Stoker

Blackpool is huge. Including the Cornish Kaolin and Methrose sidings, it's a half mile long. At one time there were 7 dryers in the complex (1 Spray dryer, 2 Buell dryers, and 4 rotary dryers) which had a total maximum production capacity of 500,000 tons per annum, roughly a quarter of the industry's peak output.

There was a chap at St Austell Model Railway Club, Tony Prideaux, who built a near full size model of Blackpool dryers. The layout had to be in it's own room because it was so huge.

I spent some time putting together a 3D model of Wheal Rose dry. It isn't 100% accurate, I had to fill in a lot of blanks because there really aren't any photographs online. However I did manage to find some aerial photos from 1930 which gave me an idea of what was where roughly. The model file is in Sketchup Make 2017 which is a free program, so if you download that and install it, I can send you the file and you should be able to view it. The model is built to scale, so you can just use the ruler function to measure anything you need.






The model also has a full interior, so should you wish to include this in the model it's there.





The furnace end has a small coal platform that was loaded from the Wheal Virgin air dry/Boss Allen's timber wharf siding, which curved off to run 90 degrees perpendicular to Wheal Rose.

As it stands, a scale model of this dry including the coal platform and settling tanks would be approx 106cm (frontage) x 60cm (front of linhay to back of settling tanks). If you cannot fit this in, I could come up with a modified design that has the required compression, I would just need to know the exact space it has to fit into.

If anyone else would like a copy of this 3D file, please let me know via PM and I'll email it over.

Regards,

Scott.

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

Thanks Scott, I would appreciate that.

 

It will be a coal-fired linhay, based on that at Wheal Rose near Bugle, which I photographed nearly 40 years ago. I've got lots of other photos of similar structures including some of my own from Wheal Martyn and your sketches from a few years ago, which will give me a good start. On page 1 of this topic you can see the existing model on the first St Enodoc layout. 

  

I won't need the linhay for some time though, so there is no rush.

Ah yes Wheal Rose kiln, one of the slightly more unusual type with the double pile roof - basically one roof over the pan, another roof over the linhay, and a valley between. This was a very early style that had the linhay floor almost level with the pan, which made stacking the dried clay more labour intensive. I think it actually might have been the longest lived of the double pile roofed kilns. I visited it once while I was tracing the old Carbis branch, but strangely didn't take any photos.

Immediately next to the kiln was Boss Allen's Timber Wharf and Wheal Virgin air dry. I know the air dry would've been out of use by the 50's, but I'm not sure about the timber wharf - there is some info about it in one of Maurice Dart's books (I think it might be East Cornwall Mineral Railways) .

I'd need to get hold of some photos first, but if you could give me the details on the space you'd like to put the building in, I could draw up scale CAD drawings that you could work from.

27 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

I will rebuild or replace my model linhay to represent better the real thing.

I would be more than happy to assist with this if you wish.

Are you doing coal fired or oil fired? There was a bit of both in the 50s.

5 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Don't worry Scott, this topic wanders in all sorts of directions and as long as it stays within RMweb rules, and avoids party politics, religious zealotry and personal insults, anything goes, like the conversations we have on club night at tea break or in the pub afterwards.

 

In this particular context I agree with Clive. There seems to me to be a growing reversion to modelling models rather than modelling the real thing (although recently, perhaps due to recent TV programmes, there is also an increase in totally fictitious or fantasy modelling, which I don't think is all bad).

Well since it's open season, I might as well add my two cents.

I've been in this hobby for about 25 years now, maybe more. Growing up with Hornby and Lima, what was available off the shelf were not really "models" at this point, they were toy trains. The model railway hobby elsewhere in the world had legitimate RTR offerings, but not the UK. To be a "real modeller" back then you basically had to build brass, resin, a spare few injection molded kits, or scratch-bash the toy trains into real scale models. This was not easy for everyone, some took to this aspect of the hobby better than others. I'm sure I'm not alone in having vivid memories of one particular Model Rail magazine staffer who had a bit of an obsession with etched bogie steps, but always botched them!

