4 SUB Unit 4377, Bulleid 2 HAP upgrade - plus all matters third rail.

[Colin parks]

I am Colin.

 

I found a company that supply the DCC concepts pick ups only. £4 odd for a pack of 10. I've amassed some scrap Hornby pullmans which are giving up their interiors and their wheels. The Brake 3rd and Parlour 3rd are pretty much a straight swap, but my Kitchen 1st has proved somewhat more difficult.

 

The wiring passes below the interior but above the chassis so there should be no escape of light between chassis and bogie.

 

Cheers.

 

Sean.

Hi Sean,

 

The wiring should be quite straightforward from what you say about the Pullmans. I was thinking: if these spring pick-ups only collect power from one wheel, then pick-ups on all wheels might be necessary to keep the lighting from flickering.

 

(Although I can remember trips back from Chichester to Brighton in the sixties where the lights did really go out when the train 'gapped'! Must have been a 4 SUB.)

 

All the best,

 

Colin

Edited September 20, 2013 by Colin parks

[the penguin of doom]

Hi Colin.

 

I see you have popped in on my thread, so will know you are quite correct in saying that each axle "should" have a pick up fitted to eliminate flicker. I linked both pick ups on each bogie by soldering, (poorly), a short piece of wire and then having just one wire going through the bogie, up into the body itself. I repeated this on the second bogie and, hopefully, with a 10ft wheelbase bogie, any flicker will have been eliminated.

 

With only 3 coaches, the cost of these pickups was quite cheap for the effect achieved and much cheaper than the full set up from DCC concepts which I believe is in the region of £70 per coach. Mine have worked out less than a tenner each!

 

Cheers.

 

Sean.

[Colin parks]

Hi Colin.

 

I see you have popped in on my thread, so will know you are quite correct in saying that each axle "should" have a pick up fitted to eliminate flicker. I linked both pick ups on each bogie by soldering, (poorly), a short piece of wire and then having just one wire going through the bogie, up into the body itself. I repeated this on the second bogie and, hopefully, with a 10ft wheelbase bogie, any flicker will have been eliminated.

 

With only 3 coaches, the cost of these pickups was quite cheap for the effect achieved and much cheaper than the full set up from DCC concepts which I believe is in the region of £70 per coach. Mine have worked out less than a tenner each!

 

Cheers.

 

Sean.

Hi Sean,

 

Yes those coaches do look good lit up and very atmospheric. On my layout it is forever mid-day, so no lights!

 

All the best,

 

Colin

[Colin parks]

The underframe equipment is in the process of being made.

 

I wasn't happy with the crude looking resistance banks of the 4 COR, so this time the fronts were made together to try and get some uniformity. I quite like this photo as the finished but still conjoined resistance front panels look a bit abstract - like some kind of fancy Victorian iron work. (Incidentally, this is the second set of these parts as the first ones were too wide as a result of a miscalculation - grrr.!)

 

 

The result of all this labour is mostly hidden behind the trusses, but it is all there:

 

 

There must be some economy of scale in doing two motor coaches at once, at least that is what I keep telling myself.....

 

Colin

Edited September 21, 2013 by Colin parks

[HAB]

Great stuff as ever Colin!

 

Just a question - is there a reason why you don't make multiple items like the grids by laminating a number of layers together before cutting then separating?

 

Best wishes,

[Siberian Snooper]

Hi Sean,Yes those coaches do look good lit up and very atmospheric. On my layout it is forever mid-day, so no lights!All the best,Colin

Yes I've been down the Brighton line once or twice with no lighting on in the various tunnels, us older kids use to frighten the life out of the littluns given half a chance.

 

SS

[the penguin of doom]

Hi Sean,Yes those coaches do look good lit up and very atmospheric. On my layout it is forever mid-day, so no lights!All the best,Colin

Ah, but on a Pullman Colin, the opulance dictates that table lamps are mandatory. Mine work with some Bachmann Mk1's, so they stood out, having none in the older cars.

 

Cheers.

 

Sean.

