Bath Queen Square

[queensquare]

An evening off from cardboard bashing to spend a few hours on the layout. With bridge number 1installed I made the last few tweaks to the track bed of Bath bank which, like the prototype, starts climbing immediately after the junction, albeit at 1:70 rather than the 1:50 it should be!

I made up the required Easitrac panels and couldn’t resist laying them in place. I made the decision when I lifted the track to sort out the hump, that I wouldn’t be putting Mays siding to the brickworks back in when I relaid it. My Bath bank is severely compressed and it was all just too busy, particularly with the point having to come off in the middle of the bridge over the GWR. It’s a shame but I think it will look a lot better for it.

 

Hoping to get the track glued down and wired by the weekend.

 

Jerry

 

[queensquare]

Track is now fixed all the way down to Bath Junction, including a degree of superelevation inspired by Laurie Adams Yeovil Town. I followed Laurie’s  advice and used thin strips of paper under the outside edge of the sleepers, building up to a maximum of four layers giving about .4mm - not very much but visually very effective when I rolled a coach round. The Mk4 in the background is from my HST set and, being the longest vehicle I have was used to check clearances at the end of the bridge.

 

 

Next up is the bridge over the GWR mainline. I will lay  some proper track but the bridge will be a simple card affair. In fact not a lot of it will be visible as the Bellots road bridge, a very attractive Brunel stone structure, is immediately in front of it. The track will end in a mirror.

 

 

Finally, the view up Bath bank. What should be about a mile is compressed into around five feet so other than the co-op siding and the entrance to Devonshire tunnel, it’s little more than an impression - well at the moment it’s little more than bare ply but I’m excited by it!! 

The Midland will run out of sight on the lower level on the right before diving under the S&D to some storage sidings.

 

Jerry

[nick_bastable]

14 minutes ago, queensquare said:

 The Mk4 in the background is from my HST set and, being the longest vehicle I have was used to check clearances at the end of the bridge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

naughty step for you the wrong Blue on that coach 🤣

[Sithlord75]

2 hours ago, nick_bastable said:

naughty step for you the wrong Blue on that coach 🤣

Its not just the blue that's wrong - it's a Mk3...  But would you expect knowledge of such things from an SDJR Man?

 

 

[queensquare]

6 hours ago, Sithlord75 said:

Its not just the blue that's wrong - it's a Mk3...  But would you expect knowledge of such things from an SDJR Man?

 

 

it’s a fair cop! 😊

 

Jerry

[queensquare]

Now the problem with getting more track down is that it just encourages me to want to play! Thankfully, when I popped down the workshop yesterday evening (not returning until early hours this morning) I fully resisted the temptation to just play but did carry out some useful research! 😊 

With the track now reaching out to Bath Junction it was possible to assemble complete trains on the bank and see how my locos coped with the gradient bearing in mind that this was a stiff test as they would need to lift the train from a standing start, when the layout is finished they will at least have a run at it.
First up was the local rakes with 54, a Johnson 0-4-4T. Happily she walked away with ease.

 

 

 

Next came the Diner. These are brass and fairly heavy, despite having plasticard interiors, but are very free running thanks to the Association bogies. I’m still waiting for Farish to launch a comprehensive range of MR clerestories in plastic! Raithby 4F, 3863, with its heavy body and weighted tender had no problems. The Farish 4Fs whilst happy on the level simply polished the rails on the 1:70!

My pair of 2P/483s just about managed albeit with a fair bit of slipping though there is room to tweak these a little to improve things. The Nigel Hunt kits that are slowly inching forward will be maximised for haulage from the off and I’m confident they will be fine.

 

 

 

Finaly, 7F 81 was given a couple of wagons over full load unassisted which she did with ease.

 

 

All in all, very pleasing

 

Jerry

[yaxxbarl]

On the Bachmann/Farish 4Fs I've been experimenting a bit with the drawbar as I think as bought it lifts the rear wheels very slightly from the track - not enough for a derailment but enough to reduce adhesion.

 

I've re-worked the drawbar to lower the coupling 'socket' on it and added some weight to the front of the tender and now it gets round the test circle with 20 wagons, before that it was having a job doing so! I really should add more wagons and see how well it goes with 30 or 40 on.

