Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

So, some 22 or so years since it was first built, how is my Elizabethan rake holding up? Actually, not too well in a couple of cars' cases. I used EvoStik to hold the the Southern Pride sides on to the mutilated Bachmann donors and it's now 'sprung' on a couple of cars. I've had to re-stick them back with a sliver of superglue. I only noticed after taking a picture this morning. If nothing else, it reveals how searching a photograph can be compared with the naked eye. How long two of these cars have been running with panels 'flapping in the breeze', I have no idea. 

 

So, with repairs duly undertaken, here is the (principally) Thompson set. 

 

 

Andy York took a superb picture of this train on LB (with a different A4) which appeared in BRM some three or so years ago, in a similar position. It's probably better than this one, but mine does show the southbound train behind Haymarket's 60024 KINGFISHER (we always used this Pro-Scale A4 on the train when Stoke was exhibited). 

 

 

Tongue-in-cheek, I assume another photographer captured the same train a few seconds later racing through the station. 

 

 

And yet another one! This overhead view does illustrate how altering the roof profile of the earlier (grotty) Bachmann Thompsons makes a big difference, if only because the sharp angle near the cornice has been removed. 

 

 

The northbound train, with the Aberdeen pair of Mk.1s now leading. These were built by Dave Lewis from his own Southern Pride kits, painted to match the 'mirror' finish of the brass-sided cars. Speaking of reflected subjects, the Golden Age A4 at the front certainly gleams. MERLIN is another Haymarket favourite, but, as I've said before, I never use this now (other than to pose for this picture). It's a rather fine (if very expensive) RTR loco (getting on for ten times more than a Hornby equivalent), but, other than my earning enough money to pay for it, there's nothing of 'me' in this loco. It's just a possession (nice though it is). 

 

Another thing which comes to my mind when looking at this train is how long it takes to make-up the amount of locos and stock to fully-populate a main line depiction. In my own case (obviously with help), it's taken over 40 years and counting. The march of better RTR has made this sort of thing easier (the latest Bachmann Thompsons being a case in point), but that's only been relatively recently. If it's taken over 40 years, I don't think I ever had the foresight to consider what I might 'achieve'. I just kept going, building and building....................

 

 

 

 

 

Speaking of possessions, this loco won't be mine for much longer. As soon as I've painted it, it'll be handed over to a friend (in return for his weathering of locos/stock for me). Though it's nowhere in the same league as the Golden Age RTR loco, it's much so more 'mine' because I built it; from the latest SE Finecast/Nu-Cast 16XX kit. It really is a lovely kit to build, and my report on putting it together it will be in the RM. 

Edited January 12, 2017 by Tony Wright

[t-b-g]

The "million" has gone!

 

Many congratulations to Tony W and to all the others who have contributed to what is, in my view, the best and most interesting thread on RMWeb.

 

So we start the countdown to the second million...

 

Tony Gee

[Mike 84C]

Totally off modelling topics. This morning I watched an EWS cls 66 on the GN/GE joint, purr over Rowston crossing at about 50/60 mph with a container train. What price a 9f? could one after starting, time a train like that? I can imagine a very busy fireman! But I muse about it every time I see one!

[Headstock]

A Google search revealed this Scottish Society beautiful preserved Suburban example albeit BR numbering, any better/correct ( not to sure re the White handrails) ?.

 

A shame Hornby didn't make there ones similar to this livery.

 

1 lner suburban.jpg

Evening Mick,

 

again it has a stunning finish. However, it has a far more subtle look to it than that revealed on the original carriages in the photographs. The preserved example probably has more in common with the finish on the PV stock, though perhaps lacking in some detail flourishes. The general stock has much more of a 'streaky' look to it that runs the full length of the horizontal 'panels' for example. The painters must have learned a way of representing the arrow head waves of natural teak in a way that could be mass produced. The way that this is used looks a little like a repeat pattern, so it has that artificial look that you would associate with wallpaper. Oddly, this is the feature that Hornby have picked up on with their Thompson non-gangway stock, though it is very much a secondary element on the originals. I think that Hornby have represented it as more of a spiral or corkscrew, I can't say for sure as I have not seen one in the flesh.

 

In contrast to the graining, the difference between panels as regards depth of colour is probably less significant than that in the preserved examples. This is possibly why Martin Long recalls them as being a peculiar orange colour, the general impression comes across that way in the colour film I was examining. As I mention, the darker shades of The Gresley carriages enhances that view, though I must clarify that they are not dirty or disheveled in the film, indeed they have a lovely gloss finish. It is just the natural state of varnished teak, as it ages to a dark chocolate brown. The Gresley carriages that have obviously been through the works are much closer to the Thompsons.