[Colin parks]

Great stuff as ever Colin!

 

Just a question - is there a reason why you don't make multiple items like the grids by laminating a number of layers together before cutting then separating?

 

Best wishes,

Hi Howard,

 

I'm not quite sure which parts you refer to. The material used for making the fronts and backs is 20 thou. plastic sheet. (I am presuming what you call 'grids' are the resistances themselves.) Much thicker than that and it's difficult to cut squarely, so several layers of it would be pretty hard work!

 

The technique you describe would work well if using brass which can be temporarily soldered together then separated after shaping.

 

All the best,

 

Colin

[Colin parks]

Some steady but slow progress is being made on the underframes.

 

The trouble with having really good pictures as reference is that more and more small details can be added that I was unaware of before. Adding the catches arranged at random angles was curiously satisfying - if not a little time-consuming. I have used the RMweb Gallery images of 2 BIL 2090 by Godfrey Glyn for getting a clear idea of the shape of many of the parts, along with some photos of the 4 COR motor coach taken at Horsted Keynes earlier this year.

 

The large equipment boxes are about the easiest items to make. These are an improvement on those fitted to the 4 COR, which had its handles fitted too high. (Will have to attend to that loose solebar flange!)

 

 

More white goods in the form of the Arc Chutes and cases. I have no idea what was in the cases, or for that matter, the boxes on their l/h sides.

 

 

After all the different methods used to construct the fuse box brackets, I have settled on using upholstery staples suitably cut and bent to shape - as seen above.

 

Most of the work is identical to that of the 4 COR, but once all the chassis are completed there will be some photos of them side-on which might be useful as a reference in the future (especially for me).

 

Colin

Edited September 24, 2013 by Colin parks

[HAB]

Hi Howard,

 

I'm not quite sure which parts you refer to. The material used for making the fronts and backs is 20 thou. plastic sheet. (I am presuming what you call 'grids' are the resistances themselves.) Much thicker than that and it's difficult to cut squarely, so several layers of it would be pretty hard work!

 

The technique you describe would work well if using brass which can be temporarily soldered together then separated after shaping.

 

All the best,

 

Colin

 

Hi Colin and thanks for that.

 

I did really mean the grid covers rather than the grids themselves.  The reason I asked is that I am no expert in plastic stuff but I did see an article in one of the mags where a chap used the lamination technique for plastic card - just tacking it round the edges with solvent (including one "finished edge" to hold it together) then separating with the scalpel after all was done and it seemed to work fine.  He was making (ISTR) station canopy brackets.  (Perhaps someone will recall the details of the article)

 

I am just about to set out making up some bits for a Roxey 2NOL (final batch) underframe with English Electric 1936 equipment - so (rather than buy the Roxey kit for the bits) I might give it a try and see how it goes.  I at least have the advantage of having yours to copy from!

 

Many thanks for the continuing inspiration!

 

[bTW, behind the arc chute was the Line Breaker - when the driver shut off power (or let go of the deadmans!) the line breaker would open, disconnecting all the traction circuits from the Line with - if the unit had been working hard at the time - a loud "POP" and a big blue flash out of the arc chute!]

[Colin parks]

Hi Colin and thanks for that.

 

I did really mean the grid covers rather than the grids themselves.  The reason I asked is that I am no expert in plastic stuff but I did see an article in one of the mags where a chap used the lamination technique for plastic card - just tacking it round the edges with solvent (including one "finished edge" to hold it together) then separating with the scalpel after all was done and it seemed to work fine.  He was making (ISTR) station canopy brackets.  (Perhaps someone will recall the details of the article)

 

I am just about to set out making up some bits for a Roxey 2NOL (final batch) underframe with English Electric 1936 equipment - so (rather than buy the Roxey kit for the bits) I might give it a try and see how it goes.  I at least have the advantage of having yours to copy from!

 

Many thanks for the continuing inspiration!

 

[bTW, behind the arc chute was the Line Breaker - when the driver shut off power (or let go of the deadmans!) the line breaker would open, disconnecting all the traction circuits from the Line with - if the unit had been working hard at the time - a loud "POP" and a big blue flash out of the arc chute!]