 

The 4F is still a work in progress and I'm intrigued as to why my converted 3F Jinties/Jockos/Bagnalls will easily pull much more - the loco itself may be a bit heavier but I'm not sure it's by much. My converted Dapol Pannier also waltzes off with the wagons and that is lighter, so I think it may be an adhesion rather than a weight problem on the 4Fs.

 

Cheers,

 

John

[queensquare]

3 hours ago, yaxxbarl said:

On the Bachmann/Farish 4Fs I've been experimenting a bit with the drawbar as I think as bought it lifts the rear wheels very slightly from the track - not enough for a derailment but enough to reduce adhesion.

 

I've re-worked the drawbar to lower the coupling 'socket' on it and added some weight to the front of the tender and now it gets round the test circle with 20 wagons, before that it was having a job doing so! I really should add more wagons and see how well it goes with 30 or 40 on.

 

The 4F is still a work in progress and I'm intrigued as to why my converted 3F Jinties/Jockos/Bagnalls will easily pull much more - the loco itself may be a bit heavier but I'm not sure it's by much. My converted Dapol Pannier also waltzes off with the wagons and that is lighter, so I think it may be an adhesion rather than a weight problem on the 4Fs.

 

Cheers,

 

John

Hi John,

the Farish 4F I tried up the bank with the Diner has got a replacement tender chassis, new drawbar and tender weight bearing on the rear of the loco. It has made a significant difference on the level but still not enough for it to take the Diner up Bath bank. Like the real S&D, the inclines don’t take prisoners!

As you rightly say, haulage can be improved but at the end of the day a body full of motor is always going to be lighter than one full of lead so the Raithby kit build with the motor in the tender is always going to win. To be fair to the Farish 4F it’s a lovely model and a very sweet runner and  it’s haulage is adequate on the level. I’ve converted three. One has a modified Farish tender (the one I tested), one is going to get a Nigel Hunt 3500 Johnson style tender and the third has turned down tender wheels in the Farish pinpoint pickups and is heading to Australia! 
 

Jerry

[queensquare]

Had my crack team on the case this morning putting a few locos through their paces before some 2mm friends came round. Cracking day.

 

Jerry

 

[nick_bastable]

I hope Thomas a blue engine and Toby where running

[queensquare]

1 minute ago, nick_bastable said:

I hope Thomas a blue engine and Toby where running

Thomas was around but Toby is currently on his way from Aus in shiny flat pack form!

 

As usual I was too busy gassing to take pictures but one visitor I particularly liked was this Jubilee from Simon Grand which, once a loose wire was sorted,  ran very nicely down to the Junction and back. Jubs were common at Bath in the late 50s and early 60s off the Midland but never, as far as I’m aware,  over the S&D. I don’t know which one  it’s destined to be but I rather like them with the Fowler tender. 

Jerry

 

 

 

[nick_bastable]

I do like modellers with tongue in cheek humour @Edwardiancan be very entertaining and it all  helps disguise my own feeble efforts

 

Beware the Australian connections their all ex cons although excellent company   as to Jubilees thought a certain @Nick Mitchell had those covered

 

 

[yaxxbarl]

On 17/03/2023 at 20:51, queensquare said:

Hi John,

the Farish 4F I tried up the bank with the Diner has got a replacement tender chassis, new drawbar and tender weight bearing on the rear of the loco. It has made a significant difference on the level but still not enough for it to take the Diner up Bath bank. Like the real S&D, the inclines don’t take prisoners!

As you rightly say, haulage can be improved but at the end of the day a body full of motor is always going to be lighter than one full of lead so the Raithby kit build with the motor in the tender is always going to win. To be fair to the Farish 4F it’s a lovely model and a very sweet runner and  it’s haulage is adequate on the level. I’ve converted three. One has a modified Farish tender (the one I tested), one is going to get a Nigel Hunt 3500 Johnson style tender and the third has turned down tender wheels in the Farish pinpoint pickups and is heading to Australia! 
 

Jerry

 

Jerry,

 

Yes - after that I found there was a track problem in the part of my test circuit where the 4F was slipping, namely a hump on the inner rail over one side of the join - some relaying under a bit of card to prop up the offending area seems to have improved that.  It was causing the lead wheels of my Jinty and Pannier to skip off when going in one direction so it needed fixing anyway.

