Jump to content
 

Amanda's 7mm Stuff - A 1366T takes shape - and runs!

Guest WM183

By Guest WM183,
in 7mm+ modelling

 Share

Recommended Posts

Marshall5

Marshall5

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, WM183 said:

 

Hi Ray,

 

Yeah. I was afraid of that. Blergh. I dunno if I can get them loose without damaging them now.

Thank you for the kind remarks about the finish! I spent a lot of time doing very faint washing and drybrushing on the planks on the van =)

Hi Amanda, Sorry about the buffers and, yes, it might be risky trying to remove them - what adhesive did you use?  When B.R. added vacuum brakes to previously unfitted stock in the 50's they sometimes welded a collar (maybe2"?) to the front of the existing buffer stock rather than fit longer stocks. 'Might be a way out?

BTW I think it is David (Box Brownie) who deserves the thanks re the weathering not me.

Cheers,

Ray.

Edited by Marshall5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Pacific231G

Pacific231G

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 20/11/2020 at 11:16, WM183 said:

Hi guys. Thank you for the information!

I know a handful of brake third clerestories lasted until 1950, but I believe they were condemned shortly thereafter and that they had likely been removed from revenue service years before. However, I also think for a branch out in the middle of nowhere, that a perfectly serviceable coach might last a while longer simply due to having no real need to replace it with any haste. I'll look into building a brake third or brake composite, and pair that with the odd CCT, milk van, or the like, to add some interest to operations. I will seek out bogies but believe I can build everything else, though I think Slater's makes a suitable kit?

 

Hi Amanda

A bit late in responding I'm afraid but you may not need to stretch Rule 1 very far.

 

Maurice Deane made a fairly detailed survey of the Hemyock branch which was published in Railway Modeller in January 1952. In the article he says he visited the branch "last October". Unless he was a remarkably fast layout builder, I think that must have been October 1950 as "It was only a matter of a few days after my return...that trains ceased to run on the Portreath Branch" M.E.J. Deane's subsequent model of the Culm Valley Branch was layout of the month in February 1952 (and a very fine model it was too including all three stations with their actual trackplans and a scenicced "rest of the world" yard on a hollow (i.e with an operating well) 6ft 6ins by 6ft baseboard with a 5ft extension on the long side) He describes the coaching stock, two brake composites, as being "of the short panelleed clerestory type which was in operation on the branch until nationalisation took place, giving way to the ex-Barry Railway types found today"  So, they'd gone by late 1950 but I doubt they were scrapped on the day of nationalisation so may well have been there till mid 1950.

 

BTW, Maurice Deane's Hemyock terminus was 5ft 6ins by 1ft 6 ins with a run round able to take one of the brake compos, four wagons and a short goods brake "this being a typical formation to be found on the prototype today"

 

It occurs to me that 5ft 6ins in 4mm scale is 9ft 6ins in 7mm scale which would leave you with 4ft 6ins "offstage"

Edited by Pacific231G
Link to post
Share on other sites
Pacific231G

Pacific231G

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, WM183 said:

Hi Pacific,

 

Thank you for the information! There is not by chance a picture or track plan of that layout afoot, is there? A brake composite, 4 wagons, and a brake van is more than enough length for me!

And yes, I think I will build a clerestory brake third as my first coaching stock. That will look right at home behind my 74xx. It's good to know that the dates work out!

Amanda

 

Yes. I've found that the "Inglenook" train of five wagons plus a brake or four plus a short coach (do you actually need a brake van with a brake composite coach? perhaps you do) seems to provide plenty of shunting on my French BLT.

The article will still be Peco's copyright (it's after Pritchard bought the title from Ian Allan) one of the editions just after but I can legitimately PM it to you and will.

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites
34006

34006

Posted
Posted

Hi Amanda.Those are lashing rings down the sides,to secure the load.Hook one end of the chain in a ring,attach the other end to the turn buckle,hook the other end of the turnbuckle to a lashing ring on the other side,making sure there is as little slack in the chain as possible,then tighten the turnbuckle to secure the load.Simples!

Hope this helps 

atb

Phil

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ian Major

Ian Major

Posted
Posted (edited)

Amanda,

 

The late Raymond Walley did a couple of on line articles on his web site www.raymondwalley.com covering the construction of a MACAW B and one on shackles and chains. I was going to give you the URLs to these pages but when I tried them I got the 403 prohibited message. Hopefully the site contents are not lost but simply short term unavailable or perhaps just under maintenance.  See below.

To give you a taste here is one of the photos of his MACAW B with chains.

 

image.png.ae39184b0054dd2baedba4d2ec339d56.png

 

I will keep an eye out for his site over the next few days to see if it returns.

Update: It has moved to http://wryl.co.uk/ .