Hi Howard,

 

Not been put off making a 4 SUB yet?! The mass-production you describe worked for that chap, but I find cutting through multiple thicknesses of plastic sheet leads to challenges such as cutting vertically through thicker material and the amount of pressure on the blade increases too. The side-to-side method featured in the photo of mine does have its advantages in that the holes and so on can be marked out to ensure all is level. It only took about 20 mins. to make 24 covers and I could have saved time by not drilling holes in the rear ones. (Although I'm pleased now that they are there.)

 

That 2 NOL should make a handsome model. Will we get to see pictures of your project? Re. the 1936 equipment you mention, it must be very similar to that under the 4 SUBs, as I believe (could be wrong - often am) that the 4 SUBs were designed to be compatible with pre-WWII units such as the NOLs, BILs and so on. The 2 NOLs ran regularly on services to Newhaven until their demise.

 

Thanks for the explanation of the arc chute's function - I had often wondered what it was for.

 

All the best,

 

Colin

[HAB]

Hi Colin,

 

Many thanks for that - and for your comments on the "lamination approach" - I will give both approaches a go as I am still in the learning phase with this plastic stuff!.  Far from being put off the SUB, I am very keen to give it a go, but still pondering methods: first stepping stone will be an augmentation trailer!

 

Quick snap of the NOL - a million things to do but already I see from the pic that the lamp irons and body stops have gone askew, the driver's door handle has broken off, and worst of all, the release handles on the lighting and power jumper dummy receptacles are pointing up and should point down.  Will try harder next time...

 

 

I think this pic helps me to understand why scratch building has its appeals over a kit - I spent ages fettling the lost-wax castings for the jumper gear - probably longer than you would spend on a whole driving end - and it still looks pretty rubbish. Then again, my scratch building might look a lot worse but I would only have myself to blame!!

 

I also understand that the 1936 equipment is common to the SUBs and indeed the Bils etc.  I chose to go for that as the underframe on the Metrovick DMTB looks very bare - people might think I had just left the bits off!

 

Best wishes,

[Ceptic]

Never mind the bits dropping off / upside down, it's still looking good...

[Guest oldlugger]

Nice work so far, Colin and Howard! The 2 NOL is looking most promising Howard...

 

All the best

Simon

[HAB]

Thanks for the encouragement chaps - will update as (hopefully) progress is made.

 

Cheers,

[Colin parks]

Hi Colin,

 

Many thanks for that - and for your comments on the "lamination approach" - I will give both approaches a go as I am still in the learning phase with this plastic stuff!.  Far from being put off the SUB, I am very keen to give it a go, but still pondering methods: first stepping stone will be an augmentation trailer!

 

Quick snap of the NOL - a million things to do but already I see from the pic that the lamp irons and body stops have gone askew, the driver's door handle has broken off, and worst of all, the release handles on the lighting and power jumper dummy receptacles are pointing up and should point down.  Will try harder next time...

 

NOL Small -1.jpg

 

I think this pic helps me to understand why scratch building has its appeals over a kit - I spent ages fettling the lost-wax castings for the jumper gear - probably longer than you would spend on a whole driving end - and it still looks pretty rubbish. Then again, my scratch building might look a lot worse but I would only have myself to blame!!

 

I also understand that the 1936 equipment is common to the SUBs and indeed the Bils etc.  I chose to go for that as the underframe on the Metrovick DMTB looks very bare - people might think I had just left the bits off!

 

Best wishes,

Thanks for sharing that picture with us Howard!

 

The kit looks to be a very nice one indeed. There are some advantages to scratch-building, but not when a high quality product is available like the Roxey 2 NOL. The only tweaks I would make is to have separate MU cables, fitted post-painting of the body and to add some rivet detail to the bogie etchings (I note you have a bolster castings on the pictured bogie - mine came without them!). I used a Roxey trailing pick-up bogie under my 2 HAL, and managed an element of compensation by only soldering the transoms to one corner at each end. This also allowed removal of the wheels if necessary.