 

As to the 4F - I have a suspicion that the middle driver on one side is a bit proud of the others, enough to compromise the grip of the wheels on the rails. Whether it is down to a bit of 'stuff' in the bearing slots on the Farish chassis block or a manufacturing flaw in the block that needs correcting is yet to be seen.

 

Weight wise the Jinty weights in at 46g, my Dapol Pannier at 36g and the 4F engine at 31g so yes, that probably also explains a lot on the haulage capabilities of each!

 

Cheers,

 

John

 

 

[2ManySpams]

On 17/03/2023 at 11:47, queensquare said:

Now the problem with getting more track down is that it just encourages me to want to play! Thankfully, when I popped down the workshop yesterday evening (not returning until early hours this morning) I fully resisted the temptation to just play but did carry out some useful research! 😊 

With the track now reaching out to Bath Junction it was possible to assemble complete trains on the bank and see how my locos coped with the gradient bearing in mind that this was a stiff test as they would need to lift the train from a standing start, when the layout is finished they will at least have a run at it.
First up was the local rakes with 54, a Johnson 0-4-4T. Happily she walked away with ease.

 

 

 

Next came the Diner. These are brass and fairly heavy, despite having plasticard interiors, but are very free running thanks to the Association bogies. I’m still waiting for Farish to launch a comprehensive range of MR clerestories in plastic! Raithby 4F, 3863, with its heavy body and weighted tender had no problems. The Farish 4Fs whilst happy on the level simply polished the rails on the 1:70!

My pair of 2P/483s just about managed albeit with a fair bit of slipping though there is room to tweak these a little to improve things. The Nigel Hunt kits that are slowly inching forward will be maximised for haulage from the off and I’m confident they will be fine.

 

 

 

Finaly, 7F 81 was given a couple of wagons over full load unassisted which she did with ease.

 

 

All in all, very pleasing

 

Jerry

 

Excellent research session Jerry, well done.

[queensquare]

1 hour ago, yaxxbarl said:

 

Jerry,

 

Yes - after that I found there was a track problem in the part of my test circuit where the 4F was slipping, namely a hump on the inner rail over one side of the join - some relaying under a bit of card to prop up the offending area seems to have improved that.  It was causing the lead wheels of my Jinty and Pannier to skip off when going in one direction so it needed fixing anyway.

 

As to the 4F - I have a suspicion that the middle driver on one side is a bit proud of the others, enough to compromise the grip of the wheels on the rails. Whether it is down to a bit of 'stuff' in the bearing slots on the Farish chassis block or a manufacturing flaw in the block that needs correcting is yet to be seen.

 

Weight wise the Jinty weights in at 46g, my Dapol Pannier at 36g and the 4F engine at 31g so yes, that probably also explains a lot on the haulage capabilities of each!

 

Cheers,

 

John

 

 

 

Hi John,

 

its interesting what you say about the Jinty. It has, essentially, the same chassis as the 4F but thanks to the weight in the side tanks making it about 50% heavier than the 4F, and the lack of drag from a tender has considerably greater traction.

Rather irritatingly, the best hauler up Bath bank (not including diesels) is not one of my big eight coupled freight locos but an old Farish Holden tank with a very basic chassis which was knocking around here for a while. John Greenwood has built one of the Great Western eight coupled tanks, I must kidnap it somewhen and see how that performs.

 

Jerry

[Izzy]

If I find the time I’m considering re-building my Farish 4F with new chassis and tender drive so I can stuff as much weight as possible in the loco. Not just for the better traction but that the extended gear train - compared to the Jinty - tends to lead to oscillation at certain speeds making it less smooth running, almost like the quartering is out. Plastic bodies allow lots of nice detail but aren’t nearly as good as metal ones for traction I find, even when just made out of thinner brass sheet. 
 

Bob

[yaxxbarl]

4 hours ago, Izzy said:

If I find the time I’m considering re-building my Farish 4F with new chassis and tender drive so I can stuff as much weight as possible in the loco. Not just for the better traction but that the extended gear train - compared to the Jinty - tends to lead to oscillation at certain speeds making it less smooth running, almost like the quartering is out. Plastic bodies allow lots of nice detail but aren’t nearly as good as metal ones for traction I find, even when just made out of thinner brass sheet. 
 

