Leaderboard

Something a bit different a heavy fighter from the early years of WW2 - fantastic concept, let down with crap engines, if only they'd fitted it with Merlin's. Over a year in the making (though technically only took a week to build). Box Art Instructions & Colour Call out. What's in the Box. The Build part 1.. It went together well, just other projects and commissions got in the way. Roll on a year - the build part two (and different workbenches). White Tac Sausage time.. Now Whirlwinds were quite allergic to their paint, so I've tried to recreate it. The final reveal.. TTFN

The Roy Link kit I am using is for 7mm scale, but I am building this small 18" gauge Bagnall to 1:32 scale, a third as big again. Because Bagnall's seemed to scale the functional parts of their locomotives to the gauge they were going to be used on, most things below the footplate don't require modification, and nor do the functional bits, such as boiler, firebox and water tank. The human bits do, so the cab has to be higher, some of the controls - handbrake in particular - need to be upsized, and because humans don't like coal smoke in their faces, the 1:32 model requires a much taller funnel. This picture shows the funnel that had to be made next to the cast funnel supplied in the kit Now I have a Peatol lathe (now sold as Taig lathes) so the obvious route was to turn the funnel from brass rod. Thanks to the kind offices of Nearholmer of this parish I now had a GA of a Bagnall Sipat loco and was able to use that to make a dimensioned drawing of the funnel to use as my guide. The first step was to mark off the positions where the different features would be on the brass rod. At this stage accuracy to within 0.5mm is all that is required, in fact that level of accuracy is plenty along the length of the funnel. It's the cross-sectional dimensions that require the digital vernier's attention. The next step was to drill a ⅛" (3.2mm) diameter hole the length of the funnel. The purpose of this is to provide a means of alignment later on. I decided to work from the base end of the funnel so that the top was at the chuck end. I have a compound slide so I was able to set it to cut a taper of 1.5º and shape the main part of the funnel. Now the important part is not the actual angle of cut but the cross-section measurements at the top and bottom, so about halfway some adjustment was needed to the compound slide setting. Making that adjustment while there is still a fair bit of metal to remove means that further adjustments can still be made if necessary. I did cheat a little in that I used the radius of the cutting tool as a form tool for the curvature at the cap end, as well as putting some rounding in at the bottom end. Creating the flaring at the base of the funnel is one of the more difficult tasks in loco building. Some advocate filing to shape, others creating a huge blob of solder to carve, or doing the same with filler. I thought I'd try an old John Aherne method, page 82 of "Miniature Locomotive Construction". That required creating a cone shape and afterwards boring it out so it only had a thin wall. The cone shape was made first. The compound slide was set by eye to create an approximate cone and then refined as the last cuts were taken. With the slide set to the angle to the last cut on the outside of the cone the tool could be changed and a boring tool fitted to bore out the inside to a depth of 3.6mm The funnel cap could now be shaped and the funnel parted off. The funnel was then turned around and fitted in the chuck - a bit of masking tape wrapped around it to protect it from the chuck jaws - and the end faced off flat. The final step was to reset the compound slide to 1.5º and bore out the funnel pipe for some distance. This is not the first time I have tried this classical method of forming the base flare of a funnel, but the method as described by Ahern does require three hands and a flexible spine. One hand to hold the funnel upright, another to hold a small block of wood on top of it as protection and a third to hold the hammer used to persuade it into shape. Plus that flexible spine so you can see what you are doing while tapping with the hammer. As I don't have that third hand nor that flexible a spine any more I thought I'd use a vice and hold things with a jig. The jig was a piece of steel turned to the diameter of the model's smoke box. It then had a ⅛" hole drilled in the side. The four jaw chuck allows this to be done accurately. A piece of ⅛" silver steel rod, which I have to make axles from, was then used as a locating pin. The funnel could be mounted on that and it would be accurately held at a perpendicular to the former. Before attempting to apply any pressure however, the base of the funnel needs to be annealed. That means heating it to a dull red heat and either quenching it or allowing it to cool naturally. This softens the brass and makes it more amenable to taking up the desired shape. Then jig and funnel were put it the vice and the whole lot gently squeezed. The funnel needed a couple of trips back to the blowtorch for further annealing. I didn't do this the first time and the flaring cracked. Photographs of Brede and its sister locomotives do not show the funnel with its flaring directly on the smokebox. Instead the funnel is mounted on a thick plate. From the drawings it looked as if that could be made from 1/16" thick brass, the sort of stuff we used to make loco side frames from. So I had a bit lying in the drawer, unused since c1985. a hole was drilled and a piece cut off and then bent to shape over the former. The funnel was then soldered to this, again held upright by a ⅛" rod inside. The final step was to return the funnel to the lathe and very carefully, using the lightest of cuts, trim the base to be a perfect circle. And that gave me the funnel shown in the first picture. Next time I'll report on progress with the cab.