 

One small point is that the model's running boards seem wider than prototype photos would suggest and the upstand of the brackets would be slightly wider in shape with a two rivet fixing to the solebar. That is no criticism of you or your work though, I never even used to model such things as running board brackets.

 

There seems to be quite a lot of difference in the layout/position of the control equipment on the 2 NOLs, when compared to later EMUs. From what I have read and can tell looking at pictures, some of the gear was inside the motor coach rather than underneath - lucky you!

 

All the best,

 

Colin

[HAB]

Many thanks Colin.  In truth, the kit presents quite a number of challenges!   Re bogie rivets, the trailer bogies do have half etched dimples to locate the rivets - but not the shoe gear bogie! I am hoping that the shoe beam and shoe fuse box will hide the lack. I chickened out of separate MU cables as it means drilling a hole in the end of the (hard brass) castings - but it would make the driving ends look a lot better - we will see what happens on the motor end.  Re the step boards, I agree - the underframe is about 0,5mm over width over the step boards - a fact which I only discovered when I trial fitted the body - yet it looks worse than that and I have yet to fathom out why...

 

I confess I don't I bother with compensation for bogies but I can see why you might need it for 00

 

Just re the electrical gear: not sure if you are aware, but only the last batch of Nols were fitted with the 1936 (EE) equipment - all the rest had Metrovick which was all in a body mounted cubicle.  So my choice of going for one of those from the last batch is a bit perverse really!

 

 

Cheers,

 

[Colin parks]

Many thanks Colin.  In truth, the kit presents quite a number of challenges!   Re bogie rivets, the trailer bogies do have half etched dimples to locate the rivets - but not the shoe gear bogie! I am hoping that the shoe beam and shoe fuse box will hide the lack. I chickened out of separate MU cables as it means drilling a hole in the end of the (hard brass) castings - but it would make the driving ends look a lot better - we will see what happens on the motor end.  Re the step boards, I agree - the underframe is about 0,5mm over width over the step boards - a fact which I only discovered when I trial fitted the body - yet it looks worse than that and I have yet to fathom out why...

 

I confess I don't I bother with compensation for bogies but I can see why you might need it for 00

 

Just re the electrical gear: not sure if you are aware, but only the last batch of Nols were fitted with the 1936 (EE) equipment - all the rest had Metrovick which was all in a body mounted cubicle.  So my choice of going for one of those from the last batch is a bit perverse really!

 

 

Cheers,

Hi Howard,

 

I was thinking about those 2 NOL running boards and I bet you'll find that the designer of the kit has not allowed for the thickness of their brackets and the resultant gap (x2). That will probably add up to the extra width you have got.

 

On the 4 SUB being made, the boards are fixed to the solebar channel and the brackets represented above and below. With plastic, this makes for a much stronger build, although I compromised on the overall width at 35.5mm instead of 36mm so that the boards did not look too wide.

 

I seem to remember making new shoe fuse boxes and not using those that came with the bogie. They seemed an unusual shape - unless that had something to do with the Metrovick equipment. It would be interesting to see a photo of what the underframe equipment looks like on your EE fitted 2 NOL in comparison to a typical 4SUB's arrangement - when you get that far.

 

Those 2 NOLs went on to donate their chassis to the last of the units built with the 4 SUB jigs at Eastleigh, namely the 2 EPBs. The work of demolishing the bodies was undertaken at, you've guessed it, Newhaven Town! (As a (small) child, I can still remember the smoke from the fires at the demolition site being visible for miles. I think that it went on until 1964, by which time most if not all pre-group, wooden bodied stock had been eradicated from the system.)

 

All the best,

 

Colin

Edited September 26, 2013 by Colin parks

[HAB]

Hi Howard,

 

I was thinking about those 2 NOL running boards and I bet you'll find that the designer of the kit has not allowed for the thickness of their brackets and the resultant gap (x2). That will probably add up to the extra width you have got.