Although I spent most of my life in Cornwall, I went to a boarding secondary school in Hampshire, which gave me an interest in SR 3rd rail slammers, but apart from a few kit manufacturers you were absolutely buggered if you wanted to model any of it, which was very frustrating for a 13 year old who lacked the skills to scratch build! I still remember being absolutely extatic to find cast whitemetal N scale 4cep and 4cig cab ends at an exhibition for converting Grafar mark 1 coaches. I had no bloody idea how I was going to motorize it, or what I'd do about the bogies, or the driver's side windows... but damnit it was a start!

Once we started getting solid RTR offerings from the late 90s onward, it became obvious that the hobby was becoming a more open field. While all the kit and scratch building was commendable, it did drastically slow progress on many layouts, and acted as an insurmountable barrier to entry for others. I liken it a lot to the diminishing returns between EM and P4 - while EM will get you "right" looking track, much finer pointwork and wheels, without really holding up your layout building much, P4 will require significant bogie rebuilding and the addition of compensation... all for the sake of 0.64mm. For some those diminishing returns don't matter, the satisfaction of being "dead scale" makes up for it, for others it isn't worth it. Neither approach is "wrong", but by the same token, neither approach is "better", just different. Without the barrier to entry or the requirement for kit building and scratch building, those who would otherwise have given the hobby a miss started participating in it. Some of those became very proficient detailers, weatherers, and a few even went on to scratchbuild some of the most impressive model buildings I've seen in this hobby. None of them have much desire to kit build a locomotive though, and that's fine.

Over the years I have observed that some of the "I have something you don't" elitism that came from those who did have the skill to scratchbuild has sort of morphed into bitter "it's not real modeling if it's RTR" now that their models are no longer exclusive to them. It's not everyone, but this is an aspect of the hobby that I've never liked. Now that I've been doing this for so long, I basically have the ability to scratchbuild anything I want - for me the idea of being motivated to scratchbuild something just to get a kick out of other's envy is abhorrent, as is any kind of elitism once a RTR model is inevitably released.

Here in Canada, we basically have a RTR model of everything, all to extremely high standard. Athearn's Genesis product line has amazing detail going right down to things like rotating axle caps. Despite this, there are still some people who build entire locomotives using Cannon & Co doors, cabs, noses, fans, exhaust ports, brass lift rings and grab irons, etc. on a styrene sub assembly. They use photo etched walkway tread, and brass handrails threaded through cast brass stanchions, the end result is extremely impressive.



Believe it or not, despite this and the growth of the Proto 87 group, many in the North American hobby also lament "nobody builds anything these days, it's all RTR". But I don't think it's necessarily true that these aspects of the hobby can't coexist. In fact, I think it's probably more true that the one needs the other.

Over the 25 year period that I've been doing this, I always read all the magazines, and if anything I'd say the absolute best work I've seen in the British model hobby has been in the last 8 years, and the "best" keeps getting better all the time. With the internet becoming faster and more accessible than ever, I'm also starting to see way more prototypical layouts. I've long been an advocate of prototype standard for china clay, and you have no idea how frustrating it is to see the potential of that prototype wasted as "just a shed by the tracks with some white stuff in it" with barely a second thought or so much as a second closer look at any photos of the real thing. These days I find myself answering some very detailed questions from people who have come online to do research, and the results speak for themselves. Some of the best china clay based layouts I've ever seen have come up on here in the last 5 years or so, even a few full scale non-compressed models of real life clay works. Funnily enough, most of that work has coincided with many of the wagons that were once the preserve of scratchbuilders being released into the RTR market.

Also there are now way more tools to research prototype. It used to be the case that the only people who modelled a period "a long time ago" were those old enough to have lived through it. Now with the magic of the internet we can access aerial photos taken 90 years ago, industrial archaeology through GIS mapping, take detailed measurements using Google earth, and access archives of old maps and photographs. The internet is like a free time machine!

So in summary, I believe there's no reason to panic or mourn the death of the hobby, quite the contrary I think now is the time to rejoice what I see as a renaissance. More and more young people are taking it up, something that was once predicted would never happen. This is the best the hobby has ever been and it's only going to get better.

Clive,

That's a pretty big can of worms mate, maybe better discussed in a separate thread, out of respect for St Enodoc's thread.

Also let's not be too negative, eh? Horses for courses and all that.

All the best,

Scott.

On 17/06/2019 at 14:48, Martin S-C said:

Back gardens with LAWNS in the 1930s. That's bold, sir!

