Midland Railway Company

[calvin Streeting]

ELEGOO Saturn 192x120x200mm
Elegoo Mars 120x68x155mm (mine)

 

that extra 5 cm makes all the differance :) 

 

but i draw it whole, and plit if needed.. as i can always 1: use a print service 2: buy another printer :)

 

calvin

[calvin Streeting]

right test print 1st class compartment (hot of printer so not UV cured)

 

 

panel detail is visable, but might want to incress the depth of them (again fight scale v real world)

 

 

door handles and handrails, way to fine for real scale replication.  so..

• Thickern up and maybe embose of coach side
• use wire, and other materials

but it got most of the detail esp tiny hinges, and the vent outside looks scaled ok (but paint might fill the gaps quickly

 

the interor... :) happy with seats very with texture. , but luggage rail needs more to be thicker and maybe add a net representation, and vent needs a bit more thickness..

 

I suppected most of the thin parts would be sus.. but happy on the most part as is first print... 

and i have a ROOF :)  so its buffers, under frame and some amendments / tweeks

 

calvin :)

 

wonder what a O gauge would look like :) lol ... back to OO as havent got room for that

 

 

 

[Grahams]

On 10/01/2023 at 02:23, calvin Streeting said:

right test print 1st class compartment (hot of printer so not UV cured)

 

 

panel detail is visable, but might want to incress the depth of them (again fight scale v real world)

 

 

door handles and handrails, way to fine for real scale replication.  so..

• Thickern up and maybe embose of coach side
• use wire, and other materials

but it got most of the detail esp tiny hinges, and the vent outside looks scaled ok (but paint might fill the gaps quickly

 

the interor... :) happy with seats very with texture. , but luggage rail needs more to be thicker and maybe add a net representation, and vent needs a bit more thickness..

 

I suppected most of the thin parts would be sus.. but happy on the most part as is first print... 

and i have a ROOF :)  so its buffers, under frame and some amendments / tweeks

 

calvin :)

 

wonder what a O gauge would look like :) lol ... back to OO as havent got room for that

 

 

 

Calvin you are developing some very interesting CAD models. 

I would very much like to print a test in 5 inch gauge scale of 27 mm/ft. 

I'm just finishing a batch of wagon kits so I'll have capacity on my printers shortly. 

I'd have to make the underframe in laser cut steel and the bogie sides and frames also in steel. 

I already had a plan to draw a Midland clerestory carriage as my next project (maybe after the Midland single verandah brake van, which is very much requested) but if you would be prepared to share your model, it would speed up the process very much. 

[calvin Streeting]

1 hour ago, Grahams said:

Calvin you are developing some very interesting CAD models. 

I would very much like to print a test in 5 inch gauge scale of 27 mm/ft. 

I'm just finishing a batch of wagon kits so I'll have capacity on my printers shortly. 

I'd have to make the underframe in laser cut steel and the bogie sides and frames also in steel. 

I already had a plan to draw a Midland clerestory carriage as my next project (maybe after the Midland single verandah brake van, which is very much requested) but if you would be prepared to share your model, it would speed up the process very much. 

ooooh

 

intresting, i am sure i can share copies of the 3d models etc

 

and even tho i am working in oo scale, i am drawing correct scaled size and then making it larger / thicker to compensate for scale.. :) 

 

so lets see what we can do :)  as good to test models on other printers / systems / scales 

 

Many Thanks

calvin

 

I am atm thinking to print main underframe on fdm printer in ABS to get strenght / flexible base, and then resin body and maybe boogies for detail :) 

 

and i looked at your wagons :)  love the sprung buffers.. as was thinking obout the same lol 

Edited January 12, 2023 by calvin Streeting

[Grahams]

6 hours ago, calvin Streeting said:

ooooh

 

intresting, i am sure i can share copies of the 3d models etc

 

and even tho i am working in oo scale, i am drawing correct scaled size and then making it larger / thicker to compensate for scale.. :) 

 

so lets see what we can do :)  as good to test models on other printers / systems / scales 

 

Many Thanks

calvin

 

I am atm thinking to print main underframe on fdm printer in ABS to get strenght / flexible base, and then resin body and maybe boogies for detail :) 

 

and i looked at your wagons :)  love the sprung buffers.. as was thinking obout the same lol 

OK great. Very interesting. 