 

On the 4 SUB being made, the boards are fixed to the solebar channel and the brackets represented above and below. With plastic, this makes for a much stronger build, although I compromised on the overall width at 35.5mm instead of 36mm so that the boards did not look too wide.

 

I seem to remember making new shoe fuse boxes and not using those that came with the bogie. They seemed an unusual shape - unless that had something to do with the Metrovick equipment. I would be interesting to see a photo of what the underframe equipment looks like on your EE fitted 2 NOL in comparison to a typical 4SUB's arrangement - when you get that far.

 

 

 

Hi Colin,

 

I think you are on to something with the step boards there - now I have to work out what to do about it as it certainly shows!  I agree also that the shoe fuse boxes can be improved on and the same is true of the line fuses - good place to start my scratch building practice!

 

Re the layout of the underframe, I have not so far come across any definitive information other than what can be gleaned from photos.  To some extent therefore I am reliant on guestimation. Now a comment like that normally has followers of this thread running for their negatives / drawings / notebooks, but I am less than optimistic that even they could help with just 8 2Nol units!

 

Best wishes,

Edited September 26, 2013 by HAB

[Colin parks]

Hi Colin,

 

I think you are on to something with the step boards there - now I have to work out what to do about it as it certainly shows!  I agree also that the shoe fuse boxes can be improved on and the same is true of the line fuses - good place to start my scratch building practice!

 

Re the layout of the underframe, I have not so far come across any definitive information other than what can be gleaned from photos.  To some extent therefore I am reliant on guestimation. Now a comment like that normally has followers of this thread running for their negatives / drawings / notebooks, but I am less than optimistic that even they could help with just 8 2Nol units!

 

Best wishes,

Hi Howard,

 

I do have a bit of line fuse box 'section', made from laminations of plastic strip, left over from making the 4 SUB if you would like some.

 

There are a few shots of the 'EE' fitted 2 NOLs in the David Brown Southern Electric Vol. II. In fact, despite their scarcity, there appear to be two photos of your chosen 2 NOL type. The grids are fairly easy to see as being in the same place. On the opposite side, the compressor looks to be as per the 4 SUB position.

 

I can see that the 'EE' cab front layout is rather easier to replicate than the 'Metrovick' fitted batch, which had their train line conduit running up the cab front and onto the roof.

 

All the best,

 

Colin (Edited as some comments were based on looking at a photo of the wrong type of 2 NOL!)

Edited September 27, 2013 by Colin parks

[HAB]

I do have a bit of line fuse box 'section', made from laminations of plastic strip, left over from making the 4 SUB if you would like some.

 

There are a few shots of the 'EE' fitted 2 NOLs in the David Brown Southern Electric Vol. II. In fact, despite their scarcity, there appear to be two photos of your chosen 2 NOL type. The grids are fairly easy to see as being in the same place. On the opposite side, the compressor looks to be as per the 4 SUB 

 

Many thanks for the kind offer which I will of course gratefully accept! Address will be on the way...

 

Are you sure there are a few?  I only found one - of 1883 (p101) as the others seem to show 1826, 1862 and 1822 (p20) which are Metrovick fitted.   The shot of the other side you describe (p103?) is a Metrovick version as you should be able to see the Reverser, Line beaker and main equipment boxes with the Main res. to the rear. 

 

However, from the p101 shot and a couple of shots of the similar Subs, I am leaning to a theory that the layout was the same as the first production series of Bils - with EE equipment and the 90 ton end load underframe.  That is just a theory but it is (tenuously) supported by the sketch layout supplied in the kit (which refers actually to the SUB version) which is the same as my Hornby BIL.  Are you feeling that your SUB would have the same layout?

 

And having said that - I  just looked at said BIL and I can't see a compressor anywhere - has mine fallen off en-route from the People's Republic?

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Howard.

[Colin parks]

Many thanks for the kind offer which I will of course gratefully accept! Address will be on the way...

