MarkC Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 Update on progress on my Clayton A visit to the paint shop, interior fitting & glazing await. Mark 9 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Chas Levin Posted February 3 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted February 3 2 hours ago, MarkC said: Update on progress on my Clayton A visit to the paint shop, interior fitting & glazing await. Mark Very nice looking vehicle Mark! What/how/which/why are the bogies please? 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkC Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 1 hour ago, Chas Levin said: Very nice looking vehicle Mark! What/how/which/why are the bogies please? Thank you, Chaz. The power bogie is compensated & scratchbuilt, with Gibson coupling rods, Romford wheels, High Level gearbox & Mitsumi motor. The trailing bogie is from Nucast Partners. Mark 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Chas Levin Posted February 3 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted February 3 5 hours ago, MarkC said: Thank you, Chaz. The power bogie is compensated & scratchbuilt, with Gibson coupling rods, Romford wheels, High Level gearbox & Mitsumi motor. The trailing bogie is from Nucast Partners. Mark Thanks Mark - they both look like nice jobs. Is that trailing bogie from the re-launched Sentinel railcar kit then? I thought it looked familiar. Clearly excess weight won't be an issue for you given the model's main constituent material - if anything, will you in fact be adding weight? Very interesting model - not sure I've seen anyone else doing one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkC Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 4 hours ago, Chas Levin said: Thanks Mark - they both look like nice jobs. Is that trailing bogie from the re-launched Sentinel railcar kit then? I thought it looked familiar. Clearly excess weight won't be an issue for you given the model's main constituent material - if anything, will you in fact be adding weight? Very interesting model - not sure I've seen anyone else doing one. Thanks again, Chaz. Yes, you're correct about the trailing bogie. As for weight, obviously if I don't have to add any, I won't. I suspect that the power bogie is heavy enough, and hopefully the trailing bogie is heavy enough on its own to not require additional ballast. We'll see how it goes. I won't be hanging any tail traffic on it, so fingers crossed... Yes,it is an interesting model; I have seen at least one other one; that was completely scratchbuilt. With these 3D printed bodies now available, maybe this build will inspire others to have a go. Cheers, Mark 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike 84C Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 Hello Mark, how was your Clayton body for striations and general "fuzziness"? One of the guys on Irish Railway Modellers built one and was not very happy with the overall finish. Niles of this parish has built quite a few printed bodies and they seem to need a lot of filling and rubbing down. Rather put me off! and I also like the look of the Claytons. Mick 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall5 Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 Slightly off-topic but Clayton's also built at least two 3'6" gauge railcars for the Sudan Government Railway which lasted, albeit not in working order, until at least the mid-80's. To my untrained eye the only major difference from the LNER ones was that the driving wheels were inside the frames and coupled by chains rather than rods. When I photographed them in early Jan.'83 both had had the boilers/engines removed - possibly for use as hauled stock latterly? The first photo is of SGR No.900 at Ed Demazeen, the other, SGR No.899 at Kosti in use as a mess room. Despite appearances it isn't a grounded body the running gear was just buried in the ground. I wonder if they are still there? Ray. 5 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkC Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 (edited) 9 hours ago, Mike 84C said: Hello Mark, how was your Clayton body for striations and general "fuzziness"? One of the guys on Irish Railway Modellers built one and was not very happy with the overall finish. Niles of this parish has built quite a few printed bodies and they seem to need a lot of filling and rubbing down. Rather put me off! and I also like the look of the Claytons. Mick Hello Mike The body I got is pretty good, tbh. Here she is today - she runs, but will need a bit of weight adding, in order to run better. Paint job & underframe detailing to complete too. Mark Edited February 10 by MarkC 4 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Chas Levin Posted February 11 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted February 11 7 hours ago, MarkC said: Hello Mike The body I got is pretty good, tbh. Here she is today - she runs, but will need a bit of weight adding, in order to run better. Paint job & underframe detailing to complete too. Mark Nice job Mark! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Chas Levin Posted February 11 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted February 11 13 hours ago, Marshall5 said: To my untrained eye the only major difference from the LNER ones was that the driving wheels were inside the frames and coupled by chains rather than rods. I wonder why they made that change? Was it something practical or operational, or just a case of what they had to hand during assembly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artless Bodger Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 Less likely to entrain loose livestock roaming at large? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall5 Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 3 hours ago, Chas Levin said: I wonder why they made that change? Was it something practical or operational, or just a case of what they had to hand during assembly? I presume that it was so they could use the same mainframes and put the wheels inside to suit the narrower gauge. Unfortunately that meant that they couldn't use coupling rods as on the s.g. ones so used chains to couple the driving axles. Ray. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Chas Levin Posted February 11 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted February 11 6 hours ago, Marshall5 said: I presume that it was so they could use the same mainframes and put the wheels inside to suit the narrower gauge. Unfortunately that meant that they couldn't use coupling rods as on the s.g. ones so used chains to couple the driving axles. Ray. Aha - please excuse me, I read the post but didn't think about the possible consequences of reducing the gauge and that sounds absolutely right! 