Maybe it's best to discuss by email rather than on here 

[Compound2632]

Here's a photo illustrating a classic item of Midland Railway station furniture, one that identifies the owning company without there being any other clue (unless you happen to know in advance that Oxenhope was a Midland station, of course):

 

 

[Embedded link to MRSC 99-0811; photo by Harold Wright, dated March 1906 .]

 

Traffic Committee minute No. 28738, 15 Nov 1894:

 

Indication of station names at railway stations.

                              The General Manager submitted letter from the Board of Trade, dated July 10th, 1894, addressed to the Secretary of the Railway Companies’ Association, respecting the indication of station names at railway stations, together with minute G.M. 1047 of the meeting of the General Managers’ Conference on the 8th November, 1894, when the communication from the Board of Trade, with others on the same subject from private individuals, was discussed.

                              Agreed that in future all station name boards when first put up, or when renewed, be made in the form of a double board joined together at an angle, and that the General Manager bring up a report showing to what extent the practice of placing the names of the stations on the platform lamps is now carried out.

 

[TNA RAIL 491/156]

[calvin Streeting]

now have underframe done.. mostly drawn for strenght (aka a bit thicker in places), ooo and buffers (but might compress them in a bit when i get to couplerings (thinking of adding a nem pocket to bogie.  

 

did these have much under the frame ?

 

calvin

 

ooh and trying a increased depth panel and embosed handrail version print atm so wonder if it will come out ok

 

[Nick Lawson]

@calvin Streeting I can't help noticing the splendid seating in your designs. When you have got your own coaches sorted, if the seats could also be made available separately  for filling out other errr ... "interiorly challenged" coach kits  that would be great.

[calvin Streeting]

12 minutes ago, Nick Lawson said:

@calvin Streeting I can't help noticing the splendid seating in your designs. When you have got your own coaches sorted, if the seats could also be made available separately  for filling out other errr ... "interiorly challenged" coach kits  that would be great.

that sounds like a good idea (and they are seperate objects so should be simple :)

 

 

in other news print is now curing but initial view is:

A: better panel defernition (as now 2x real scale)

B: "S" hand rails seem to look ok embosed on side.

C: end panel detail worked (handrails on here will be wire)

 

but todo

A: door handles need a bit more stability as still break easy

B: Lugage racks need more as even tho 3 times scale size are still failing, so i might figure out other methods, or seperatly print

C: side wall thickness might need to be more as now with deaper panels has made them very thin in places..

 

and 

A: need a bigger printer to print in one go, rather than spliting length :) any one got one , and want to see if it works ? (once sI have sorted A,B,C todos :)

 

Many thanks

 

Calvin

 

 

 

 

[Jol Wilkinson]

In my experience it is better to produce model components in materials best suited to the finished article. So while printing the carriage body can produce excellent results, vulnerable items such as handles may be better produced separately in more robust (for their size) materials. Adding them separately also can make painting and lining easier.

 

 

[calvin Streeting]

update.. i have altered boggies and printed a set .  (and used some temp wheels to make sure height is correct, as should be solid not spoked)

 

 

they are very detailed when compared to old Hornby ones (respraied old coaches)

 

next on to frame as i can print the 6 compartment 3rd class varient in one go on my printer (45feet on is just to big ) 

 

and then i can see if it roles 

 

calvin

 

 

[Compound2632]

The Midland Railway Society is holding a South East Area Meeting in Reading on Saturday 28 January. It's open to non-members - PM me for details.

[Citadel]

On 14/01/2023 at 12:10, Jol Wilkinson said:

In my experience it is better to produce model components in materials best suited to the finished article. So while printing the carriage body can produce excellent results, vulnerable items such as handles may be better produced separately in more robust (for their size) materials. Adding them separately also can make painting and lining easier.

 

 

 

Calvin, very impressed with the CADwork - puts my efforts to shame.  Think I echo Jol's comments above though.  Just got an etch back from PPD for the body of a MR 54' composite clerestory from the very early days of the Settle-Carlisle.

 

Slaters have some very nice door furniture in cast brass but expensive.  Put some door / grab handles on the etch to see how they turned out and was pleasantly surprised.  Not sure I'll get round to fitting the luggage racks though, will save them for LNWR picnic saloons etc. with those big windows....  

 

 

PM me if you would like me to send you some (indeed applies to anyone really, will just need a contribution to postage).  just about to submit another file for etching (M+C Composite) and there's some space left that will go to waste otherwise.