 

Are you sure there are a few?  I only found one - of 1883 (p101) as the others seem to show 1826, 1862 and 1822 (p20) which are Metrovick fitted.   The shot of the other side you describe (p103?) is a Metrovick version as you should be able to see the Reverser, Line beaker and main equipment boxes with the Main res. to the rear. 

 

However, from the p101 shot and a couple of shots of the similar Subs, I am leaning to a theory that the layout was the same as the first production series of Bils - with EE equipment and the 90 ton end load underframe.  That is just a theory but it is (tenuously) supported by the sketch layout supplied in the kit (which refers actually to the SUB version) which is the same as my Hornby BIL.  Are you feeling that your SUB would have the same layout?

 

And having said that - I  just looked at said BIL and I can't see a compressor anywhere - has mine fallen off en-route from the People's Republic?

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Howard.

Hi Howard,

 

I have already confessed in a pm that I was wrong about one of the 2 NOL photos! From all the evidence (1 photo in the book plus some web ones, I'd say you are right about the layout being the same as the 2 BILs from 2011-2116.

 

Now strangely, as you asked about the 4 SUB layout, I looked on my drawing and found there is no compressor drawn in. I checked the 2 HAL drawing I have and that doesn't show one either. Then I checked my Horribly 2 BIL and there isn't one there - never has been! (The drawings are by the same person who supplied Hornby with the 2 BIL drawing so you can 'draw' your own conclusion as to what went wrong.) I guess I shall be making a third compressor and cradle assembly to rectify the omission.

 

Hornby are likely to produce a 2 HAL in the near future and perhaps we should all start lobbying Nick Scott at Hornby now for some basic improvements on the 2 BIL chassis that they will be using for it. (That and getting the 2 HAL's window shape, body and roof correct detail too!) Then again, it might already be too late....

 

All the best,

 

Colin

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi Colin and Howard

 

Are you talking about the Mike King drawings? If so Alistair Rolfe told me, that Mike did his drawings by measuring withdrawn stock. BR when they withdrew the SR EMUs recovered the compressors on withdrawal, hence no compressors on the drawings or any of the kits where the manufacturers have used Mike's excellent drawings.

[Colin parks]

Hi Colin and Howard

 

Are you talking about the Mike King drawings? If so Alistair Rolfe told me, that Mike did his drawings by measuring withdrawn stock. BR when they withdrew the SR EMUs recovered the compressors on withdrawal, hence no compressors on the drawings or any of the kits where the manufacturers have used Mike's excellent drawings.

Hi Clive,

 

Exactly right and from what you say, that would explain a lot! I hadn't even noticed the lack of a compressor or its cradle on the 4 SUB drawing as I am copying the method used on the ones on the 4 COR model while using notes and photos for reference. But to be fair, Mike King's 2 BIL drawing can't be as inaccurate as the Horribly 2 BIL - can it?!

 

Perhaps there will be an after-market opportunity for someone to produce the missing 2 BIL compressor parts....

 

All the best,

 

Colin

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi Clive,

 

Exactly right and from what you say, that would explain a lot! I hadn't even noticed the lack of a compressor or its cradle on the 4 SUB drawing as I am copying the method used on the ones on the 4 COR model while using notes and photos for reference. But to be fair, Mike King's 2 BIL drawing can't be as inaccurate as the Horribly 2 BIL - can it?!

 

Perhaps there will be an after-market opportunity for someone to produce the missing 2 BIL compressor parts....

 

All the best,

 

Colin

Hi Colin

 

There are quite a few model railway drawings in circulation that might not have been drawn from scratch, but used the work of others as a basis for their own. I quite often see the same error in drawings of a diesel locomotive and can trace back to the oldest version with that misinterpreted piece of information. Hornby could well have used another source for their drawings which relied on information from a Mike King drawing.

 

I have been told that Nick Campling claims that on his LNER coach drawings there is an intended error and that is repeated by other draftsmen.

 

I have learnt that drawings are only as good as the skill the draftsman has in interpreting the information he has been given. Same goes for model makers, some have a little information but use it to its fullest. Others can have a pile of information and somehow not quite achieve what they aim for.