Actually a lot more common than people realise. By 1930 lawns had been commonplace among the middle class for 100 years, since Edwin Beard Budding introduced the reel mower in 1830. Prior to this, lawns were painstakingly cut with a scythe, and then rolled into nice lines with a roller. Only the "formal" lawn though, the rest of the grounds of a stately house was more likely tended to by a flock of sheep. It wasn't until the war rationing of the 1940s that many began to turn their gardens back to vegetable plots as a way to keep the family fed.

This is great to see. In my youth I spent many a happy hour here, firing locomotives, shunting coaches, track bashing, odd jobs in the shed, etc. Always a pleasure to work around Roger and his dog Simba, Richard Bowhill Snr, or chat with Maurice Dart in the shop, even if he hated model railways! I think it gave him great pleasure to see it all preserved. And to sell his books, of course! I dearly miss him now that I'm in Canada.

I look forward to watching this project progress.

On 15/06/2019 at 04:54, Clive Mortimore said:

All sounds very complicated for a train set.

The hobby has moved on a bit since "Pig Lane", Clive.

You just know for a fact that there's plenty of teabags and chocolate digestives in there.

Nice job bud it looks the part. Just need a few careless kick marks on the bottom of the door. Maybe where the paint flaked off to reveal an older colour... I'd recommend an ugly shade of dark red.

Are you going to ever be disassembling it?

Because if not, why not just use wood glue and screws?

1 hour ago, Yakcamp said:

https://davejonesphotography.zenfolio.com/. The ‘snaps’ of an O level photographer........

That's a lot of photos of a lot of things and yet at the same time, nothing at all.

1 hour ago, Scottish-Exile said:

 

Crowdfunded?

It's just the name:

"Limited run pre-order only crowdfunded IPA".

It's a small batch, naturally.

Without meaning to sound unsympathetic, I think you just have to take this as a lesson to be more careful about who you put your money with when it's a limited run, pre-order only, crowdfunded model. If it's someone like Kernow or Hattons (sorry Phil) who have an actual physical location, has been around for a long time, and has tangible assets... then that's fine. But for start-ups that have little more than some fancy 3D CAD files and maybe only a handful of releases under their belt, not to mention a slightly shady past, I think you should understand that there's some risk. It's not like this has never happened before. I've been saying for years that I don't like this recent business model, it seems ripe for abuse and very risky... while I appreciate some of the models that might have never existed without it, sometimes I wonder if it was really ever worth it in the first place.

Here in Canada we have one that is miraculously still in business (although doesn't seem to really be producing anything lately) called True Line Trains. They once had a partnership with a bricks and mortar hobby store, which took a whole load of cash deposits on a caboose that TLT was going to produce, only to then close their doors and run off with all the money. TLT then had to produce the cabooses practically at a loss for those who had pre-ordered, but only did so begrudgingly after it didn't go down too well when they went around telling everyone "we don't require a deposit, we never received your money, so you still have to pay full price". Further down the line they started taking preorders for an SW1200RS that they'd made CAD files for... 5 years later and still no product, and then they got angry at Rapido who ended up producing their own SW1200RS because they thought that was "unethical"...! For my part in it, I told TLT that I thought they were being absurd and that Rapido had every right to produce a model that TLT were very clearly never going to get around to producing. Their response was along the lines of "but we invested a bunch of time and money in it"... okay, well then why did you stop? The answer is it usually all boils down to the people running the show. TLT were just as capable of producing a product as Rapido, the difference is when you have someone like Jason Shron at the helm, stuff gets done.

Another classic case in point was Railflyer models, who produced some incredibly fine scale locomotive detailing components, probably some of the finest ever produced, but he also had the absolute worst attitude on the forums and at trade shows. His smug sense of superiority was just unbelievable and in the end he drove away all his customers. If it wasn't for that, he likely could've gone really, really far with his company. Many companies like his have ended up merging or partnering with the mainstream manufacturers to provide detailing parts for their new releases. That's essentially what happened with BLMA, an excellent detail part manufacturer, which got purchased by Atlas. A very similar company, but two very different people in charge.

