Wright writes.....

[Headstock]

You can't beat a bit of variety in your teak BG's. They are interesting in their detail differences as the East coast Pacific's.

[davefrk]

Morning all,

 

this is a repaint of a Hornby BG mounted on a Kirk underframe. A combination of brush painted and airbrushed enamels were used to lose the Hornby maroon. The underfame details and bogies are MJT, with Gibson wheels, (both sides) the gangways came from the comet range. The Hornby underframe was dismantled, and the parts were then reused on other projects. The bogies in particular have been employed more appropriately under a passenger carriage.

 

I didn't know one could use Fox type bogies under a full length BG, thanks for that, I've got a few Fox bogies and am short of a Gresley bogie for a Brake 2nd.

Nice job on the BG.

 

Dave Franks

[Headstock]

Over their life the types of bogies used under BG's is  rather complicated . The Fox bogies would have outnumbered all others types pre war, and for much of  the post War period. As with most things you have to look at specific diagrams, as well as individual carriages at specific periods of time. Generally speaking the early turnbuckle diagrams along with the first steel BG's had fox, while the later angle iron types had the 8' heavy duty bogie. Towards the end of their existence some individuals received the 8'6" light bogies from withdrawn passenger stock. The familiar teak BG with angle iron trussing, riding on Gresley bogies, was very much a minority type.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Headstock

[davefrk]

Thanks for the info Andrew.

 

Dave Franks.

[Porcy Mane]

E70555 truss frames. Mid 1960's

E70555E_Newcastle by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

All Steel

http://www.steve-banks.org/prototype-and-traffic/157-gresley-all-steel-bg

 

Third pic down. Just the thing for carrying parcels through Wharfedale. Ever thought of a pigeon train?

 

P

Edited February 23, 2016 by Porcy Mane

[MJI]

I guess I have missed Larry's reply to this but I can imagine the response.  The point I'm going to make is the notion that Mick portrays here, that you should avoid using cellulose paint near plastics that can be softened by the solvent, is a total myth.  I recall a similar comment from Mick on another forum in response to some plastic bodied locos and wheels that I had painted with cellulose.  I explained then that there is not a problem but clearly the myth is still being perpetuated.  I'm only saying this as I don't like to see information in the public domain that, based on the experience of highly skilled and professional model makers, is incorrect.

 

Morgan.

 

Depends on the plastic and the solvent. I have seen some cellulose thinners you could wipe plastics down with and others which would melt the plastic.

 

IN THE SAME CAN DESIGN

 

I wiped down some Lima bodies for spraying to remove the ink (after trials on offcuts) and one started to get tacky after changing the can (I used it for car painting originally). L:uckily it dried out OK

[billbedford]

Over their life the types of bogies used under BG's is  rather complicated . The Fox bogies would have outnumbered all others types pre war, and for much of  the post War period. As with most things you have to look at specific diagrams, as well as individual carriages at specific periods of time. Generally speaking the early turnbuckle diagrams along with the first steel BG's had fox, while the later angle iron types had the 8' heavy duty bogie. Towards the end of their existence some individuals received the 8'6" light bogies from withdrawn passenger stock. The familiar teak BG with angle iron trussing, riding on Gresley bogies, was very much a minority type.

 

 

Not quite right. Up until about 1930 BGs had 8' Fox bogies. Vans built later had light, single bolster 8' bogies. To recognise these bogies these bogies you need to look at the bolster supports. This is a 8' single bolster on a BG:

 

 

and this is a standard 8'6" double bolster:

 

[Headstock]

I did say generally. The top bogie looks like is a single bolster heavy to me.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Headstock

[St Enodoc]

E70555 truss frames. Mid 1960's

E70555E_Newcastle by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

All Steel

http://www.steve-banks.org/prototype-and-traffic/157-gresley-all-steel-bg

 

Third pic down. Just the thing for carrying parcels through Wharfedale. Ever thought of a pigeon train?