 

With regard to the paneling, the thing I noticed about the open stock is that both third and first class have three panels lengthways down the carriage. There was also a different arrangement than expected as regards the uprights between the windows, they were divided in half to form two panels on at least some carriages, ( I don't have pictures of them all) rather than the single representation of the panel as seen on the trans vestibule stock

 

Finally, with regard to the grab handles. When the BR gunk is stripped away from Gresley carriages, the grab handles have been revealed as teak coloured or in some cases black. I would have thought the Thompson carriages would be the same.

[micklner]

I presume they used a type of stumbling for the "Teak" effect. I agree re the handrails most were Teak I believe. No idea where Hornby got their bizarre stripe effect idea !!. 

[peach james]

Totally off modelling topics. This morning I watched an EWS cls 66 on the GN/GE joint, purr over Rowston crossing at about 50/60 mph with a container train. What price a 9f? could one after starting, time a train like that? I can imagine a very busy fireman! But I muse about it every time I see one!

 

So, a 9F has 40 sq ft of grate, which would imply at grate limits, about 4000 lb/hr of coal burned, or about 2000 DBHP.   I understand that the working agreement between ASLEF and BR was 2200 lb/hr coal, so the limit is more the fireman than anything else.  A Class 66 is 3000 DBHP, so should be able to manage the train at about 1.25x the (point to point) speed (because accelerating the train will take 4x the power to double the speed).  Now, is the Shed at flat out to get the container train up to 60 MPH or not, I can't say.  

 

So, it is all a matter of how fast they want the train to go, and how hard they want to flog the 9F, vs the 66. If the train weighs 1150 tons, that would imply 78 hp/ft.   So a 2000 HP engine runs out of grunt on 1:100 at about 30 MPH, and 3000 would run out at about 45 MPH.  (that neglects all kinds of losses, but for us would at least get us in the ball park).

 

All in all, you really need 2 firemen, or a automatic stoker to get to >2000 HP.  

 

James

 

 

[LNER4479]

In September 1982, preserved 9F 92203 Black Prince set the record for the heaviest train ever hauled by a steam locomotive in Britain, when it started a 2,178-ton train at the Foster Yeoman quarry at Merehead, Somerset.

(from Wikipedia - but I do remember it being reported by Steam Railway at the time.)

[St Enodoc]

So, a 9F has 40 sq ft of grate, which would imply at grate limits, about 4000 lb/hr of coal burned, or about 2000 DBHP.   I understand that the working agreement between ASLEF and BR was 2200 lb/hr coal, so the limit is more the fireman than anything else.  A Class 66 is 3000 DBHP, so should be able to manage the train at about 1.25x the (point to point) speed (because accelerating the train will take 4x the power to double the speed).  Now, is the Shed at flat out to get the container train up to 60 MPH or not, I can't say.  

 

So, it is all a matter of how fast they want the train to go, and how hard they want to flog the 9F, vs the 66. If the train weighs 1150 tons, that would imply 78 hp/ft.   So a 2000 HP engine runs out of grunt on 1:100 at about 30 MPH, and 3000 would run out at about 45 MPH.  (that neglects all kinds of losses, but for us would at least get us in the ball park).

 

All in all, you really need 2 firemen, or a automatic stoker to get to >2000 HP.  

 

James

All good James, but of course the boiler and the engine capacity would have to match or exceed the firebox/grate capacity too.

 

Getting rather off topic so I'll leave it at that.

[chris p bacon]

I presume they used a type of stumbling for the "Teak" effect. I agree re the handrails most were Teak I believe. No idea where Hornby got their bizarre stripe effect idea !!. 

Scumbling or graining -  that's the term in decorating 

[jrg1]

Very impressed with the photographs of the Elizabethan sets-can you list the coach formation, please?  And congratulations 1,000,000 not out!

[mullie]

Well done on the milestone, well deserved by all involved.

 

A big thank you to all those who answered my query re tools for chassis building. As a lone modeller this is very much appreciated. I'm really looking forward to giving it a go even though I know there will be challenges. Biggest problem at the moment is that the garage is freezing- my only working space for such projects. I suspect it will be a month or so before I get started and I will use that time to acquire wheels, axles and the last few tools I need.

 

Martyn

[Headstock]

he

 

I presume they used a type of stumbling for the "Teak" effect. I agree re the handrails most were Teak I believe. No idea where Hornby got their bizarre stripe effect idea !!. 

 

Sort of, I'm not totally familiar with the effect used. I've often heard the term scumbling applied to the finish on the carriages. However, an artist would not recognize the term as such. Scumbling is an almost a dry brush technique where the paint is applied in a stabbing fashion allowing the bristles of a stiff brush to splay out. It creates a textured effect that leaves under painted areas to show through, it's a great effect to use on skies for example. The only commonality with the carriage is that the underpainting shows through. I would imagine a wet brush approach would be more appropriate to producing long streaky effects over a large area. In addition, the last thing that the painter would want is a textured finish.