 

 

 

Ian. 

 

 

Edited by Ian Major
Link to post
Share on other sites
Pacific231G

Pacific231G

Posted
Posted
On 14/12/2020 at 20:25, WM183 said:

 

Hi Dave,

I think that whether or not you require a brake van depends simply on where in the train the coach is. I know there can only be a certain number of axles behind a braking vehicle, though I am unsure how this changes when AVB are included in the mix. Regardless, I'd probably hook a brake van to any such mixed train simply for fun!

Thank you for the PM. I have a lot to absorb it seems!

Amanda

According to Mauice Deane's account, which you now have but others won't, it seems that the brake second did do duty as the brake van on mixed trains so was normally marhalled at  the rear. Since much of the traffic was milk in tank wagons, which presumably were fitted, this wouldn't have been as unpleasant for the passengers as the rear end of a mixed train with loose coupled wagons, (I have the rules for mixed trains in France where they were came under goods trains but not for those in GB where they were classified as passenger trains)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Premium
Hal Nail

Hal Nail

Posted
  • RMweb Premium
Posted (edited)
On 14/12/2020 at 17:44, Pacific231G said:

It occurs to me that 5ft 6ins in 4mm scale is 9ft 6ins in 7mm scale which would leave you with 4ft 6ins "offstage"

Just beware something that comes up in every thread on 7mm v 4mm is that you can't just divide by 4 and multiply by 7 when scaling up track plans. O gauge points and clearance where the lines diverge need proportionally longer.

 

It's not a compromise I like personally but one way to save space is to have double tracks entering from the fiddle yard as if the first point of the run round loop is off scene.

Edited by Hal Nail
Link to post
Share on other sites
Pacific231G

Pacific231G

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Hal Nail said:

Just beware something that comes up in every thread on 7mm v 4mm is that you can't just divide by 4 and multiply by 7 when scaling up track plans. O gauge points and clearance where the lines diverge need proportionally longer.

 

It's not a compromise I like personally but one way to save space is to have double tracks entering from the fiddle yard as if the first point of the run round loop is off scene.

That's a good point Hal and you're quite right of course when it comes to trackwork. If you simply increase the gauge and use the same crossing angle then a turnout with the same gometry won't have the same length. Vehicle and therefore platform lengths should though increase by 7/4 if they're the critical factor.

You could simply double the length for pointwork but increase the lengths of plain track by 7/4 to convert a plan but in practice other factors, not least aesthetics,  will come into play and in the end you do need to plan for the scale you're using .  You do seem to be able to compress things a bit more in 7mm scale without it looking wrong.

 

In principle at least the 7/4 conversion should apply to scaling an EM or P4 layout to 7mm scale but the same trackwork (with similar geometry) in EM does requires a bit more length than in OO though using a scale 6 ft way (if the curves through the station allow) rather than the 50mm/2inch separaton long adopted for RTL track does mitigate that.  When Tom Cunnington and the MRC group who built Minories (GN) as closely as possible to Cyril Freezer's plan as a tribute to its 50th anniversary but in EM they ended up with an extra foot in length and two inches more in width.

 

I also know, from discussing it with him, that in scaling up Minories to 7mm scale for Newford , Brian Thomas got all the throat pointwork fairly comfortable onto  a six foot board and the two station boards were both four foot long so the whole layout (less fiddle yard) was fourteen feet long and so was a 7/4 scaling up of CJF's eight foot plan. 

Both those examples used handbuilt pointwork so that does also change things from using RTL pointwork.

 

The other big difference is the materials one would use for an O gauge layout. In reality most of us use Peco trackwork in 16.5mm gauge and most of the O gauge layouts that various friends are building do the same but it is not of course the same. A Peco Medium point in O scale with a nominal six foot radius uses an 8 degree crossing not the 12 degrees they use for H0/00 points. 

 

I agree with you about the false throat with the throat pointwork effectively replaced by the fiddle yard. I reckon it works fine for an exhibition layout - where it's what the public sees that counts- but not for the experience of operating a layout. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Marshall5

Marshall5

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

According to Mauice Deane's account, which you now have but others won't, it seems that the brake second did do duty as the brake van on mixed trains so was normally marhalled at  the rear. Since much of the traffic was milk in tank wagons, which presumably were fitted, this wouldn't have been as unpleasant for the passengers as the rear end of a mixed train with loose coupled wagons,

It wasn't permitted for "loose coupled wagons" to be marshalled between the loco and carriage(s).  Vacuum fitted, screw coupled stock, however, could be - subject to a maximum number IIRC.  Any loose coupled wagons must be marshalled behind the passenger stock and have a goods brake at the rear.  The difference between U.K. and Continental practice is that the latter's goods stock had continuous brakes long before the U.K.

Ray.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...