On 23/05/2019 at 01:41, Michael Edge said:

Not really but we do have etched n/s swords and "Sentinel" for £3 a set. We don't do the full brake linkage even in our kit since it was designed to use a motor bogie - the Sentinel brake linkage is actually rather complicated. Open handrails would only be wire and the various boxes you mention differ greatly from one to loco to another. The Hornby model is not really a suitable base for the rod drive version as I have explained earlier.

A fair enough answer. I will backtrack through the thread to read your impressions on the rod drive version.

6 hours ago, RThompson said:

The spill plates below the sandbox filler openings are included on the etch.

For the sandboxes, just reuse the originals by cutting them off and filing the face down slightly.

My apologies, I was under the impression that they weren't included. In that case I will likely order a set or two as I've got quite a few sentinels planned.

22 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

Don't RT Models already do the valences?

 

https://www.rtmodels.co.uk/rt_models_023.htm

 

 

Jason

They do but they don't have sandbox covers. If you gain seamless valances but lose sandbox covers, that feels like a net zero to me.

@Michael Edge have you ever considered doing a dress-up kit for the Hornby Sentinel? Valence overlays, pipe railings, side filler fuel tank, air compressor box and intake, behind-wheel brake linkage overlay, etc.?

20 minutes ago, rob D2 said:

Well , that was a rather rude overreaction wasn’t it, I don’t care to waste my time answering your pointless thread , but I still got involved......

Yes thank you for your "valuable" input to my "pointless thread". Maybe next time you can find something better to occupy your very valuable time.

I see the naysayers have stepped in to give their 2 cents.

We could go back and forth forever about whether there's "demand" but I've always found it to be a rather pointless discussion. This is a growing hobby, and a great many naysayers have been forced to eat their words over the last decade with a lot of releases that many said would "never happen" because "there's no demand". To be frank, unless you're the head of Pew and have just conducted market research among railway modellers, I really don't care what your "opinion" is, and I doubt anyone else does either.

We can also pluck figures like £150k out of thin air all day long and make silly claims that a company with a $146 million revenue would have qualms about "tying up" that amount in a production run. Let's put aside for a minute that a £150k production run of wagons with a paid off tooling would be a slightly implausible run of approx 5000 units. Even if you spent that much on one wagon and made a loss on it, that doesn't mean you're making a loss overall, there is such a thing as a "loss leader" which can generate profitable add-on sales elsewhere. There are for example many locos people won't buy without suitable wagons to go with them. Maybe the wagons aren't profitable, but selling more locos with a loss leading wagon will still give you a net profit provided the loss on the wagon isn't too large.

Ultimately though, I don't care to get into these kinds of discussions with people who, to be brutally honest, clearly know nothing about the industry and are just making useless speculation.

If you want to doom and gloom, maybe consider starting your own thread titled "stuff that people will never make". It will give us something to laugh at in another 10 years.

Well in terms of detail and quality, I'd say it's on a par with the offerings of Tangent and Athearn Genesis in the US. For a more complex freight car from either of the aforementioned, you can expect to pay $50 or more. At current exchange rates, that's £38. Add VAT to that and you're up around the £45 mark which seems to be the norm for high-end rolling stock. I think that's about what I paid for my PBA wagons from DJ Models, which I'd say are roughly on a par with the Polybulk in terms of complexity.

3 hours ago, PMP said:

 

I think the release was around 98/99 as they are a bit younger than one of my daughters. I’ve got two from the very first releases, and a couple more from later years. The first had pickups on the tops of the wheels these can get a bit grubby and reduce performance significantly. Later versions have pickups bearing on the backs of the tyres and are less likely to be affected by track dirt. I think the Bachmann 08 was a game changer, prior to that getting a good 08 was done using a Modern Outline Kit etched kit, or an impetus chassis under a Lima body. All of mine (5), are early versions and they hold up well today, and with a little effort look even better.

 

So you're the one behind "Albion Yard", finally we meet! I've taken a lot of inspiration from your blog over the years, especially "Wharfedale Road", so thank you.

Just a quick question: Looking at your 08, I can see what appears to be Shawplan glazing, and etched siderods... am I right? If so, who makes the rods?

Thanks,
Scott.

7 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

As ever 'date first seen in catalogue' is not the same as 'available for retail purchase'. 2001/2002 would be my guess for the first arrivals.

