Leaderboard

One layout scheme that has nagged me over the years has been that of a table-top modular system. That is, small scenic boards with simple track arrangements that can be plugged together in any configuration on a table top. I suppose it's just the next level up from set-track really. I've mentioned it before in an earlier post, but it didn't get much further at the time. However the idea has never completely gone away and the system of self-contained track modules that I'm currently using for Tweedale is a direct descendant, but for different reasons. Here the main purpose of the small modules is to allow easy construction on a workbench away from the layout itself. So far I have three of the boards wired up and working, but as yet without the scenery... Together they represent the line from Slaghill (background) to the Upper Tweedale exchange sidings (foreground), and provide enough scope for some simple shunting. Before adding more modules, I'll add scenery to these and experiment with different methods of lighting and presentation. 　 Now I hope you don't mind while I go off at a tangent for the rest of the post. As I had the boards lying around loose, I got to musing on the table-top system again, and wondered just how many workable combinations of these three modules I could make. As you can see, they consist basically of a small yard, a junction, and a loop. A quick calculation showed that in principle there were 72 possible ways they could be connected. However half of those were repeats (but rotated 180 degrees), while some others were unworkable as they would require additional headshunts. In the end I drew out the track plans on pieces of paper, shuffled them about, and whittled them down to 16 workable combinations... Furthermore there were also 8 workable configurations using just 2 out of the 3 modules... 　 For those who are into micro layouts and shunting puzzles, it seems to me this could form the basis for a small industrial shunting system, but with more operating flexibility than the usual micro. That is, once you get tired of the limitations of one configuration you could shuffle the modules for whole new operating experience. It must be said that some of the arrangements would be more satisfying to run than others. 　 Having got this far in my musing, the next obvious step was to consider taking such a system to an exhibition (which is unlikely but never say never). The first thing would be to pre-book a 6 foot table from the venue, then just take along a few modules, with some stock and a controller, and plonk them down in a random configuration on a dark cloth laid over the table. After a period of shunting I would then endeavour to amaze the onlookers, by taking it all apart and rearranging it into a new configuration (with a bit of showmanship and pizazz of course). Not only would it provide relief from the Small Layout Operating Boredom Syndrome, but it would also give the viewers a whole new perspective on the display. 　 Being set up on a table the viewpoint would be essentially birdseye, and I would make the most of this by giving the modules smoothly curved freeform edges, (bulging out to accomodate scenery), to give the overall display an eye-catching organic shape, as I've tried to depict in the diagrams above. To tidy it up I would also be inclined plug in rounded 'caps' with buffer stops to the truncated track ends. There would be no backscenes - the birdseye view combined with the dark tablecloth should be sufficient to frame the display. Scenically, I reckon a mine, quarry or other straggling single industry would work well. Another option might be an urban canyon, lining the tracks with factories and wharehouses, cropped at the module edges, but also with gaps between to provide interesting sight lines along the tracks for those with cameras or willing to stoop for an eye-level view. One thing that soon became obvious after playing around with these 2'6" modules, is that for the table-top system I'm describing they should ideally be shorter, say less than 2 feet. Actually the whole scheme would probably be better done in narrow gauge. Being more compact and with sharper curves, the display could then take on even weirder shapes. With enough modules it could become positively rococo. Now that certainly would have visual impact. 　 Anyway this has just been a digression into a flight of fancy. Make of it what you will. Next time I'll get back to the layout proper. 　 Cheers, Alan.

There's been an annoying kink in the track since I laid it about 4 years ago, but recently a track gang got onto the job.....