Shunter George "Bulldog" Mullins critically eyes stock fitted with Sprat & Winkle couplings. His shunter's pole is legendary among shunters for being rather crude! The following notes on Sprat & Winkle couplings seemed to generate some interest when first posted over on gwr.org.uk, so perhaps they are of of use to someone here also. I have taken the opportunity to take some new and better photos for illustration. Hooked Although the latest RTR offerings have helped enhance the looks of the RTR tension-lock coupling considerably, I still find them a bit too bulky and not quite reliable. They also do not offer the opportunity of "delayed action" uncoupling, which allows you to propel stock forward after uncoupling. Looking for an alternative, I have taken to the fairly well-known Sprat & Winkle coupling, which - although a compromise in some respects - has proved quite reliable and fairly easy to fit. I find the delayed-action feature of these couplings simple and effective, and a plus for me is that they allow cosmetic 3-links to be retained. Hook and bar. It could be argued that it is no less obtrusive than the modern tension-lock coupling. But I find it less bulky and with more functionality. One-hook operation The Sprat & Winkle couplings are available in 2,3,4 and 7mm scale versions. As I model in 4mm my choice was between either the standard 4mm version or the "finescale" version. The latter is in fact intended for 3mm modellers but works fine for 4mm (including OO), as long as your curves are not too severe ( ie less than 4' radius according to MSE). This is fortunate because the standard version is a bit on the large side for my liking, and so I have opted for the finescale/3mm version. In fact, even the finescale version is a bit more prominent than I would personally have wished for, especially when uncoupled. To minimize the visual impact I therefore fit a coupling hook to one end only, adding just the loop at the other end. This obviously requires stock to be facing in a particular direction when placed on the track, but on my layouts (and I think many others) this isn't really a problem. The absence of a coupling at one end also facilitates the fitting process (since you only have to fit one hook per wagon) and means I can add a prototypical (but cosmetic) coupling hook here instead, enhancing appearances a bit. Coupled up using the "one-hook" approach Mounting the couplings The coupling hook features a square "paddle" at one end, which works as a counterweight beneath the wagon or coach body. The MSE website has an instruction sheet for fitting the couplings, and details on various extra parts not described here (including custom-made mounting plates). The instructions suggest two possible ways of mounting the hook: An "Upper" method in which the coupling hook is inserted through the headstocks (ie the "buffer beam" of the wagon), and a "Lower" method in which the hook rests immediately below the headstocks, hinged to the wagon floor with wire bent to the shape of a paper staple. It is necessary to standardize on one of these two methods, and in principle I prefer the latter, which also comes recommended in the instructions: This requires only minor modification to the wagon or coach body, and is also - in my opinion - rather less fiddly. That said, I have made two minor modifications to this approach: * Firstly, I replace the curled-up wire included in the pack with straight brass wire from Alan Gibson. I find that this makes it far easier to craft the wire-staple needed for fitting the paddle. The staple is then fitted to a section of square plastic rod mounted on the wagon floor. The plastic rod is not always necessary - it depends on the distance between the floor and the lower edge of the headstocks. * Secondly, I find that the "Lower" method of mounting the coupling can sometimes give problems in ensuring that the coupling hook is fully horisontal: Exactly because it is underhung, the hook may come to rest at a slight upward angle against the bar of the loop on some wagons, which is neither aesthetically pleasing nor good for operation. I don't think it's just me, as I have heard others mention this issue also. My solution is rather crude I suppose, but effective: I simply open out a slight slot in the wagon just above the coupling hook, thereby allowing it to move freely to a full horisontal position against the loop. This may not be to everyone's taste, but the slot is really quite unnoticeable and can always be padded over with a filler if the coupling is removed. The "Paddle", anchored with a wire "staple" to a supporting section of plastic rod Un-coupling Uncoupling is by means of magnets located beneath the track, nested into the track base. The magnets attract the 3-links, thus tilting the hook downwards. When moving back up, the hook comes to rest in a position which allows the wagon to be propelled forward and left where you want it in the siding. Hence the "delayed-action" concept. The following photos illustrate the four main steps of this process: 1. Wagons are propelled in fully coupled condition 2. Coupling hook drops down as it is attracted by a magnet beneath the tracks 3. As wagons are propelled forward the coupling hook moves back up, but does not fully engage the bar 4. The uncoupled wagon is left where desired, and the rest of train is drawn backwards For me this works well, with one important modification: Because I use only one coupling hook, the very powerful magnets occasionally uncouple the stock even when they are not supposed to - ie when the stock is passing slowly by. This happens even with a good layer of ballast above the magnets, and attempts with a sliver of Plastikard above the magnet doesn't help much either. Again, I resort to cave-man technology for the solution: I simply break the magnets in half, thereby reducing the overall magnetic field. I say "break" because cutting will get you nowhere with these magnets - they need to be broken in two by holding the magnet with one pair of pliers and breaking downwards with another pair. Crude stuff, but it works. Finally, I should perhaps emphasize that I have no affiliation with the manufacturers, and that these are the experiments of a novice: I do not have experience with the other non-RTR types of couplings available (see jim s-w's blog for an interesting entry on the Dingham coupling). Edit 1: For a discussion of fitting the couplings to locos, see the comments to this entry. Edit 2: The video in the link below shows the Sprat & Winkles in operation on the goods depot layout:

Hello all, I have in recent past been wondering how bad it was for the engines to be stood on these sometimes very inhospitable piers, which invariable at times had spray wafting over them. But that is not really the point of this post. The point is, what shall the passenger train terminating at West Drizzlington consist of? Due to the confines of the layout its operating potential would be severely impaired if two Bachmann SE&CR birdcages coaches were used as was recommended to me by @Edwardian, and the normal consist of three would not be usable. So the only remaining option then would either to have some funny arrangement where the the full set of three was used and the train was split once it entered the station, with the end carriage going in the long bay platform and the other two being shunted around the island, until the carriage in the bay had emptied. The loco could then draw this away and move in another coach. There is also another possible format. Above, SE&CR D class number 494, built by Dubs & Co as works number 4342 in April 1903 and rebuilt as class D1 in August 1921. Seen on a boat train at Admiralty Pier, Dover on May 5th 1905. From Getty Images, Embedding Permitted. The above photo appears to show a consist of SE&CR six wheelers behind a D class, which would give me a excellent excuse to make a purchase of a set from Hattons. This would give more operational scope and fit the era in which I am modelling, which is pre lined dark lake. I think three six wheelers would be able to fit in the bay platform, and wouldn't look to short behind the engine. The thoughts of @Nearholmer and @Mikkel and any other pre grouping experts would be much appreciated on this matter. I also have a thread on coaches pulled behind the D class linked in the RSS feed. Progress has also been made on the layout, as the first engine ran upon it on Sunday. This engine was my Bachmann 3f, and it was used to test how much glue I had spilled on the rails. Not much it turned out, and now only the bottom set of frog contacts on the point going into the bay platform need cleaning, as I haven't gotten to those yet. A suitable piece of wood has also be found for the platform. Here's a video of a test run. Douglas

Something a bit different, the Seafang, the planned replacement for the Seafire - which due to the Jet Age, became an interim (and mostly) forgotten foot note in British Naval aviation history. Then Trumpeter created a kit of it (along with the Spiteful). I've had it my stash for a while and I wanted a quick build.. Box Art What's in the box.. The decals came back to haunt me. The build.. As with most Trumpeter kits, the fit is pretty good, just a few annoying bits (more on that later). First muck up- quoting the wrong shade of Sea Grey - Dark instead of Extra Dark. Soon rectified. Second the out of register and under scale roundels.. Spares from one of my Eduard kits came to the rescue fortunately.. If the wings and undercarriage look familiar - they were used on the Attacker. Into weathering,, All finished. Onwards and upwards to the next build..

I’ve been working on the alternative side of the goods depot recently. The sides and roof are now more or less done and I'm preparing to lay the ground and track in front of it. The roof has caused much muttering and swearing. Some time ago I dropped the whole thing on the floor, and had to rebuild much of it. Because of the accident, the roof is now slightly out of true in some places. That's not really visible, but it meant I had to give up on flush-glazing it. Certainly a compromise, but I was getting close to abandoning the whole thing, so decided that I had better just accept it and move on. I like looking down through the glazing to the scene below. Not really what the layout was designed for, but a nice extra bonus. The roof structure gives a nice play of light and shadow inside the depot, which varies greatly with the lighting and time of day. I prefer it when the shadows appear naturally... ...but they can of course be further enhanced by "staged" articifical lighting as above. My struggles with the roof have been a mental barrier, so it's nice to be past that point. I can now get down to things I enjoy more, such as weathering these walls further, and getting the details in place.

Here's a little scratch-building project that I'm working on in-between the coach painting. The prototypes were used extensively at Paddington Goods in the 1900s. A similar but more austere type was used at Hockley. I couldn't find any drawings, so the dimensions are guesstimates based on photos. The build was a real pleasure, especially sourcing the parts. I'll let the pictures explain the rest - gradually! In other words, a shed crane. I still need to model the operating lever which was situated next to the crane, and which (as far as I understand) connected to a mechanism beneath the deck. I plan to build at least one more of these - although possibly a more heavy duty type. There are a couple of things I might do differently on the next one. I think the counter-weight is a little underscale. I will also do the pulley wheels different next time. We live and learn! PS: Thanks to Missy for the tip about the watchmaker's parts, available on ebay.