[t-b-g]

Totally off modelling topics. This morning I watched an EWS cls 66 on the GN/GE joint, purr over Rowston crossing at about 50/60 mph with a container train. What price a 9f? could one after starting, time a train like that? I can imagine a very busy fireman! But I muse about it every time I see one!

 

Not a 9F but quite impressive.

 

 

 

That second loco produces 6,300hp and has a great whistle/hooter!

 

Loading gauge and the need to run trains that could fit loops and siding were the two biggest limiting factors in this country. There are only so many places you can put a boiler and big cylinders on a steam loco.

 

Mind you, there would be something a bit wrong if a modern Class 66 couldn't do a bit better than a steam design from 60 plus years ago.

[cctransuk]

he

 

 

Sort of, I'm not totally familiar with the effect used. I've often heard the term scumbling applied to the finish on the carriages. However, an artist would not recognize the term as such. Scumbling is an almost a dry brush technique where the paint is applied in a stabbing fashion allowing the bristles of a stiff brush to splay out. It creates a textured effect that leaves under painted areas to show through, it's a great effect to use on skies for example. The only commonality with the carriage is that the underpainting shows through. I would imagine a wet brush approach would be more appropriate to producing long streaky effects over a large area. In addition, the last thing that the painter would want is a textured finish.

 

Scrumble could / can? be obtained from good hardware stores and decorators' suppliers.

 

It was / is basically a varnish with some pigment, and is applied in a 'streaky' fashion to a lighter coloured undercoat to simulate wood grain.

 

I recall it as being a popular finish for front doors in the 1950s.

 

What the householders were trying to achieve is pretty much what the LNER did in later days, and what we do when trying to imitate the finish of varnished teak.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Tony Wright]

Very impressed with the photographs of the Elizabethan sets-can you list the coach formation, please?  And congratulations 1,000,000 not out!

Many thanks for your comments on the pictures. 

 

The Elizabethan I made is representative of the summer 1958 consist. That is, heading south from the loco,

 

Brake Gangwayed (with covered solebars), either E10E, E11E or E12E. 

First Corridor (with Ladies' Retiring Room, usually at the south end).

Restaurant First.

Restaurant Second Open.

Second Corridor.

Second Corridor.

Second Corridor.

Second Corridor.

All the above should have been Thompson pressure-ventilated stock, with covered solebars (apart from the RF, which never had the side extensions). I say 'should' because ordinary Thompson stock was occasionally substituted in the form of (usually) single cars. On occasions, Gresley stock was also substituted (even right up to the end, a Gresley RF was in one set in 1962). 

Second Corridor.

Brake Corridor Composite. 

The latter pair were Mk.1s and came from Aberdeen. 

 

Prior to 1957, the train was made up of 11 cars, including a Buffet Car. There was also a Third/Second Third Corridor with a Ladies' Retiring Room. This consist ran for one season in maroon. Prior to that, it was carmine/cream. It was rare to find a carmine/cream substitute in an all-maroon set, but it did happen.

 

After 1958, more Mk.1s began to appear in the train, making it look less harmonious. At weekends, it was often strengthened, though it was not non-stop. The loco worked through, but there was crew change at Newcastle. Strengtheners tended to be Mk.1s. 

 

As always, if you wish to model the train, consult as many prototype pictures as you can find. Speaking of modelling the train, Dave Lewis and I got things wrong at the start in arranging the sides on the etched sheets. We assumed, somewhat erroneously, that folk would want to model the whole PV set, so put more TKs on each sheet (there being just one each of the others). What happened? People bought the three-off cars in the form of the BG, FK and RSO. At one show, a guy bought three of each. Not wishing to spoil a sale, we told him that there were only ever three of these made and they'd never appear all together in a set. 'I like them', was the response. He bought no TKs. The sheets had to be altered in the end.

 

And a million views! My most grateful thanks to all who've looked at this thread, and, more especially, contributed to it. Those contributions have made it what it is.  

Edited January 12, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Clive Mortimore]

Last weekend Tony suggested that to stop the detail of the white plastic card being blurred out I didn't use the built in flash. Here is the result

 

The hinges show up now.

 

Thank you Tony.

[westerner]

Much better Clive!

[micklner]

he

 

 

Sort of, I'm not totally familiar with the effect used. I've often heard the term scumbling applied to the finish on the carriages. However, an artist would not recognize the term as such. Scumbling is an almost a dry brush technique where the paint is applied in a stabbing fashion allowing the bristles of a stiff brush to splay out. It creates a textured effect that leaves under painted areas to show through, it's a great effect to use on skies for example. The only commonality with the carriage is that the underpainting shows through. I would imagine a wet brush approach would be more appropriate to producing long streaky effects over a large area. In addition, the last thing that the painter would want is a textured finish.