 

The 54' Composite runs on 6 wheel bogies.  Have etched the sideframes/footsteps etc. in brass but definitely need to get my mind round to 3D printing the springs / axleboxes.

 

 

Edited January 22, 2023 by Citadel

[Grahams]

On 21/01/2023 at 17:26, Citadel said:

The 54' Composite runs on 6 wheel bogies.

That's an interesting carriage. Can you give more information like a diagram number or lot number please?

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Grahams said:

That's an interesting carriage. Can you give more information like a diagram number or lot number please?

 

These are the 54 ft 12-wheelers of 1875, built by Ashburys (12) and Metropolitan (12 and then a further 20). They pre-date opening of the Litchurch Lane C&W Works so do not figure in the lot list and they seem to have been withdrawn c. 1907, just before the surviving carriage diagram books were compiled, or so it would seem. However, their drawing, Drg. 174, survives in the MRSC collection. I did a bit of a write-up here:

 

 

[Tricky]

I’ve posted this over on my own thread Monks Gate Models but thought you’d like to see it here too. It’s a Slaters van kit I’m building with sliding doors. Done using brass strip let into the top and bottom of the doors, running through brass angle. So far so good…! 
 

 

 

 

 

 

[Compound2632]

4 hours ago, Tricky said:

It’s a Slaters van kit I’m building with sliding doors. 

 

So you have managed to cut the door from the side leaving both in usable condition? 

 

In 4 mm scale, I've tinkered with modelling one not with functioning sliding doors but with the door fixed open. Not very successful so far; it's clearly going to need a pair of sides - one to contribute the main side and the other providing the door. That seems extravagant, but I suppose for a posed non-running model one could get away with the other side being blank plasticard!

[lezz01]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

So you have managed to cut the door from the side leaving both in usable condition? 

 

In 4 mm scale, I've tinkered with modelling one not with functioning sliding doors but with the door fixed open. Not very successful so far; it's clearly going to need a pair of sides - one to contribute the main side and the other providing the door. That seems extravagant, but I suppose for a posed non-running model one could get away with the other side being blank plasticard!

Maybe it would be better to fabricate the door and keep the sides.

Regards Lez.

[Tricky]

10 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

So you have managed to cut the door from the side leaving both in usable condition? 

 

In 4 mm scale, I've tinkered with modelling one not with functioning sliding doors but with the door fixed open. Not very successful so far; it's clearly going to need a pair of sides - one to contribute the main side and the other providing the door. That seems extravagant, but I suppose for a posed non-running model one could get away with the other side being blank plasticard!

I was indeed expecting to have to cut the door from the side, but to my pleasant surprise they come as separate parts in the 7mm kit. 

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Tricky said:

they come as separate parts in the 7mm kit. 

 

That's just putting temptation the modeller's way!

[Tricky]

Can I ask - when roughly did they begin re-building with brakes both sides?

[Tricky]

6 minutes ago, Tricky said:

Can I ask - when roughly did they begin re-building with brakes both sides?

Although….I’m building the kit to dia 361 fitted fruit van so vacuum brakes both sides from new…so ignore the last post! The instructions say 3’7” spokes wheels and screw couplings but it comes with 3’7” plain wheels and 3-link couplings. 

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Tricky said:

Can I ask - when roughly did they begin re-building with brakes both sides?

 

1 hour ago, Tricky said:

Although….I’m building the kit to dia 361 fitted fruit van so vacuum brakes both sides from new…so ignore the last post! The instructions say 3’7” spokes wheels and screw couplings but it comes with 3’7” plain wheels and 3-link couplings. 

 

Can of worms! Yesterday's visit to TNA going through Traffic Committee minutes, together with notes already made from the Carriage & Wagon Committee minutes, show that the lot list as quoted in Midland Wagons gives far too rosy a picture of the decision making process!

 

Consider lot 543, entered in August 1902, lot 563 of June 1903, and lot 585 of May 1904, a total of 2,800 vehicles. These have their origin in a Traffic Committee minute of July 1902, where the General Manager reported that 3,000 additional covered goods vans were required and the C&W Dept could build these as renewals of 3,393 ordinary open goods wagons.