Bob

Bob,

 

Yes - I was wondering why mine did seem to 'chug' a bit when under load but run perfectly smoothly when light engine or with just a few wagons on. I can see why they put the gear train in to the rear axle in the interests of daylight under the boiler but slack in the gear train seems to be the price to pay. At my test track's first outing at the Chapel En Le Frith show some weeks back Nigel Hunt bought his new 4F along for a run and there was no competition with mine - Nigel's easily managed 21 wagons and would have probably managed twice that without any bother!

 

In the end on mine I managed to weedle in a few extra grams of lead in the smokebox, in the dome, around the worm housing on the motor and beneath the rear footplate steps and it has improved traction so that my 4F now handles a 20 wagon train with a lot more ease that it did, and that is probably about as long a train as I expect my 4F will handle on the layout. Again, this is on the level - experience suggests that any kind of gradient also sets my 4F into 'polish the rails' mode unless it has a light load.

 

On comparing with the Jinty one other thing, apart from the extra mass, is I do think the smaller wheel size also makes a difference especially when any kind of gradient comes into play. This may also be the factor in favour of Jerry's Holden tank.

 

Cheers,

 

John

 

 

[queensquare]

7 minutes ago, yaxxbarl said:

This may also be the factor in favour of Jerry's Holden tank.

 

Cheers,

 

John

 

 

I think the grossly overscale cast metal body is the main factor John! 😊

 

Jerry

[nick_bastable]

the Guys building Evercreech as shown  at Derby where playing,  I watched as they  pulled and pushed  14 or was it 16 coaches up a 1 in 50 on  a curve various engines the 7f 's  looked the business and if I recall a Farish 4f made a good stab at it

 

Nick

[queensquare]

15 hours ago, nick_bastable said:

the Guys building Evercreech as shown  at Derby where playing,  I watched as they  pulled and pushed  14 or was it 16 coaches up a 1 in 50 on  a curve various engines the 7f 's  looked the business and if I recall a Farish 4f made a good stab at it

 

Nick

Hi Nick, you’re right, Evercreech is faced with similar problems, albeit the other side of the Mendips.

There are, however , a couple of key differences, the main one being that the rakes of coaches being used were plastic, converted RTR which are a fraction of the weight of brass ones - oh for those Farish clerestories!😊 Pulling plastic coaches up an incline with eight and ten coupled locos is a different ball game to doing it with brass coaches and a 4-4-0!

Their 7Fs use Alan’s machined solid boiler which is very heavy and results in really impressive haulage. I have all the bits to build another pair although hauling a long rake of mainly plastic wagons up the bank hasn’t proved to be a problem.

The 4F they were using was a Raithby one which Alan built years ago for Midsomer Norton, he has had the same issues as me with the Farish ones - very sweet runners with adequate haulage on the level.

 

Jerry

[queensquare]

Alan Smith has been in touch to let me know that the 4F being used on ECJ was indeed a converted Farish one and it managed eight plastic coaches on the bank which even he was surprised at.

I weighed some of my coaches to see what the difference was. Brass etched coaches averaged out at around the 37g mark whereas Farish Mk1s were around 24g. A rough calculation suggested that six brass coaches equates to nine plastic RTR. When I get a chance I will try my 4F on eight RTR coaches but I’d be surprised if it manages them up the bank. We will see.

 

Jerry

[SR71]

Weight and rolling resistance are two different things. In OO many years ago my converted triang jinty could climb a 1/70 with more farish kit coaches (these have a lot of metal in them so much heavier than RTR) than it could Bachmann bullieds. Restarting them however was a different matter.

[queensquare]

I was hoping to get in the veg garden today but it’s a bit of a swamp after days of rain so headed into the workshop for a few hours.

I managed to thread some easitrac and cut the linking pieces between the single line junction and Bath junction proper. I had put some dot marks through my wallpaper master onto the ply base as a guide and everything seems to line up ok. Next job is to mark exactly where the slots for the TOUs go, lift the formation, cut the slots and glue it all down. Tomorrow if I’m lucky!

 

Jerry

 

 

[AdeMoore]

Lovely flowing trackwork, looks pretty damn good. Great modelling that.

[queensquare]

1 minute ago, AdeMoore said:

Lovely flowing trackwork, looks pretty damn good. Great modelling that.

Thanks Ade. The big test for me will come with wiring it all up - that will tax my very limited knowledge in that department to the max!

 

Jerry