 

When I was referring to scumbling without the previous t in the spelling  !!  it is done using this kind of paint . There are special brushes for the various graining effects as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I use a similar technique on my LNER Coaches models using a cream base paint then "Teak " with various  various shades of Brown , brushed on not using a stippled motion. It is very effective when done well on models and on full size objects.

 

 

I have just found this photo of the Thompson being brush painted using a similar method , on the LNERCA site

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lnerca/10652171064/

Edited January 12, 2017 by micklner

[Tony Wright]

Last weekend Tony suggested that to stop the detail of the white plastic card being blurred out I didn't use the built in flash. Here is the result

 

002a.jpg

The hinges show up now.

 

Thank you Tony.

It works, Clive. I'm glad I was able to help. 

 

Just one further thought.

 

How long was the exposure? The reason I ask this is that one never gets anything for nothing. By that I mean, though the roof detail is perfectly-exposed, some of the detail in the underframe is a bit lost in shadow. Try waving a torch beam at the bogies during the exposure (if it's long enough - the exposure, not the beam). I don't know what colour temperature your room lights are, but a torch beam shouldn't affect the colours too much (it doesn't need to be too strong). 

 

Another tip is to use tracing paper as a sort of mask, reducing the amount of light falling on the model, but only on to the roof. 

 

Just a few experiments, really, but the image you've posted is far better, anyway. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Headstock]

Scrumble could / can? be obtained from good hardware stores and decorators' suppliers.

 

It was / is basically a varnish with some pigment, and is applied in a 'streaky' fashion to a lighter coloured undercoat to simulate wood grain.

 

I recall it as being a popular finish for front doors in the 1950s.

 

What the householders were trying to achieve is pretty much what the LNER did in later days, and what we do when trying to imitate the finish of varnished teak.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

Thank's John, 

 

that makes sense. Coming from a painting rather than a painter and decorator background I tend to approach these kind of things from a different perspective but it amounts to the same thing. I just mix my own concoctions based on observation, observation and more observation.

Edited January 12, 2017 by Headstock

[Headstock]

When I was referring to scumbling without the previous t in the spelling  !!  it is done using this kind of paint . There are special brushes for the various graining effects as well.

 

1 lner ParsoGlaze-grained.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

I use a similar technique on my LNER Coaches models using a cream base paint then "Teak " with various  various shades of Brown , brushed on not using a stippled motion. It is very effective when done well on models and on full size objects.

 

 

I have just found this photo of the Thompson being brush painted using a similar method , on the LNERCA site

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lnerca/10652171064/

 

I don't think anybody would use stippling would they?

[coachmann]

When we moved to a newly built council house in 1955, we had all the living room doors scumbled, grained and varnished by a pro decorator. It was quite normal at the time. I did it in art school many years ago. You start with undercoat and then cream, then scumble. Dark brown paint can also be used to add effect. Special combs are used to grain and feather. Knots etc can be created. It is a slow drying process naturally. Varnish completes.

Edited January 12, 2017 by coachmann

[brack]

Not a 9F but quite impressive.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhgHrDbN4EU

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-QVxHIq6o

 

That second loco produces 6,300hp and has a great whistle/hooter!

 

Loading gauge and the need to run trains that could fit loops and siding were the two biggest limiting factors in this country. There are only so many places you can put a boiler and big cylinders on a steam loco.

 

Mind you, there would be something a bit wrong if a modern Class 66 couldn't do a bit better than a steam design from 60 plus years ago.

Beyer peacock sketched up some garratt designs within the British loading gauge that would've put the 9F to shame.

 

But given that in the steam era a freight was generally unfitted loose coupled 4 wheel stock and the loops/siding issue you mention, there wasn't that much point.

[Enterprisingwestern]

Scrumble could / can? be obtained from good hardware stores and decorators' suppliers.

 

It was / is basically a varnish with some pigment, and is applied in a 'streaky' fashion to a lighter coloured undercoat to simulate wood grain.

 

I recall it as being a popular finish for front doors in the 1950s.

 

What the householders were trying to achieve is pretty much what the LNER did in later days, and what we do when trying to imitate the finish of varnished teak.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

 

Popular until Barry Bucknell came along that is!

 

Mike.

[Black Marlin]

Can I please pose a question to all the Eastern/LNER modellers enjoying this thread?

My wife continues to demonstrate her general loveliness by having bought me Hornby's D16/3 'Claud Hamilton' for my birthday. I was running it on a parcels train and was all set to apply the appropriate headcode when I started to wonder: was Claud Hamilton, as the lone LNER-liveried apple-painted example, reserved for more august duties than mere parcels workings? In other words, does my photo below show a train that, while technically possible, never actually ran?

I've been struggling to find information on the actual day-to-day workings of Claud Hamilton, particularly in the 1930s, so any information would be most gratefully received.

Many thanks,

Gavin