 

P

That photo interests me for two reasons. First, I thought that by the mid-60s the York and Newcastle station pilots were coupled to match trucks to ensure that the overall wheelbase was long enough to operate track circuits properly. Secondly, there was one of these pigeon vans tucked away in somewhat decrepit condition at the far East end of Craigentinny CSMD in the very early 1980s - possibly even the same one? It was disposed of so that the wheel lathe could be built.

[billbedford]

I did say generally. The top bogie looks like is a single bolster heavy to me.

 

 

As far as i know the 8' heavies were only used on quad arts. They had an even shorter bolster support beam, and there was really no need to use a bogie the could carry 18.5 tons on light vehicle such as a BG,

[Porcy Mane]

 I thought that by the mid-60s the York and Newcastle station pilots were coupled to match trucks

 Photo evidence shows this must have happened later in the late sixties The one man that could have given me the exact date of introduction (if there was such a thing) is no longer with us.

This 1967 pic that shows the north end pilot in it's normal ready and waiting position doesn't have one.

Newcastle by Keith Long, on Flickr.

 

and no match truck in this 1965 view.

http://www.time-capsules.co.uk/picture/show/2918/Shunting-at-Newcastle

I've got a few more pics from the keep taken between 1963 and 67 that show no match truck. I'll have to check other pics to see if there is any evidence of match trucks used in that period.

 

P

[Tony Wright]

Not quite right. Up until about 1930 BGs had 8' Fox bogies. Vans built later had light, single bolster 8' bogies. To recognise these bogies these bogies you need to look at the bolster supports. This is a 8' single bolster on a BG:

 

LNER 8ft bogie.jpg

 

and this is a standard 8'6" double bolster:

 

LNER 8ft6 bogie.jpg

Thanks Bill,

 

Informative and erudite as always (or is that tautology?).

 

Because it's got a turnbuckle underframe, my modified BG should probably have Fox bogies. For the pictures for the article in the BRM Annual of a few years ago I left the bogies as they were - standard Gresley 8' 6" as supplied by Hornby. Good friend Rob Davey then fitted more appropriate 8' 0" types, on which it rides now. I have umpteen cast Fox bogies, so might replace those in due course.

 

I wasn't aware that the BGs rode on 8' 0" HD bogies (as suggested elsewhere), other than the trio of Thompson BGs built for the post-War Flying Scotsman. 

 

Now, to other things. 

 

I hope you don't mind my mentioning that you're going to supply me with a fully sprung/compensated loco chassis, if only to prove that even a duffer like me can make one go. As for a bet, it's too much of an incentive for me to cock it up, so I won't put money on it - other than if I do succeed in building it (and believe me, I'll try), then the drinks are on me.

 

Whatever you send, I'm sure it'll be easier to build than the following.........................

 

 

 

This is the ACE P2 set of frames I'm putting together as part of the complete kit. It's scaled down from 7mm to 4mm, so there are some issues. 

 

 

Has anyone built an ACE 7mm loco with Cartazzi frames? Cartazzi frames arranged to be made as suggested in the instructions and as shown here. When Mike Edge saw it he said it wouldn't work. How right was he! I tried it this morning like this and it wouldn't even go round a 4' radius curve, forwards or backwards. 

 

 

So, I soldered the outer frames in place, then cut out the inner frames and made (from my bits & bobs box) a dummy swinging truck - just like DJH and PDK arrange. It now works perfectly around a 30" radius curve, backwards and forwards (though with a bit of insulation tape attached to the inner frame on the insulated side - my usual practice). 

 

Other issues concern the driving wheel spacings, which cause Markits RP25 flanges to rub together when installed. I just skimmed a bit off he second and third axles wheel flanges to give clearance. The valve gear looks a bit suspect as well, with holes surrounded by the thinnest of edges. Forming the smokebox looked a bit iffy, too because part of the boiler was attached to the smokebox. It isn't now because how is one expected to roll a curve whilst retaining the front part of it straight? 

