Jump to content
 

MD's workbench


Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks very much for the info Andy… I've already set-up camp outside Smiths for my copy! :yes:

In the meantime, a bit more on th workbench. Another pair of 16T welded minerals in progress – a filthy Bachmann and an amazingly clean

(for Mucky stock) Parkside. I'll try to take some sharp images next time!

post-6878-0-14485500-1311929145_thumb.jpg

post-6878-0-92179900-1311929161_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks very much for the info Andy… I've already set-up camp outside Smiths for my copy! :yes:

In the meantime, a bit more on th workbench. Another pair of 16T welded minerals in progress – a filthy Bachmann and an amazingly clean

(for Mucky stock) Parkside. I'll try to take some sharp images next time!

post-6878-0-14485500-1311929145_thumb.jpg

post-6878-0-92179900-1311929161_thumb.jpg

 

 

Yeah. They're nice they are!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Mike and PoD for the 16T appreciation.

 

Moving swiftly on – or not, as the case may be – to the 20T Brake van which has stuttered and stalled thanks to reserching and trying to

decide to model a fitted or unfitted prototype… it seems ages since the last post on it so here's an update on progress. Apologies for the

thread being so dis-jointed, I shall try to avoid this in future.

 

Part of the 'delay' was also due to waiting for some Phoenix Precision 'Frame Dirt' to do the underframe but it turned out to be a little too

'olivey' for my liking – maybe emphasised by the warm evening sunlight here.

 

post-6878-0-83893800-1312360424_thumb.jpg

 

 

With the underframe having been treated to a darker, 'rustier' wash to nullify the 'olive', the body handrails got a coat of white, which

thickened them quite a bit.:( Quite a fiddly job trying to avoid getting paint on the body so the doorway bar 'thingies' were done separately.

 

post-6878-0-20408700-1312362024_thumb.jpg

 

 

Now it's starting to look a bit more like it! Bachmann's original plastic lamp irons will be put back on, with a bit of trimming I reckon they

should look acceptable.

 

post-6878-0-09841500-1312362062_thumb.jpg

 

 

The wheels supplied with my Parkside minerals are much smaller in diameter than those on the Bachmann equivalents – and this brake van.

I swapped them over just to see what they looked like but the Parkside wheels looked a bit weedy under the 20T. It has since been confirmed

that they are fractionally under-scale, so I'm sticking with the standard Bachmann wheels (for now) which are slightly over-scale even without

taking into consideration the large flanges.

 

Thus, the underframe received cross shafts between the brake shoes (plastic rod) and safety hoops (0.45 brass wire) at the last knockings but

it makes a difference. Note the holes in the bufferbeam, yet no vac pipes of any description were supplied with the model. I'm still undecided

whether to do a fitted one or not… either way, those holes will have to be plugged with something.

 

post-6878-0-39183700-1312362784_thumb.jpg

 

 

Either my research methods are poor or there is little info on BR Brake Van markings ont' interweb. I have not found a shot from the early

'60s showing the smaller markings clearly enough, in any of my books either. I'm fine with the running number and the 'wheelbase' placements

but not sure where to place the regional decal 'MANCHESTER' (there's only one), nor the tiny '20.0t' (both arrowed). Any help on this will be

gratefully received. I know there is supposed to be a very good book on Brake Vans by Eric Gent, so I'll investigate that for the next project.

 

post-6878-0-26308500-1312364020_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

The '20.0t' is the tare weight and would go on the lower right-hand side of the wagon. The lettering indicating regional allocation would normally be above the wagon number and gross weight on the LHS, normally having been painted on when the wagon was new at the building works. More specific route branding would have been applied by local wagon repair shops, and its position would vary accordingly- all the examples I remember were to the LHS of the ducket, usually level with the window. The WR had some very prolix examples, sometimes with a dozen or more lines of text, listing the individual workings to which a van was diagrammed- I suspect these were more honoured in the breach than the observance, unless the van had special characteristics (narrow footboards and cut-down chimney for the BP&GVR, for example).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean, as you can see, 'The pipes, the pipes were calling…' and Brian, thanks for the info.