 

Quite how you wear out this Bachmann standard motor in an 08 somewhat baffles. The same units - at least to all outward appearances - are still going nearing 30 years later in my two Peaks. These did real mileage outdoors for their first three years service, and an awful lot since; reduced to BoBo mules for the track cleaning drag duty.

They were definitely out before that, the 2001 catalogue refers to a "new version" with a single exhaust.

As for how you wear one out, I seem to recall there was a "factory issue" with some early releases of Bachmann 08's that caused the motor to die prematurely. Bachmann were inviting people to submit warranty claims. Pissed a lot of people off though and you had the usual "rah rah the Lima one never had this issue rah rah".
 

3 hours ago, cravensdmufan said:

I read with almost disbelief on the Class 90 thread someone said that Bachmann have never made any "game changer" models.  Well IMO the 08 was certainly one.

Gonna derail this thread somewhat, but some people on this site either aren't old enough to remember, or haven't been in the hobby long enough to know what it was like 20 years ago, Bachmann ARE the original "game changer". They're the only reason why any of the other manufacturers have now taken things seriously at all. When you asked their reps at trade stands back in the day why they don't produce detailed models like those on the continent they'd say "there's no market". It took Bachmann entering the scene to prove them wrong. Their 08 is the whole reason we have the Hornby 08, which is the definitive model of the most numerous locomotive ever to grace British rails. Amazingly, that wasn't a priority for anyone until Bachmann introduced theirs.

Bachmann had several "game changer" releases, some recent:

Class 08, 04, and 03
Class 24 and 25
Class 37
Class 40 "whistler"
Class 43 "Warship"
Class 44, 45, 46 "Peak"
Class 57, leading to the 47
Class 66
Class 150
Class 158
Class 410 and 411 4BEP and 4CEP

Many items on this list have encouraged other manufacturers to attempt a competing model of a higher standard, or to enter the market with a complimentary model. People forget that years ago, basically nobody made DMUs, you had to go to DC Kits for that, and you'd get LAUGHED OUT OF THE ROOM if you ever suggested a ready to run EMU! Now Bachmann are arguably the multiple unit kings, and once again we have Hornby stepping up to the plate with some fantastic SR EMUs.

I agree that Bachmann's venerable 08 is a wonderful model and we owe Bachmann a belated thanks (although, they did get a lot of rave reviews from the hobby press back then).

The "high mileage 08" comment got me curious as to when Bachmann first introduced their 08, and I was able to find photos of the 1997 catalogue showing it listed... so they hit the scene 22 years ago!

Funny, I don't remember seeing them until around the early 2000's.

Anyone in the UK show and press loop know if there are any plans to re-release these?

Right now they're selling for 100 quid a piece on ebay. Keeping my eye out as I'm in need of one or two more. Seems there's demand but as usual with the UK no supply.

Hi Amanda,

Great choice with the pre-nationalisation GWR terminus, you're basically going with hands down the most popular layout theme since... well... since nationalisation actually! So you'll be well catered for. There's LOTS of books, kits, models, etc. all themed around GWR, and specifically terminus layouts. GWR made most stations to a standard design, so a lot of the buildings are available in kits. I'm sure others will be able to recommend some good books to read on the subject.

Regarding coal, the terminology in Britain is a coaling stage - GWR did have some larger ones and scalescenes make a kit, although they tended to use smaller stages like this one at their small rural terminus stations. There was no shortage of coal in Wales, as there were a lot of coal mines there, particularly for a type known as steam coal which is what the locomotives used.

In terms of choice between 4mm and N, in my opinion the only good reason to choose N scale is if you want to fit a large scene into a small space. It's great for southern region EMUs that can have as many as 16 pickup axles per set. Apart from that, I don't think N scale is worth all the performance issues, and it isn't well suited to running small panniers and prairies. I found shunting in N to be a chore with all the issues the couplers gave. It's also a great time to be getting into 4mm scale, as Peco just recently announced a new EM gauge track product line, which as far as I know is actually the first time anything like that has been offered. If you'd like to go with 00, Peco have also just released their very nice bullhead product which you'll be pleased to know has it's turnout sleeper arrangement based on GWR standards.

Personally, I think with 12 feet you have plenty of room to model a GWR terminus in 4mm scale AND have a fiddle yard without having to resort to an L shape.