 

The above issues stated, with my mods this thing really does fly. I should be able to build the body and tender now, and I'll report accordingly. I'll be taking it to the Glasgow Show next weekend. Since the original loco (2002) was built (like its siblings) for a Scottish road, I hope it proves of interest.

[Porcy Mane]

I did say generally. The top bogie looks like is a single bolster heavy to me.

 I wondered if that top bogie gives the impression of a HD bogie due to a footboard being fitted. It seems that the 8' 0" HD bogie became the bogie of choice in latter days if this stock is anything to go off.

 

E70468E_Newcastle by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

Gresley_BG_Newcastle by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

E70523E_Newcastle-1 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

BG_Gresley_LeedsCity_1967 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

E70523E_Newcastle-2 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

BG_Newcastle_2 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

E70490E_Unknown-2 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

Gresley_BG_Newcastle by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

P

[Headstock]

Sorry for the delay, I had to get some work done. Bills original photo seems to have all the features of a heavy bogie, Did the 8' light and heavy use the same side frames? I may be confusing the two.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Headstock

[Porcy Mane]

The 8ft  HD had a deeper side frame. Coppercraft did an injection moulded version and MJT a cosmetic whitemetal in 4 mm.  Don't know if they are still available?

 

P

[Headstock]

All things considered, I think I will stick with the Fox version. I was thinking about doing a later variant BG, however seeing the appropriate bogie is not available I would consider the early steel BG instead. Presumably the Coppercraft bogie was part of their Thompson BG, if so is a heavy bogie correct for this type? Today's lesson, stay away from hobbies that involve wheels and bogies.

[billbedford]

I've just re-read the Van chapters in Harris, and you are right, Fox bogies were replaced by heavy duty 8' bogies and the permitted load was increased from 8 to 10 tons. Which leaves me wondering just which vehicles used the 8' standard. bogies.

[Porcy Mane]

 Presumably the Coppercraft bogie was part of their Thompson BG, if so is a heavy bogie correct for this type? 

 I can't remember but don't think it was originally. I remember seeing the bogie offered as an accessory in the review section of the Railway Modeller but that would have been well over ten years ago.

I bought a few of the bogies from Coopercraft at either Railex or scaleforum sometime in the past three to four years.

I think there may be a picture in Harris of a Thompson BG that refers to it being on 8 foot HDs. I can't check it at the moment as it's out on loan.

P

[Porcy Mane]

I've just re-read the Van chapters in Harris, and you are right, Fox bogies were replaced by heavy duty 8' bogies and the permitted load was increased from 8 to 10 tons. Which leaves me wondering just which vehicles used the 8' standard. bogies.

Most probably went to live under York built Diesel brake tenders.

 

 Edit: And those poor riding EMU's (Clacton & Scottish units)???

 

P

Edited February 23, 2016 by Porcy Mane

[billbedford]

Don't think so -- the drawing is dated August 1930. 

[Porcy Mane]

So that's why all those bogies were piled up in York works.

In one of the jobs I was on I was pulling out drawings that last saw the light of day in the 1940's. This was to commission a state of the art process control room designed using a virtual reality system.

 

P

[Headstock]

 I wondered if that top bogie gives the impression of a HD bogie due to a footboard being fitted. It seems that the 8' 0" HD bogie became the bogie of choice in latter days if this stock is anything to go off.

 

E70468E_Newcastle by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

Gresley_BG_Newcastle by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

E70523E_Newcastle-1 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

BG_Gresley_LeedsCity_1967 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

E70523E_Newcastle-2 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

BG_Newcastle_2 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

E70490E_Unknown-2 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

Gresley_BG_Newcastle by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

P

 

Great illustrations of how narrow the teak BG was compared to the contemporary passenger stock. It's particularly noticeable just below the cornice and at the sole bars. I wasn't able to replicate this properly using the Hornby body. My MJT builds are much better as they are replicate this feature. The two types look fine together along as they are separated out. Hopefully a consistent style of  painting lends a cohesive appearance.

