Wright writes.....

[Flying Pig]

4 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

Thanks for the advice regarding the ride height, all of which was helpful. I've got it about as low as I can without major butchery

 

I don't know whether anyone has already suggested this but it looks to me as though the drop ends ahead of the cylinders may be too shallow on the model, placing the front platform too high.  As far as I can tell from photos of the prototype, the valance should be at the same level both ahead and behind the cylinders and valve gear - it appears to be higher at the front on your model. I also suspect that the buffer beam (which was of the Midland double type) may be too shallow on the model. 

 

Both issues would contribute to a nose-high appearance, regardless of the height of the body as a whole and its relationship with the cylinders.

 

Apologies if I'm repeating earlier posts or have simply misinterpreted the photo of your model.

[Tony Wright]

Well, that's about it for today with regard to the V2 (writing and picture-taking this evening). 

 

 

If ever two superb products were designed for each other, it's Mike Trice's V2 body and a Comet V2 chassis. 

 

 

[grob1234]

Just a little teaser for you from my work over the last few weeks.... answers on a postcard please

 

[t-b-g]

4 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

Here's the state of play of my Fowler tank:

 

 

Thanks for the advice regarding the ride height, all of which was helpful. I've got it about as low as I can without major butchery. I lowered the cylinders,, filed away their tops, reduced the pitch slightly, and carved a rebate into the underside of the footplate to get the cylinders tucked up as snugly as I could. I also notched the top of the motion bracket to let it tuck under the footplate. Some work on the body has now begun, in which I'm trying to see how much of the original lining I might be able to spare. The incorrectly applied emblem (thanks, Tony!) will go and be replaced by the earlier one, which I now prefer anyway. As far as I can tell from the chapter in Haresnape, which is all the reference I have on these locos, the chimney should be changed for a a Stanier type for a loco in BR condition.

 

 

Al

 

I think you have done well with that. It does look so much better. I think you have probably reached the stage where any further improvements in terms of the body height would entail a lot of work for a tiny reward!

[Barry Ten]

2 hours ago, Leander said:

 

LMS Loco Profiles Number 3 is the reference book you need. One is available on Amazon at the moment for £10.95. You'll get all the info you need re plain vs. fluted rods, plain or fluted wheel rims, chimney types, etc.

 

Thank you - I ought to keep an eye out for a copy. As always, it's a bit of a decision as to whether to invest in reference material for what is likely to be a one-off, but a good book is always welcome in its own right.

[Barry Ten]

17 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

I don't know whether anyone has already suggested this but it looks to me as though the drop ends ahead of the cylinders may be too shallow on the model, placing the front platform too high.  As far as I can tell from photos of the prototype, the valance should be at the same level both ahead and behind the cylinders and valve gear - it appears to be higher at the front on your model. I also suspect that the buffer beam (which was of the Midland double type) may be too shallow on the model. 

 

Both issues would contribute to a nose-high appearance, regardless of the height of the body as a whole and its relationship with the cylinders.

 

Apologies if I'm repeating earlier posts or have simply misinterpreted the photo of your model.

 

Those seem very likely points, Simon. DJH did something similar with their 7F, where the front platform should be lower than it is. And no apologies needed - excellent to get constructive feedback and suggestions.

[Barry Ten]

17 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I think you have done well with that. It does look so much better. I think you have probably reached the stage where any further improvements in terms of the body height would entail a lot of work for a tiny reward!

 

Thanks, Tony, and my apologies to all for swamping the thread with replies. I'm a  believer in knowing when to stop! The starting point for this model was a 1980 Hornby chassis with crude wheels and an open-frame motor which didn't run well, so any improvement on that is a bonus since I now have a model that can actually be used on the layout.

 

I'll scuttle off now as I don't wish to detract from those fantastic V2s! Gresley envy!

[landscapes]

33 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

It is a footplate support bracket, David - a sort of rounded 'L', protruding from the frames. 

 

 

Taken at Haymarket Station in the mid-'50s. 

 

A4s have them as well. 

 

 

They're often in shadow, but worth putting on. 

 

 

Hornby A4s hint at them. 