 

I've decided to finish this off as a fitted, Manchester-based 1/504 diagram example – one that hadn't received the repositioned vacuum pipe mod,

thus retaining the old upright type… absolutely nothing at all to do with laziness and the path of least resistance! :rolleyes:

 

post-6878-0-31389400-1312542959_thumb.jpg

 

 

 

Apart from more detail painting of the underframe, it's just about complete but there's such a subtle art to painting and weathering and of

all my efforts so far (apart from the 504 disaster), this is the one I'm least happy with. Aside from the fact that the camera's macro lens setting

can be very cruel, there's so much more one can get away with doing a filthy mineral wagon, for instance and the finish on this brake van looks

a bit heavy-handed and vague. Still, overall I'm happy to have made the mods in general and to the roof thickness and the handrails in particular,

which make the standard ones look a bit toy-like.

 

post-6878-0-54560600-1312541946_thumb.jpg

 

 

 

Even a liberal amount of paint failed to disguise Bachmann's 'heavy' moulding of the gaps between the body planking, which doesn't help when

applying the decals either (see top pic). For some, it may be a step too far to fill in the gaps and re-scribe finer planking but that's exactly what

I may do with the next one. The thick glazing also sticks out, so it's body off and re-glazing for the next one too, along with a solution to the

thickness of brackets attaching the running boards to the underframe.

 

post-6878-0-21742400-1312541971_thumb.jpg

 

 

 

When all is said and done, this Bachmann is very good value and makes a much better base for detailing than Dapol's kit, just bit of a shame that

the roof is an integral part of the body moulding. There are alternative upgrade solutions… I understand there's a Dave Bradwell 20T underframe

kit but is more than twice the price of this Bachmann… and then there's Hornby's new 20T, also more expensive, which I'm very curious to see.

 

post-6878-0-59330400-1312541992_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

but not sure where to place the regional decal 'MANCHESTER' (there's only one), nor the tiny '20.0t' (both arrowed)

 

The '20.0t' is the tare weight and would go on the lower right-hand side of the wagon.

 

Mmm, not on a pre-64 example Brian - brakevans rarely carried tare weights, because the 20T rating was the actual (though probably nominal) weight of the vehicle, not the loading capacity as with other wagons. And I'm pretty sure those Modelmaster '20.0t' markings are intended as post-TOPS tonnage markings.

 

More specific route branding would have been applied by local wagon repair shops, and its position would vary accordingly-

 

I'd agree with that, there was probably no laid down standard for 'local' markings. I'd be interested to learn if the MM markings are based on photographs or just invention, because it's not my impression that brakevans were commonly allocated in the '60s (other than the well known WR examples already mentioned)

 

BTW Ryan, you've managed to number it as an LMS design van. Apologies for all this nitpicking, I'm off to bed now ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're correct about the '20.0t' marking, Ian- I should have remembered that the lower-case 't' is 'tonnes' and thus for post-TOPS.

I have seen, though I forget where, vans with a 'tare' marking- in the case I remember, it was a 'quarter' less than 20t (19-19-3)- presumably, when the wagon was weighed after building, someone thought it worth noting the difference between the design and actual weights.

Curiously, Gent suggests that tare markings were specified in the lettering scheme for ballast-plough brakes; did these have an allowance for the additional tea and sandwiches for long engineering jobs, I wonder?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, as it wasn't even beer time, I'm just wondering if I'd been affected by paint and thinners fumes as I said there was only one 'Manchester' decal when now I can clearly see two in the photo… blimey, just as well I wasn't operating any heavy machinery! :blink:

 

Ian, to back-up your theory, I've found very few images of '60s brake vans sporting what appear to be allocation markings (one exception seems to be the pic that Mike found) so with regard to MM, maybe I can have a chat with Brian (I think is his name), an exceedingly helpful chap.