🤭 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike 84C Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 Thanks for your reply Mark. I wonder if prints are at the vagaries of Shapeways! I did think about asking the author if it could be printed in resin but the to do stack is just too large so maybe later. Please keep posting your progress as its a very unusual subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium uax6 Posted February 13 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 13 (edited) just visited the Sentinel Drivers Club archive pages ( https://www.sentineldriversclub.com/archives ) and if you search (control F) 'railcoach' there are 1751 drawings highlighted, I wonder if there are body drawings in that lot? Andy G edit: drawing 7082 is for toolbox, railcoach 6224 drawing 8047 includes tank filler drawing 8210 diagram of railcoach and trailer drawing 8455 arrangement of type 'A' railcoach for LMS rly Edited February 13 by uax6 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curlew Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 Wasn't the bodywork the responsibility of Metro Cammell rather than Sentinel? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Chas Levin Posted February 13 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted February 13 6 hours ago, uax6 said: just visited the Sentinel Drivers Club archive pages ( https://www.sentineldriversclub.com/archives ) and if you search (control F) 'railcoach' there are 1751 drawings highlighted, I wonder if there are body drawings in that lot? Andy G edit: drawing 7082 is for toolbox, railcoach 6224 drawing 8047 includes tank filler drawing 8210 diagram of railcoach and trailer drawing 8455 arrangement of type 'A' railcoach for LMS rly Thanks for posting this Andy, fascinating site that I hadn't heard of before. That's quite a list of drawings too; searching under both 'railcoach' and 'railcar' brings up a great deal - some further study needed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Chas Levin Posted February 13 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted February 13 Just now, Curlew said: Wasn't the bodywork the responsibility of Metro Cammell rather than Sentinel? Yes, that's right and Sentinel supplied the chassis, but there's still a lot of interesting info on this site I think, from the point of view of the chassis, the underframe fittings and so forth - perhaps also cab fittings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium uax6 Posted February 13 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 13 7 hours ago, Chas Levin said: Yes, that's right and Sentinel supplied the chassis, but there's still a lot of interesting info on this site I think, from the point of view of the chassis, the underframe fittings and so forth - perhaps also cab fittings? Yes there are cab fitting drawings in the drawing list too. It's a long old list, but looks like everything has survived, which is rare! Andy G 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H16LSWR Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 Regarding the frames on Sentinel-Cammell railcars. For the two-cylinder chain-drive articulated Sentinel-Cammell coaches Sentinel supplied the engine and boiler and controls built up on a separate frame unit which was then sent from Shrewsbury to Camell Laird at Nottingham where the articulated coach section was added. In the case of the rigid framed six-cylinder shaft drive railcars Sentinel only supplied the boiler, engine (or engines) and the necessary control gear to operate the railcar from either end. The complete frame was supplied by Cammell Laird and later Metropolitan-Cammell. Attached illustration of three complete chain-drive power units for the LMS as completed at Shrewsbury, together with a rear view of a single unit from the same batch. The coal bunkers on these coaches were arranged to be filled from above, hence the height of the unit. 8 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Chas Levin Posted February 29 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted February 29 (edited) That's fascinating, many thanks for posting! Some extra details of what went on in the cab are visible there, apart form the general interest. And are those frames actually Sentinel Shunters? Edited February 29 by Chas Levin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hodgson Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 2 hours ago, H16LSWR said: Regarding the frames on Sentinel-Cammell railcars. For the two-cylinder chain-drive articulated Sentinel-Cammell coaches Sentinel supplied the engine and boiler and controls built up on a separate frame unit which was then sent from Shrewsbury to Camell Laird at Nottingham where the articulated coach section was added. That journey would have made an even more interesting photo! I don't imagine they did it under their own steam, but woud they have been towed like that in a slow goods, or travelled on machinery trucks, probably partly dismantled to clear the loading gauge? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H16LSWR Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 The frames on the rail coach power units were of a lighter section than that used on Sentinel locomotives. The weight of the LMS chain-drive coaches was about 21 tons for the complete vehicle. The LMS locomotives 7160-7163 were about the same figure. The chain-drive units in the earlier photographs would have been partly dismantled for shipment on well wagons. They had no buffing or draw gear so could not have moved under their own power on the main-line. Attached photograph of the power unit for the first LMSR coach which was slightly different with no overhead bunkers. The frame arrangement might be slightly clearer in this view. 3 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micklner Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 3 hours ago, Chas Levin said: That's fascinating, many thanks for posting! Some extra details of what went on in the cab are visible there, apart form the general interest. And are those frames actually Sentinel Shunters? There are definately not from a Sentinel LNER Railcar. No idea if they are Sentinel Shunter related, they look far to high for LNER ones . Did the LNER ones have a Roof bunker access ? no idea. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
natterjack Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 53 minutes ago, micklner said: Did the LNER ones have a Roof bunker access ? Yes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now