 

When I first started making these to go on my big firebox locos, I thought they were firebox supports. This was daft, because the firebox was supported by the rear frames. 

 

Once you know they're there, they're quite distinctive. I just made them from brass sheet.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Hi Tony

 

Many thanks for the information.

 

Do you know if the Isinglass Drawings of the A2/1 would show enough detail to make one?

 

Regards

 

David

[micklner]

Brassmaster , detail etches of the A3/4 have the part mentioned above.

[Headstock]

1 hour ago, Barry Ten said:

 

Thank you - I ought to keep an eye out for a copy. As always, it's a bit of a decision as to whether to invest in reference material for what is likely to be a one-off, but a good book is always welcome in its own right.

 

Good evening Barry,

 

I have a copy of the NRM publication, Loco profile no 3. It is a great book, It was used quite a bit for Tebay banking engines many years ago. The distance from the centre line of the boiler to the top face of the front platform on the Fowler tanks was 3' 10 3/4''. Rail height to the centreline of the buffers was 3' 5 1/2''. All rail height measurements have to consider the wheels used by the modeler, it's a simple bit of mathematics to account for this and get an accurate height.  Making templates for such measurements is not hard, just tape some sort of pointer to a steel ruler at 90 degrees.

 

One thing that stands out to me, is the valve spindle guide. Your model has the Stannier pattern as used on the Jubilee, black fives and 8F's etc. It should have the type with the bracket attached to the frames, directly under the valance of the running board, as in the Royal Scot, Duchess ect. Re chimneys, I will have a look in the book if you like.

[Willie Whizz]

6 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

Here's the state of play of my Fowler tank:

 

 

Thanks for the advice regarding the ride height, all of which was helpful. I've got it about as low as I can without major butchery. I lowered the cylinders,, filed away their tops, reduced the pitch slightly, and carved a rebate into the underside of the footplate to get the cylinders tucked up as snugly as I could. I also notched the top of the motion bracket to let it tuck under the footplate. Some work on the body has now begun, in which I'm trying to see how much of the original lining I might be able to spare. The incorrectly applied emblem (thanks, Tony!) will go and be replaced by the earlier one, which I now prefer anyway. As far as I can tell from the chapter in Haresnape, which is all the reference I have on these locos, the chimney should be changed for a a Stanier type for a loco in BR condition.

 

 

Al

 

Coming along nicely ...  I may be wrong (the subsequently-posted link to prototype pictures were practically all 'classic front-quarter' views, so didn't help) but my impression is that the locomotive's number on the bunker is a little on the small side compared to my memory of other photos and of the reality, which may be worth a look if you hadn't already intended to.

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

 

Thanks, Tony, and my apologies to all for swamping the thread with replies. I'm a  believer in knowing when to stop! The starting point for this model was a 1980 Hornby chassis with crude wheels and an open-frame motor which didn't run well, so any improvement on that is a bonus since I now have a model that can actually be used on the layout.

 

I'll scuttle off now as I don't wish to detract from those fantastic V2s! Gresley envy!

'Swamping' a thread with replies is something to be encouraged. I've learned plenty in the last few days.

 

I think Tony Gee is right in suggesting you've gone far enough with the Fowler 2-6-4T. 

 

However (typically me), might I suggest you look at the size of the loco's bunker-side numbers? They look too small to me.

 

Oops! Should have read the previous post before I posted this..................

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited June 17, 2020 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, landscapes said:

Hi Tony

 

Many thanks for the information.

 

Do you know if the Isinglass Drawings of the A2/1 would show enough detail to make one?

 

Regards

 

David

Probably not, David,

 

Just looking at the Isinglass A2/1 drawing (No. 4/383) the brackets are shown in side elevation (which gives you their depth) but not in front.

 

I must admit to not using a drawing when making mine. I just looked at prototype pictures and guesstimated the size! I just sweated two pieces of brass together and cut/filed them to what I thought looked the right size, separating them once happy. Slipshod modelling? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[landscapes]

56 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Probably not, David,

 

Just looking at the Isinglass A2/1 drawing (No. 4/383) the brackets are shown in side elevation (which gives you their depth) but not in front.