 

Sounds like perhaps I need that Eric Gent book, too… and please don't apologise for the 'nit-picking'. I'm still at the point in this game that I call my 'parrot stage' – although I'm learning constantly, there are instances when I just copy without any real knowledge of what the heck it means – the danger being that if there's a decision to be made without any concrete evidence to base it on, Mucky's guaranteed to make the wrong choice! I'd prefer that someone tells me when I get it wrong. Looks like a rethink on those decals then.

 

Mike, great shot, thanks. It's surprising how few really good brake van images there are from this period… everything seems so loco-centric and I do get a bit weary of the endless front 3/4 express train shots one has to wade through generally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two Stanier 8Fs in my fleet, one is to be Comet and Brassmaster enhanced and I had something more adventurous in mind for the

other but the less said about my 'great' idea to transform it into a WD Austerity , the better. I didn't to know that their chassis, in particular,

the wheelbases are actually quite different but I was soon informed in no uncertain terms.

 

Amongst the posts of justified discouragement was one nice little idea from Redgate Models suggesting I do a build project with the 8F…

the "Missing" Standard 8

 

I remembered seeing it in Showcase and thinking that it was quite a handsome loco… and it didn't take me long to realise that it's much less

bonkers and idea than the WD.

 

In the original thread, Redgate Models mentioned that he'd compromised by using a Brit front end and cab because he had one spare but that

a Standard 5 body perfectly matched the Standard 8F proposal drawing he had. As I have a Bacchie Standard 5, the first thing I did was remove

the body and literally plonk it onto the 8F chassis – and was quite surprised at how close it is and how do-able this project may be with my

limited experience. I still need to work out the logistics to decide if it's a goer or not.

 

Overall it lacks the presence of a 9F by some way and doesn't look as 'right' as the Standard 5 either. Nonetheless, it's still quite a pleasing loco…

guess I'll just have to get used to it.

 

post-6878-0-52550300-1313277331_thumb.jpg

 

 

Hopefully, this will need only minor cosmetic work – limited to better detailing parts – above the footplate, minimal hacking about of the

chassis and will retain the loco drive without compromising the daylight beneath the boiler too much.

 

post-6878-0-61078400-1313277479_thumb.jpg

 

 

Looks better from a low angle. I've never been a fan of the BR1 tender but I have three of them, on the 5MT and two Brits (they were bargains).

Anyone for a tender swap? The 8F will get a BR1C.

 

post-6878-0-45688900-1313277501_thumb.jpg

 

 

The Standard 5 body plonk is not far off but it sits about half a buffer height too tall and would be about right with the base of the smokebox

resting on the top of the 8F chassis block – it also needs moving forward a touch, the frames are touching the wheels, not helped by the

large Stanier items, which will be replaced with smaller '9F' Gibson wheels in a new pony truck.

 

post-6878-0-24549100-1313277675_thumb.jpg

 

 

The cab underframe and fixing lug prevented the body from being positioned more accurately. This, I believe is the early Standard cab design

that lacked fall plate between engine and tender. It was draughty and unpopular with crew. Undecided about changing this.

 

post-6878-0-64170600-1313277702_thumb.jpg

 

 

This area looks a bit sparse, not helped by the body resting a little too far back… somehow, I think some frame overlays will be needed here.

Bachmann pipework needs some Comet enhancing (Redgate Models made a beautiful job of his, which I think was based on a Brit's).

 

post-6878-0-01932700-1313277721_thumb.jpg

 

 

8F cyliners are too puny – and obviously sit way too low along with the motion bracket – so will investigate some replacements… possibly

Comet, but not from my Standard 5!

 

post-6878-0-99640300-1313277747_thumb.jpg

 

 

Standard 5's body is slightly longer than 8F's… interesting how close they are though. Bachmann lacks sliding cab roof but is otherwise more

finely detailed.

 

post-6878-0-35650400-1313277852_thumb.jpg

 

 

Brassmasters Ivatt 4MT pony truck – originally designated for my 9F, as it is claimed to be suitable for all appropriate BR Standards –

with correct Alan Gibson wheels. Comet Standard loco and tender steps were also bought for the 9F… so it will have to wait.

