of scrap etch along the leading edge of the copperclad as a stop to hold the angle in place. The two guides are to allow easy production of left- and right-hand versions of the pieces:

 

 

 

 

The copperclad is screwed to a piece of wood I use as a rest for various jobs. It means the jig can be gripped easily and securely and the screw head in between the guide pieces helps keep the piece of brass angle being filed in place against the guides. The line scored in the copper surface parallel to the end is to measure lengths after filing for cutting off at 3mm.

 

The next photos show the jig in use. The 1x1mm angle is placed against the guide, as shown in the first photo. The other two photos - as clearly focussed as I could manage - show the brass angle up against the guide, so you can see where the angle will be filed down to match the guides' shape, before each one is clipped off and the next one started:

 

 

 

 

And the result? 30 body pillar bases, 15 left- and 15 right-handed:

 

 

 

 

They're 3mm long, the height of the solebar, and I'll add rivet transfers of course. In the meantime, they'll go in a small bag with the other detailing parts I've already made.

I'm very much looking forward to that moment when I've finished the main construction and come to all the detailing... and it's all already done! 😇

Edited November 7, 2023 by Chas Levin

[Chas Levin]

I should probably be dealing with the cosmetic parts of the bogies - ends and sides - but something tells me it might be worth waiting until the chassis and underframe has more of its gubbins attached, so that I can check for possible clearance issues. Besides, I'm keen to get onto something a bit more substantial than yet more detailing parts, so I thought I'd have a look at the cab ends, mindful @Daddyman of your comment the other day about the window openings being too small and the frames being too thick.

 

There's a limit to what can be done, but I felt that enlarging the openings by filing back the vertical frame sides would be useful and it would also thin down the frames themselves. Here's a start being made, just on the left-hand opening:

 

 

It takes a bit of concentration to keep the sides reasonably straight, using a small needle file. It also takes some effort to avoid cutting into the upper or lower horizontals of the frames, hence the pieces of masking tape over them. They're renewed the moment I accidentally impinge on them and can see metal shining through.

 

I also removed those two horizontal bars that are intended to represent the opening toplights, as I'll be making open toplights and in any case, the prototype doesn't appear to have a visible frame piece along the underside of the opening glass pane in any photos I've seen (happy to be corrected on that of course!).

 

Here's a 'before and after' comparison, the upper piece being unaltered, the lower one with all three openings enlarged:

 

 

The freshly cleaned up vertical sides of the openings in the modified piece are reflecting the light a little and it makes them look fractionally wider than in real life - especially the leftmost one - but they are pretty uniform in fact, even under high magnification.

 

Lastly, here are the two pieces positioned on the Isinglass drawing, where you can see that the openings are certainly closer to what they should be, though you can also see that the openings are very slightly too close together, something I can't alter but which I don't think will be noticeable on the finished vehicle:

 

 

Speaking of the cab front opening toplights, here's a cropped detail of the inside of the cab front windows from a recent purchase,  'The Sentinel - Volume 1 1875-1930', by W. j. Hughes & J. L. Thomas (published in 1973 by David & Charles) which clearly shows the inner opening toplight frame (well, as clearly as the resolution in the book as captured by my phone camera will allow!):

 

 

The book also has some details about interior colours, seat fabrics etc which I'll add to the 'LNER Sentinel & Clayton Railcars - livery & other questions' thread here on RMWeb, so it's together with other data on these railcars.

[Daddyman]

58 minutes ago, Chas Levin said:

Lastly, here are the two pieces positioned on the Isinglass drawing, where you can see that the openings are certainly closer to what they should be, though you can also see that the openings are very slightly too close together, something I can't alter but which I don't think will be noticeable on the finished vehicle:

 

Good work, Chas. But I wouldn't trust the Isinglass drawing qua drawing - it doesn't seem to quote dimensions for the windows? 

 

And this piece is going to be such a pig to bend that I wonder if it's worth getting Justin in again? 

[Jon4470]

Nice work on the etches Chas.
 

I agree about the horizontal frames by the way. I think that the lower edge of the opening top light was frameless. If there was a frame on the fixed glass, then it was very slim indeed.

 

Jon

 

 

 

[Chas Levin]

2 hours ago, Daddyman said:

Good work, Chas. But I wouldn't trust the Isinglass drawing qua drawing - it doesn't seem to quote dimensions for the windows? 

 

And this piece is going to be such a pig to bend that I wonder if it's worth getting Justin in again? 

 

Thanks David. Agreed, in respect of trusting the drawing to a really fine level of dimensional accuracy, but it's the only comprehensive scale drawing we have (as far as I know) and comparing it with prototype photos, I think it very much looks right, so I'm happy to go with it for most practical purposes.

I do find these Isinglass drawings enormously useful as a place to plan things, see how things fit together, browse the written data while I'm puzzling over something mechanical: a sort of posh, customised work-mat.

However, like most dedicated (for which, read 'slightly fanatical') hobbyists, I'll cheerfully bend my own rules when it suits, so having said I trust these drawings, if and when I find something in them that doesn't quite agree, I'll decide to ignore it!

 

Just think, if the modelling doesn't work out, I can go into politics...

[Chas Levin]

2 hours ago, Jon4470 said:

Nice work on the etches Chas.
 

I agree about the horizontal frames by the way. I think that the lower edge of the opening top light was frameless. If there was a frame on the fixed glass, then it was very slim indeed.

 

Jon

 

 

 

 

Thanks Jon. I've seen opening window panes like that before, on old vehicles and buildings, where the bootom of the glass is bare. I assume it was to avoid having a horizontal line in the drivers' field of view, though I wonder if it was also to do with rainwater run-off?

I'd agree that if there was a piece along the bottom, it was so thin that at 4mm we can ignore it!

 

I'm looking forward to employing your trick of scoring a piece of plastic glazing so the upper part can be attached above the opening, while the lower part juts out at an angle...

[Nick Lawson]

On 30/10/2023 at 16:43, Chas Levin said:

The loco part of No 7 looks a little odd and I wonder how accurate that is

According to https://www.lner.info/locos/Railcar/gnr_railmotor.php

 

"The boiler was provided with a casing but this was removed in November 1907 after complaints of oscillation. This required minor modifications to the chimney, dome, and sand boxes."

[Chas Levin]

6 hours ago, Nick Lawson said:

According to https://www.lner.info/locos/Railcar/gnr_railmotor.php

 

"The boiler was provided with a casing but this was removed in November 1907 after complaints of oscillation. This required minor modifications to the chimney, dome, and sand boxes."

 

Thanks Nick - funnily enough, I was on the LNER Info site yesterday looking for some info on the Sentinel cars and realised there's a section there on the GNR railmotor vehicles too, which I'd never noticed before and which I'll read through shortly.

 

The L&Y one's quite similar looking too, isn't it?

Edited November 14, 2023 by Chas Levin