 

I must admit to not using a drawing when making mine. I just looked at prototype pictures and guesstimated the size! I just sweated two pieces of brass together and cut/filed them to what I thought looked the right size, separating them once happy. Slipshod modelling? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Hi Tony

 

Thank you for taking the time to look at the drawing for me.

 

I think your idea is the best option.

 

Regards

 

David

 

 

 

[t-b-g]

4 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

 

Thanks, Tony, and my apologies to all for swamping the thread with replies. I'm a  believer in knowing when to stop! The starting point for this model was a 1980 Hornby chassis with crude wheels and an open-frame motor which didn't run well, so any improvement on that is a bonus since I now have a model that can actually be used on the layout.

 

I'll scuttle off now as I don't wish to detract from those fantastic V2s! Gresley envy!

 

If it is all helping you get a better loco, it is worthwhile. It is nice seeing somebody take the trouble that you are doing to "make a job" of it.

 

A few cosmetic bits on the body and you will be done.

 

 

[Headstock]

The Tebay Fowler bankers, were constructed using the old Hornby body on a Comet chassis. They also used the Westward/Perseverance detailing kits for the BR modified versions of the original and the side window cab variant.

 

They did ride slightly high in terms of bufferbeam height. I have measured one up this evening. However, if the body had been lowered anymore, the connecting rods would have disappeared behind the tank sides when at the top of the stroke. The main discrepancy in the ride height is accounted for by the bufferbeam being too high, probably to accommodate the giant Hornby coupling on the original. As a result, and as has been surmised on here, the front platform was also too high in relation to the centreline of the boiler and the running board above the cylinders, the extra space being taken out of the drop curve in the running board. The overall height was ok, when model wheels as opposed to real wheels are taken into account.

 

By 1947, all the Fowler 4 MT tanks had received, amongst other details, outside steam pipes, Stannier chimneys, new tank and bunker vent pipes, and access covers to the new cylinders.

 

42380 in the shot below, was one of the stud of Tebay banking locomotives. As you can see the height discrepancy is only minor, an enterprising model would be able to chop off the front end and lower the bufferbeam and forward platform if they so wished. The locomotive was built and painted by Ron Hodge of Shipley model railway society, a dear friend, who recently and sadly passed away. The photograph (pre digital) is courtesy of Derek Shore.

 

 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Headstock
add info on platform height.

[Clem]

Good morning Tony, Andrew and all. A quick question. The first carriage in the photo below. Am I correct in thinking it's a GC 60' non-corridor third? The second two are a diagram 338 and, I think possibly a diagram 246 (but the destination boards make me wonder whether in fact it may be a Gresley corridor). Thanks.

 

Clem

 

[Chas Levin]

On 16/06/2020 at 08:35, dibateg said:

I abhor those glass fibre brushes and I never use them. The fibres get every where and stick in my fingers ( Tony would probably say I'm soft anyway! ) I tend to use emery sticks and a miniature circular wire brush in the mini drill.  

 

And my painters are happy, Paul Moore painted this for me. It's a CPL GW horsebox I built for a client. I keep saying to him if he doesn't want these terrible models, I'll keep them. No luck as yet....

 

 

Regards

Tony

Gorgeous model!  Please excuse me if this is a silly question, but what gauge is it?

 

[Headstock]

28 minutes ago, Clem said:

Good morning Tony, Andrew and all. A quick question. The first carriage in the photo below. Am I correct in thinking it's a GC 60' non-corridor third? The second two are a diagram 338 and, I think possibly a diagram 246 (but the destination boards make me wonder whether in fact it may be a Gresley corridor). Thanks.

 

Clem

 

 

 

Good morning Clem,

 

the photo looks like one of the three sets (originally five sets) that I built last year, BT(7) ex GC / CL (3-4) Thompson / BT (5) Gresley. They operated mostly North and south on the GC line but at least one ran a trip each day out on your line.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Headstock
stupid thing posted before ready

[Clem]

Thanks Andrew, now you've pointed it out, I can see clearly that the first carriage is a BT. The train is in one of the North bays at Nottingham Victoria and as such probably either a Mansfield or Pinxton train - or just possibly one of the short lived Sutton-in-Ashfield trains that just lasted a few months in 1956. 