The ex GWR 43xx engines were one of my all time favourite locomotive types. They were disappearing fast when I was collecting engine numbers in 1959 / 1960 but for me they seemed to epitomise trains in rural central Wales – somewhere ‘magical’ that we visited for holidays! When Mainline introduced their 43xx models in the early 1980s it became one of my must have engines. 37-091 Mainline 5328 43xx on my Bracken Ridge Layout around 1982 I bought my first Mainline 43xx in 1982 from Modellers World Cheltenham (now the Cheltenham Model Shop). It was turned out in all over BR black livery with an Early Emblem. It was priced at £19.95. It ran very well and continued in service until 2010 when it was sold on eBay for £28! I seem to recollect that there were lots of black 43xx ‘for sale’ in the 1980s and I did buy a second model for spares. The Mainline engine was replaced by a Bachmann model which seemed less frantic than the pancake motor driven Mainline model. It is very much a case of swings and roundabouts. With its ‘flywheel’ drive the Bachmann model does run more smoothly compared to the Mainline version but without rubber traction tyres the haulage capacity is somewhat reduced. I do have one niggle. Was it a case of value engineering? The Bachmann and Mainline bodyshells seem to use the same tooling, so why did Bachmann choose to do away with the centre rear tender lamp iron? 31-831 Bachmann 43xx 4358 Over the years Bachmann have turned out BR (WR) variants in a variety of liveries and have also produced some models of the 93xx series with side windows cabs. 31-802 Bachmann 93xx 9308 However I am not aware of Bachmann repeating the black Early Emblem Mainline model with its minimalistic cab – perhaps because the original model was produced in such great numbers. There is a steady stream of vintage Mainline 43xx models on that well known auction site and for some time it has been in my mind to buy one and upgrade the mechanism. Recently I came across a ‘spares and repair’ Bachmann 43xx chassis with ‘duff’ wheels and cylinders. For reasons which I have long since forgotten I had a brand new Bachmann wheel set for the 43xx model which I do know I had bought in error from Peters Spares. I could rewheel the Bachmann chassis which would then be available to use in a suitable Mainline model. Bachmann 43xx chassis – spares repair A word of warning – not all ‘Mint’ Mainline engines will be blemish free. Even back in the 1980s new the Mainline engines could be less than perfect. Many arrived minus one or two parts of their whistle. Also back in those days models were not separately wrapped in tissue paper (bubble wrap had yet to appear) and the models were cradled in direct contact with their polystyrene trays. The Mainline 43xx model seems to have been particularly prone to an issue where the black paint on the top of the firebox became welded to the white polystyrene tray resulting in a permanent white mark on the locomotive bodyshell. My patience was rewarded and a suitable unused Mainline model was acquired – thank you Douglas. Unused 37-091 Mainline 5328 43xx from the 1980s The spares repair Bachmann chassis had broken and missing connecting rods and slidebars. The cylinder assemblies are completely interchangeable between the Bachmann and Mainline models. All that is required is the blade of a sharp screwdriver to prise the cylinder block from the Mazac chassis. Sometimes there are traces of glue but after all these years it has usually gone brittle and offers no resistance. The connecting rods are retained on the centre driving wheel with a circlip. Interestingly the diameter of the hole in the Mainline coupling rod where it fits over the driving axle is smaller than the Bachmann model and I had to use my Dremel to ream out the hole before I could reuse the Mainline rods. The picture below compares the Mainline coupling rod with one from a Bachmann Manor (the Manor and 43xx mechanisms share axle and wheel sets). Connecting Rods, Bachmann Manor left, Mainline 43xx right Mainline provided ‘bright’ shiny coupling rods and pistons. I would use my Carrs blackening fluid (for nickel silver). I bought the fluid some time ago with the idea of blackening the complete motion on an old Bachmann A4. In the event I decided that I could not remove all the motion from the model and abandoned the idea. This time I could treat the coupling rods and pistons from the 43xx completely separate from the model. I used my favourite shallow container, the plastic lid from a Philadelphia carton. I could lay out the rods and use a stiff paint brush to rub the blackening fluid over them. Instructions for using the fluid are rather scant but I started by degreasing the rods with surgical spirit and when they had dried I applied the Carrs fluid rubbing all over with the stiff brush. The rods started to blacken within minutes. As said in other peoples’ blogs – remove the remaining fluid and wash well with clean water. Better to have to repeat the blackening exercise rather than to try and clean up metal that has become too dark (too deeply etched). Ex Mainline coupling rods after treatment with Carrs blackening fluid It was now time to reassemble the chassis and to fit it to the Mainline body shell. Bachmann / Mainline 5328 43xx I thought it looked good. However it did not run particularly