 

In December 1902, it was resolved that 500 of these 3,000 should be fitted with louvres; in June 1903 this instruction was refined: they should all be given torpedo ventilators on the roof, 50 should be given passenger running gear for working on express passenger trains (D361, part of lot 563) and 100 through vacuum pipes and screw couplings for working on slow passenger trains (D364, part lot 543, the balance of 350 unpiped vehicles also being D364 and part of lot 543). Also in June 1903, it was instructed that 150 vans without louvres should be given passenger running gear (D360, part lot 563).

 

Then brakes, and relevant to your D361: in November 1903 it was ordered that hand brake levers be added to numerous goods vehicles with passenger undergear, including 200 covered vans in course of construction - i.e. all of lot 563. (Otherwise these vehicles would have been unbraked when the vacuum was released, which was no doubt being found an inconvenience.) This was initially on one side only, the Morton cam arrangement on the off-side being fitted from mid-1904.

 

Next, in Feb 1904, comes the instruction for 150 more covered vans to be fitted with passenger running gear - D360, lot 585. 

 

Then in April 1905, there is the instruction that 200 of the covered goods vans now on order be fitted with louvre ventilators in the ends, torpedo ventilators on the top, and double roofs. This doesn't correspond to any of the diagrams D360-D364 covered by lots 543, 563, and 585. In fact it seems to be a match for lot 608 of that month, which are noted in the lot list as banana vans, though the Traffic Committee's first call for banana vans is in August 1906, requesting the 300 vehicles that form lots 648 and 649. But at least lot 608 gives the missing 200 to make up the 3,000 ordered in July 1902.

 

But these lots don't cover all the covered vans being built as renewals  at this time. There were a further 4,230 8 ton vans of lots 503 of Jan 1901 (D362) and 562 of June 1903 (D357). The first can be traced back to a Traffic Committee minute of October 1900, which noted that renewals had been exceeding breakings-up at the rate of nearly 300 a month (the un-broken-up old wagons presumably becoming duplicate stock) and resolving that 150 per month of this excess build should be covered vans until 2,000 had been provided. There was some faffing about as it was realised that for the cost of renewing 2,000 ordinary open wagons, only 1,689 covered vans could be built, but that probably became the 1,734 of lot 503 (an excess of 45). The D357 vehicles were ordered by Traffic Committee minute No. 33069 of May 1903 which halted the building of 8-ton opens (D299) as renewals and instructed that the material in hand for more be used to build covered wagons, 2,500 of which would be equivalent in cost to 2,800 opens. According to the lot list, the final total fell short by four.

 

Then there's lot 625 of August 1905, for the most peculiar quantity of 471 vehicles (more D357):

 

Traffic Committee minute No. 33903 of 2 June 1904

Covered goods vans.

                              Referring to minute No. 33069

                              The General Manager reported that, when the present orders for covered goods wagons are completed, the stock will be 9,519, and that, in order to properly deal with the traffic requiring this class of vehicle, this number should be increased to 10,000.

                              Resolved that 481 additional covered goods vans be built in place of 581 ordinary goods wagons, and the matter was referred to the Carriage & Wagon Committee.

 

This little table is extracted from the six-monthly returns of stock broken up and built, from the C&W Committee minutes, and the six-monthly returns of working stock from the Reports and Accounts. Is it internally consistent or agree with the above? Does it heck?

 

 

The 232 vehicles built as additions to stock include the 200 banana vans of lots 648/9, the 12 motor car vans of lot 642, and possibly the 20 of lot 668.

[Compound2632]

4 hours ago, Tricky said:

Can I ask - when roughly did they begin re-building with brakes both sides?

 

Sorry, I got carried away and didn't properly answer this question, for non-vacuum-braked vans.

 

Vans built from early 1905 had the version of the Morton brake with both levers at the same end; from about Sept-Oct 1907 this was changed to the more familiar Morton arrangement with levers facing the right-hand end on both sides, using the cam arrangement on the offside, but still with brake blocks on the nearside. A drawing, Drg. 3190, was prepared in May 1909 for independent eitherside brakes for covered goods wagons, with long handle, but according to the lot list this wasn't applied until 1913, which seems to me unlikely since 12 ton mineral wagons, D352, were being so equipped from 1905. [This is pieced together from the TC / C&WC minutes and the C&W Drawings Register.]

[Compound2632]

Note the discrepancy between the 481 covered vans called for by TC minute No. 33903 and the 471 recorded for lot 625. I wonder if the difference explains that odd batch of 10 D299s, lot 632 of November 1905?