[dibateg]

Morning Chas - I should have said - it's O gauge. Another one of those models I've made for someone that I would have liked to have kept. Fortunately, I'm concentrating on some of my own projects this year.

 

I'm very impressed with that printed V2 Tony, it looks just right.

 

That coach certainly looks like a GC one Clem, I wonder if there is an O gauge version......

 

Regards

Tony

[Paul Cram]

7 hours ago, Headstock said:

The Tebay Fowler bankers, were constructed using the old Hornby body on a Comet chassis. They also used the Westward/Perseverance detailing kits for the BR modified versions of the original and the side window cab variant.

 

They did ride slightly high in terms of bufferbeam height. I have measured one up this evening. However, if the body had been lowered anymore, the connecting rods would have disappeared behind the tank sides when at the top of the stroke. The main discrepancy in the ride height is accounted for by the bufferbeam being too high, probably to accommodate the giant Hornby coupling on the original. As a result, and as has been surmised on here, the front platform was also too high in relation to the centreline of the boiler and the running board above the cylinders, the extra space being taken out of the drop curve in the running board. The overall height was ok, when model wheels as opposed to real wheels are taken into account.

 

By 1947, all the Fowler 4 MT tanks had received, amongst other details, outside steam pipes, Stannier chimneys, new tank and bunker vent pipes, and access covers to the new cylinders.

 

42380 in the shot below, was one of the stud of Tebay banking locomotives. As you can see the height discrepancy is only minor, an enterprising model would be able to chop off the front end and lower the bufferbeam and forward platform if they so wished. The locomotive was built and painted by Ron Hodge of Shipley model railway society, a dear friend, who recently and sadly passed away. The photograph (pre digital) is courtesy of Derek Shore.

 

 

That is some of the most realiatic brickwork on a river bridge I have seen. Which layout is this?

[Headstock]

53 minutes ago, Clem said:

Thanks Andrew, now you've pointed it out, I can see clearly that the first carriage is a BT. The train is in one of the North bays at Nottingham Victoria and as such probably either a Mansfield or Pinxton train - or just possibly one of the short lived Sutton-in-Ashfield trains that just lasted a few months in 1956. 

 

Morning Clem,

 

based on your information, it's likely to be the 1.15 pm service to Mansfield. The train will have worked into Nottingham from Woodford. It will return to Nottingham as the 2.24 pm ex Mansfield and then work the 4.05 pm to Grantham. On returning to Nottingham, it will work ESC to New Basford, with a second gangway set attached.

 

Incidentally, I entirely forgot, I did a breakdown of all passenger sets running on the Grantham Notts Derby lines. Amongst other things, there were three articulated sets operating two round trips per day. One set was the familiar dia 210 combo, the second was a BT(6) - T(8) twin x2, plus CL formation. The third, I initially thought it was a misprint in the CWN's, as it looked like a dia 210 set but with only a five compartment brake. That was until the same typo appeared across different years of the CWN's. Finally, I tracked down a photo, the set is ex GN, BT (5) - CL (2-5) twin x2 and T (10).

Edited June 18, 2020 by Headstock
clarify a point.

[Headstock]

7 minutes ago, Paul Cram said:

That is some of the most realiatic brickwork on a river bridge I have seen. Which layout is this?

 

Good morning Paul,

 

that would be the work of John Anderson of Shipley Model Railway Society, the layout is Tebay. It was a regular on the exhibition circuit for many years until it was sold to a private collector in the early 2000's. As far as I know it is still in existence.

[Tony Wright]

11 minutes ago, Paul Cram said:

That is some of the most realiatic brickwork on a river bridge I have seen. Which layout is this?

Good morning Paul,

 

Tebay, built by members of the Shipley Club, many years ago.

 

A magnificent achievement.

 

I photographed it for BRM (can't show in here because it was all shot on medium-format transparency) and it appeared in several issues.

 

Regards,

 

Tony.