well. Sadly it another case of aging plastics, this time the nylon inserts for the driving wheels. I am all too familiar with the inserts for the Bachmann B1s which with time take in moisture and expand pushing out at the centre. For my 43xx chassis the inserts for one wheel set had warped around the edge and lifted, such that the balance weight was standing proud of the wheel rim. Note Balance Weight standing proud from wheel rim Visually it is hardly noticeable. Unfortunately the coupling rods for the rear wheels are fitted to rub against the wheel rims and were catching the raised balance weights disturbing the slow speed running. Warped nylon wheel insert poked out with cocktail stick and centre filed flat My solution was to poke out the nylon insert with a cocktail stick (they are not glued in) and to rub the nylon insert to file the wheel centre flat. This done the insert was popped back into place sitting comfortably beneath the wheel rim. Plan B might be to apply some adhesive to hold the edge down – but this would be a last resort. Bachmann / Mainline 5328 43xx A good outcome I would say – a quiet and smooth running model. There are a couple of brief videos here that I made before with a Bachmann BR green 43xx. One of the videos has the 43xx starting on a one in sixty grade with 12 wagons – it just about makes it! Addendum 25.03.20 Since first writing this Post I have had to make a few further alterations to improve the running quality of the model. It now features a Bachmann chassis where there are spring contacts under the centre driver. I have to admit to not knowing which models had these springs, whether it was the older models or the newer models? The running is a lot more quiet with the springs. Two types of Bachmann Chassis I still had an occasional knocking noise / slight jerkiness which coincided with the piston at minimum travel. There are differences in the plastic mouldings for the cylinders between the Mainline and Bachmann models (surprise surprise). However this is not the major issue. The problem is the length of the piston attached to the crosshead. I think I had the same problem back in time with a Manor Class model. Shortening the piston, with a file, by as little as 0.5mm completely removes the problem and transforms the running properties. As Mikkel says below it can run smoothly and quietly. Double click on the picture below to see the video. Ex GWR 43xx 5328 Mainline Model on Bachmann Chassis by Longsheds, on Flickr

The following are my notes on GWR stable blocks – a subject that does not seem to have received much attention. I am about to build one for Farthing, and have noticed various style differences that may be of interest to others. Chipping Norton stables in 1983. Built 1904. Rebuilt with end doors to serve as a garage, but otherwise it features the main elements of the "archetype" standard design, ie "hit and miss" vents in windows and above doors, and those characteristic boxy roof vents. Image copyright and courtesy Alan Lewis. I first became interested in GWR stables some years ago, and received some very helpful advice and material from several RMwebbers on here. Many thanks gents! However, I wanted to obtain an overview of the designs of stables built by the GWR, and this proved tricky. While there are a number of drawings and photos in various books and line histories, I couldn’t find an actual overview anywhere (or have I missed it?). Janet Russell's wonderful "Great Western Horse Power" comes closest with a handful of selected GWR plans and descriptions, but no attempt to provide an overview of the different styles. Vaughan’s "Great Western Architecture" and Stephen Williams’ "GWR Branchline Modelling vol 2" have a few pictures and drawings each. The stable block at Uxbridge Vine Street, illustrating how stables were sometimes located well away from the center of stations, although usually they would be found near the yard entry/exit. Source: Britain from above. Embedding permitted. So I have tried to make my own overview. Please note that this isn't based on extensive archival research or a systematic review of the various line histories. I have used a few key books and what others have shared. I first divided the stable blocks into three overall types: * The standard design, with 3 major permutations * The small "ad hoc" designs, sometimes inherited * The very large designs for major goods depots In the following I focus especially on the standard designs. The standard designs Various books refer to the emergence of a "standard" design of stable blocks around the turn of the century. However, looking at drawings and photos I realized that there were detail differences in this design, which could be divided into 3 main “styles”. Two immediate caveats: Most of what I have found seems to have been built from approximately the 1890s to grouping. I have not found evidence of standard designs before this time, but that may just be my lack of information. Little seems to have been built after grouping as horses were disappearing, but many stables remained in use for other purposes long after that. Although I identify 3 main styles, there also seem to have been hybrids and possibly also “retro-fitting”. So rather than seeing the three styles as entirely different designs, it is probably better to see them as different