[polybear]

Hi Tony/all,

 

I'm preparing to construct my first etched chassis, which is long overdue (holds head in shame ).  My plan is to build a chassis to go underneath an existing N2 RTR bodyshell I picked up some time ago; I have the choice of either of the following chassis kits (both of which I already have as s/h purchases):

1. Perseverence Models N2 Chassis Kit (nickel silver), or:

2. Comet Models N2 Chassis Kit (brass)

 

No. 1 shows more detail (springs etc.) and has the benefit of tab & slot construction for the spacers, as well as connecting rods on the same etch; the Comet version (which isn't the current etch) has lesser detail, no connecting rods and no tab & slot construction.

 

There's a but (isn't there always?) - the depth of the Perseverance frames above the centre axle in particular is very shallow, the other axles are little better; I have some reservations regarding the strength of the frames in these areas.  I've attached a scan of the two etches (the Comet being the upper etch) to explain more clearly:

 

N2 Chassis Etches.pdf

 

Any thoughts and/or ideas much appreciated please?

 

Many thanks.

Regards,

Brian

[Porcy Mane]

Great illustrations of how narrow the teak BG was compared to the contemporary passenger stock. It's particularly noticeable just below the cornice and at the sole bars. I wasn't able to replicate this properly using the Hornby body.

 

Guess who got the tools out and moved the body side in but left the roof at the correct width.

 

P

[Tony Wright]

Hi Tony/all,

 

I'm preparing to construct my first etched chassis, which is long overdue (holds head in shame ).  My plan is to build a chassis to go underneath an existing N2 RTR bodyshell I picked up some time ago; I have the choice of either of the following chassis kits (both of which I already have as s/h purchases):

1. Perseverence Models N2 Chassis Kit (nickel silver), or:

2. Comet Models N2 Chassis Kit (brass)

 

No. 1 shows more detail (springs etc.) and has the benefit of tab & slot construction for the spacers, as well as connecting rods on the same etch; the Comet version (which isn't the current etch) has lesser detail, no connecting rods and no tab & slot construction.

 

There's a but (isn't there always?) - the depth of the Perseverance frames above the centre axle in particular is very shallow, the other axles are little better; I have some reservations regarding the strength of the frames in these areas.  I've attached a scan of the two etches (the Comet being the upper etch) to explain more clearly:

 

N2 Chassis Etches.pdf

 

Any thoughts and/or ideas much appreciated please?

 

Many thanks.

Regards,

Brian

Glad to help if I can, Brian.

 

I haven't built a Perseverance etched chassios for an N2, but I have built the Comet one. 

 

 

When first erected, it seemed to fit just fine into the body shell.

 

 

Though it fitted, the wheel centres didn't look quite right, so I checked against a drawing. 

 

 

Sure enough, the Comet chassis had the wheel centres too far forward, by the diameter of an axle.

 

 

It wasn't a problem - all I did was file the ends of the chassis to suit, meaning the guard irons then stuck out way beyond the beam.

 

 

After cutting back the excess lengths of the frames, I cut of the guard irons and re-soldered them in place. The pony should really have ten spokes, not 12. 

 

 

Whichever chassis you use it'll be a huge improvement on the nasty original one!

 

 

And, it'll be well worth the effort.

 

I'm surprised that no coupling rods (not connecting rods - they're inside on an N2) were supplied by Comet. I'm sure Andrew will provide you with a suitable set. 

 

Because Comet chassis don't have slots and tabs, may I suggest the Poppyswood jig for putting it together? 

 

 

It put together the frames for this beast. I spent the afternoon forming the footplate for the P2. No slots and tabs here either, just a groove for the valances - which was part filled-in! The holes to take the nuts and screws for fixing the body to the chassis were either in the wrong place or non-existent. There was also no proper drag beam, and the footplate overhung too much at the front. May I ask again, has anyone built a 7mm P2 from ACE? Ah, well, those joys of kit-building. It makes me ponder - perhaps those who use RTR or pay others to do their railway modelling have a great deal of sense! More than I have. 

Edited February 23, 2016 by Tony Wright