 

post-6878-0-38224300-1313277882_thumb.jpg

 

 

The hope is that I can find a Bachmann Standard 5 spare body so that I won't have to sacrifice a perfectly good loco. If I go ahead, the

Standard 8F will eventually be finished in BR late crest lined black, as usual for me, circa 1963… in filthy condition, of course! :yes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Colin. When I got the model I just couldn't wait to remove those ghastly handrails. I am very grateful though, if RTR was so perfect I wouldn't have any modelling to do on my stock.

 

You got me thinking, as you called it a Toad, as I thought that was just the GWR brake van's nickname, which it is. So I did some minor research and I hadn't realised that 'Toad' is also the GWR telegraph code for a brake van, I presume, in general… not that any other types ran on GWR lines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Thanks Colin. When I got the model I just couldn't wait to remove those ghastly handrails. I am very grateful though, if RTR was so perfect I wouldn't have any modelling to do on my stock.

 

You got me thinking, as you called it a Toad, as I thought that was just the GWR brake van's nickname, which it is. So I did some minor research and I hadn't realised that 'Toad' is also the GWR telegraph code for a brake van, I presume, in general… not that any other types ran on GWR lines.

The LNER used the term 'Toad' for brake vans Parkside do a 'Toad B' and I have converted one of these to a 'Toad E' these were forerunners of the BR 20T standard I believe, will stand to be corrected :no: .

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

…so much I just don't know. :scratchhead:

Me too, we live to learn :sungum: I forgot to mention that the BR 20T was developed from an LNER 20T with veranda ends which look very similar and I think Bachmann do one of these in NE livery. Phil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops!

 

Re. brakevans and thier names:

 

I think I'll be more careful in my comments in future!

 

The brake van does look good though. I did the same thing with a Bachmann b. van, and wish now I had used finer wire like yours MD

 

All the best,

 

Colin

 

Colin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean, as you can see, 'The pipes, the pipes were calling…' and Brian, thanks for the info.

 

I've decided to finish this off as a fitted, Manchester-based 1/504 diagram example – one that hadn't received the repositioned vacuum pipe mod,

thus retaining the old upright type… absolutely nothing at all to do with laziness and the path of least resistance! :rolleyes:

 

post-6878-0-31389400-1312542959_thumb.jpg

 

 

 

Apart from more detail painting of the underframe, it's just about complete but there's such a subtle art to painting and weathering and of

all my efforts so far (apart from the 504 disaster), this is the one I'm least happy with. Aside from the fact that the camera's macro lens setting

can be very cruel, there's so much more one can get away with doing a filthy mineral wagon, for instance and the finish on this brake van looks

a bit heavy-handed and vague. Still, overall I'm happy to have made the mods in general and to the roof thickness and the handrails in particular,

which make the standard ones look a bit toy-like.

 

post-6878-0-54560600-1312541946_thumb.jpg

 

 

 

Even a liberal amount of paint failed to disguise Bachmann's 'heavy' moulding of the gaps between the body planking, which doesn't help when

applying the decals either (see top pic). For some, it may be a step too far to fill in the gaps and re-scribe finer planking but that's exactly what

I may do with the next one. The thick glazing also sticks out, so it's body off and re-glazing for the next one too, along with a solution to the

thickness of brackets attaching the running boards to the underframe.

 

post-6878-0-21742400-1312541971_thumb.jpg

 

 

 

When all is said and done, this Bachmann is very good value and makes a much better base for detailing than Dapol's kit, just bit of a shame that

the roof is an integral part of the body moulding. There are alternative upgrade solutions… I understand there's a Dave Bradwell 20T underframe

kit but is more than twice the price of this Bachmann… and then there's Hornby's new 20T, also more expensive, which I'm very curious to see.

 

post-6878-0-59330400-1312541992_thumb.jpg

sorry to chuck a big spanner in the works MD, i just noticed you've numbered the brake B950128, I think you'll find this is one of the BR built LMS 20t vans from lot 2026 dia 1/503?

 

regards Nigel

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...