expressions of a standard design that evolved over time. The standard designs were single-story and followed classic GWR style features, i.e. red brick structures with blue engineering bricks around doors and at corners. The main style differences were in the ventilation, windows and doors. Sizes differed widely across the same style, from a few stalls to 20+. The footprint was simply stretched in length to accommodate the necessary no. of stalls (thanks for pointing that out, Ian). They were mostly rectangular, although there are one or two examples with a V or U shaped footprint to fit in the surroundings. In the following I have used sketches of quite large stable blocks to illustrate the styles, as they are of particular interest to me at the moment - but the same styles could be found across different sizes. STYLE A “Simple” Plain stable doors and sash windows with 3x4 panes. Limited ventilation. No roof-mounted louvred vents, no vents in doors and windows. Examples: Uxbridge Vine Street, Castle Cary. I’m having trouble dating this style, but my theory is that it is the earliest expression of the standard designs, because it pays so little attention to ventilation. My reproduction of the GWR drawing of Uxbridge Vine Street, illustrating Style A. An attractive option for the modeller who doesn't want to model the complicated ventilation seen on other types. Based on the original GWR drawing in Russel's "GWR Horse Power", which also has a drawing of the smaller stable block at Castle Cary to the same design. STYLE B “Archetype” Classic boxy louvred roof vents. Stable doors have “hit and miss” vents above, while windows have the same vents below a 3x3 glazing pattern. Examples: Abingdon, Chipping Norton (see header photo), Westbury, Hayes (original), Hayle, Park Royal, Thame, Little Somerford. Again there are dating difficulties. Chipping Norton’s stable was built in 1904. Westbury was totally rebuilt in 1901, so maybe the stable is from that date? Park Royal doesn’t seem to have been developed until the late 1900s. Park Royal, illustrating the archetypical features of Type B. STYLE C “Later” Stable doors have 2 rows of small windows/lights above doors, main windows are 4x5 panes. No vents in doors and windows, but large roof vents that are flatter and longer than the classic style. Examples: Weston-Super-Mare, extension block at Hayes, and the unidentified large new stable block in Russel's Great Western Horsepower p. 209-210. I’m calling this the “later” style because (i) the roof vent design seems more modern and functional and (ii) the original block at Hayes was style B design, but when it was extended (no date) the new blocks were to style C. Weston-Super-Mare, illustrating what I call Type C. Twenty stalls is a lot, there weren't many stables this big. A much smaller version of Type C. This 5-stall block was erected to extend the existing Type B block at Hayes & Harlington. A comparison with Weston-Super-Mare shows that the style is the same, and was simply shortened or stretched according to need. HYBRIDS/REBUILDS One or two stables I have seen could be hybrids between the main permutations. However, this is confused by the fact that (i) stables may have been retrofitted with new ventilation by the GWR, and (ii) stables were often rebuilt when no longer used for horses, and so latter day photos may confuse. For example, the latter day photos of Witney (built 1905) show windows like a Style A, but with the boxy roof vents of a Style B. However, the stable block was rebuilt to house motor lorries, and a closer look at the photos suggests to me that the windows and doors did originally have vents, but were replaced/modified (ie it is a rebuilt style B). The stable block at Minehead is more tricky, as described in the caption below. The preserved stable block at Minehead. As seen here it would seem like a Style A, but an earlier hand-drawing (not GWR) shows it with hit-and-miss vents in the windows, suggesting a Style B - except that the drawing does not show vents above the door or on the roof. Were they removed before the drawing was made (when the end doors were installed, for example), or was Minehead a hybrid? Shared under Creative Commons license. Attribution: Chris Osment/West Somerset Railway. Non-standard designs This included "all the rest", worthy of a whole study in themselves, but broadly speaking: Ad Hoc small designs A number of usually small, non-standard ad hoc stables, typically built during the early years, and often by independent companies. In some locations, the GWR simply hired space in a building for the local shunting horse with private individuals. Examples: Henley-in Arden, Princetown (built ca 1910), or how about Camborne! Very large and unique designs Very large stables for the major goods depots, including (i) single-story designs such as Hockley, (ii) two-story designs, rare but see Handsworth & Smethwick (and Paddington originally) and (iii) in a league of its own, Paddington Mint. The stables at Paddington Mint. Copyright Getty Images, embedding permitted. So those are my notes for now. Many thanks to all who have provided info and allowed use of photos so far. I am hoping that this will also bring new insights to light from others, as I have probably only scratched the surface. Edit: For further notes, see this blog entry.

Here's a little design and development work on Flexichas Motor Bogies. Been thinking for quite some time about modelling a couple of motor bogies with Sharman type suspension and although the idea I have in mind is new to me, I wouldn't be overly surprised if the idea had already been done. Some years ago, scale flange wheels were fitted to all snitzl rolling stock, which in turn made all of the fixed chassis locos unreliable due to derailing. Presently, with the exception of two motor bogies, all rolling stock has been modified to include the sharman type suspension system. This new motor bogie project will be modelled as if by a deveopment engineer, components will be made from scratch, assembled and modified as required, to overcome the unforseen problems that will probably arise due to lack of initial design input. Starting point for the project will be to construct two enclosed gear box's as described in the "Gearbox Madness" blog, one of these will be fixed to a chassis, while the second is allowed to rotate about the worm shaft. The worm shaft will require some support at one end of the bogie by some sort of bearing and we also need to attach outer frames to the main chassis. Motor will be mounted above the worm shaft and drive transmission will be through spur gears. A second bogie, although of similar design to the first, will have much smaller worm and wheels due to the small diameter of the driving wheels. Lets see how things progress. Snitzl.

So I managed to put the chimneys onto the station building and don't they make a difference! I had made myself more work by cutting the holes in the roof based on the plans I had of Lavenham station from Jas Millham. It turns out that Lavenham had considerably more ornate brick work than Clare and the bases of the chimneys were quite a bit large. I don't know if this was the local builder interpreting the plans he was given differently (trying save money on his contract?) or if they might have been rebuild later after some kind of fault as I have no earlier pictures that give any detail. Anyway I managed to fill the holes in and add additional slates to hide the crimes. Today I cut and added the two skylights, one which I believe lit the stairwell of the station master's house, the other was over the sheltered waiting area. I still have the doors to do and a load of work on rainwater goods This all gave me a good excuse to re-do the reenactment photograph I attempted back in October only this time using the right DMU and the right Station building. Disusedstation.org shows... Fen End Pit shows I also need to do a lot of work is the garden. Trying to work out from a distant aerial photograph how to arrange and plant up the garden is an interesting project. Lots of fruit trees and a whole range of busch vegetables to plant. This is turning into a bit of a minefield because you hit issues such as soil type and the fact that I bought some tomato plants only to be told that in 1957 you would have to have planted tomatoes under glass! So lots of fun to be had.. David

As Autumn approaches it is time to put the garden to bed and to come inside and play trains. I am revisiting the north east of England in the early 1960s and I have resurrected my Bachmann Elizabethan train set. The splendid wooden box contains a model of 60017 Silver Fox with late crest and six maroon Thompson coaches. For use on my layout I had already added some extra lead ballast to the engine as detailed here in an earlier Post. A4 60017 Silver Fox heading the Elizabethan Firstly a little bit of history. Bachmann marketed ‘The Elizabethan’ to mark the fifth anniversary of Bachmann Branchline. I calculate that the set dates from 1995. Bachmann Elizabethan 31-1995 In 1970 the model train manufacturer Trix had produced an 'OO' scale model A4. In 1974 it was re-branded as a Liliput model. Kader, Bachmann's parent company, bought Liliput in 1993 and according to the entry on Wikipedia modified the Liliput A4 to produce their Bachmann model. Around 2010 Bachmann upgraded their mechanism to make the model more digital friendly but the bodywork remained essentially unchanged from their first model. A4 Silver Fox on top of Roche A3 drawing In the 1960s Trix models were built to a scale of around 3.7mm to the foot and their Mk1 coaches from that time are distinctly ‘short’. However the A4 was marketed as ‘00’ scale. The Railway Modeller for July 1988 has 4mm scale drawings for Mallard. Unfortunately I don’t have a copy of this issue and instead I have overlaid my Bachmann A4, Silver Fox, onto Mr Roche’s drawing of an A3. The wheel spacing is spot on, as are the overall length of the engine and the width of the cab. I would say that the Bachmann A4 is constructed to a scale of 4mm to the foot. Back to the train set and A4 Silver Fox is supplied with a set of etched name plates, works plates and ‘Fox’ emblems for the purchaser to apply. I have an old faded British Transport colour slide of the prototype to show how the plates should be positioned. 1960s Kings Cross BR A4 60017 Silver Fox I chose to replace the Bachmann plates with new plates from Fox Transfers. Interestingly when the empty Fox fret is placed over the Bachmann name plates there is a difference of some 6mm (18 scale inches), the Fox plates being the longer! (I wonder if either is correct?) Empty Fox fret over Bachmann plates How to position the plates? Cardboard templates and bits of emery board I made a couple of card templates for the works plates and the ‘Foxes’ which I could position on the sides of the body relative to handrails / boiler bands etc. I cut the templates with openings / indents to highlight where I should put pencil marks on the body which in turn could be used to position spots of adhesive – Humbrol satin varnish. The Bachmann body is constructed with two black blank name plates. These blank plates are far too thick. For my model of Seagull I was able to prise the plates off the body. However the plastic on Silver Fox was stuck fast and I was left with no choice but to reduce the plate thickness in situ. Luckily the plastic is soft and I was able to make some files using snippets from one of my wife’s emery boards (nail files). Bachmann Silver Fox with etched plates from Fox Transfers What about the coaches? Thompson to Thompson coaches from the Elizabethan by Bachmann Back in 1995 Bachmann had still to introduce their Mk1 coaches and the Elizabethan train set was instead put together with Bachmann’s early Thompson coaches. These early coaches are not flush glazed and suffer from a number of geometric inaccuracies. However when run as a set and viewed from a distance I think they are still passable. In my opinion they look even better when the gaps between adjacent coaches are blocked up with corridor connectors. Card connector I used my tried and tested technique where each connector was cut from a rectangle 100mm by 32mm of black card (Daler – Rowney A4 Canford 150g/m Jet Black card). The centre panel was 16mm wide. The concertina sections on either side were made up of three sections, 16mm, 14mm and 12mm wide. In order to fit inside the dummy Bachmann corridor connector the 14 and 12mm sections were reduced in height by 4mm at the top and 2mm at the bottom. Marking out takes the most time and it makes sense to go for ‘batch production’. Ten off The Elizabethan was non-stop Kings X Edinburgh Waverly and to enable a change of driver and fireman the tender was also equipped with a corridor connector. Train to tender corridor connector The tender connector was made to the same geometry as for the Thompson coaches but it required a tiny piece of double sided tape to hold it in position on the tender. Thompson to BR Mk1 RU I have introduced a BR Mk1 Restaurant Car into the rake of coaches. This was fitted with separate corridor connectors as described here in a previous Post. How does it all work? Well there is a video here on YouTube. I have to say I am rather pleased. http://youtu.be/S2lBkOgNEJI.