Gingerbread

For this particular prototype it's probably also worth consulting "A Pictorial Record of Great Western Wagons" by Jim Russell. The drawing isn't quite as useful (no details of the underframe), but the photograph (end view) is helpful.

David

Lovely stuff as usual, Mikkel.

There's another intriguing mystery just below the surface too - theater instead of theatre, centimeters instead of inches (or fractions of an inch, or even just centimetres).

I blame it on that young upstart Churchward at Swindon, and his obsession with foreign practices...

David

Chris

I am sorry to read that your 2mm efforts have currently hit a brick wall, and that you are taking a break to try elsewhere. Good luck with your endeavours in 4mm, and I hope to see you enjoying them, and perhaps returning to 2mm suitably refreshed at some time in the future.

I had expressed similar concerns that 2mm FS appears to be in danger of serving two different client groups, and falling between the two stools - modern image modellers, who are well-served (their only problem is building of turnouts), and the rest, who need to be micro-engineers. Like you, I far prefer steam, and know that I am not a micro-engineer, so I fear that 2mm may not be for me either - my first two locomotive kits are at a halt waiting for various missing components to arrive in shop 3, so I haven't had chance to test my ability to get a loco running successfully yet...

Looking on the bright side, there are a couple of developments that might suit you (and me too, in one case) if and when they come to fruition in the not-too-distant future:

• David Eveleigh has just announced his intention to prepare etched kits for several Midland locos this year.
  
• There are various projects to produce a 2mm solid brass split chassis design - the first should be available later this year, a conversion kit for the Dapol/Ixion Manor. That prototype isn't of much interest to you, but the process appears to produce a very robust chassis which is easy to put together, and I know others are also interested in doing similar projects (mostly GWR, which suits me though not you).
  

Finally a word of thanks for documenting your trials and tribulations here, which have helped to inspire me to try something similar.

Looking at the coach lining in the photos here, comparing it to mine, and looking at some of your earlier work, I think you are doing yourself a disservice by assuming that getting the locomotives running reliably is beyond your ability. On the other hand, I recall speaking to a prominent member of the 2mm FS community a couple of months ago who had problems with most of their stable of locomotives too, with only one running completely satisfactorily, so perhaps that is a normal state of affairs.

David

Modelling 2mm scale sarnies wit accurate fillings.That is dedication to the cause!

Yes, we need some better standards after some of the recent sloppy work elsewhere in 2mm - barbed wire without modelling the barbs, point rodding that is merely decorative and not functional...

David

off topic (almost), do Shapeways do a tutorial / list of minimum requirements? Or is there a tutorial here which I have not found? Or details elsewhere off-site? Sorry if this seems to come from a newbie, I used Autocad (R12) in anger last about 13 years ago, so I am just a bit rusty!

They (Shapeways) seem to provide an extensive variety of tutorials here.

And there is a list of requirements for the various different printing materials here.

David

That is looking good Ian.

I think Richard Brummitt wrote that when he had his W7 special cattle wagon printed he needed to do a small batch of four to meet the minimum volume requirement. If something similar still applies then you would probably have to do several - I would guess at about six, assuming that they are hollow and relatively thin-sided. I don't think you would have much difficulty finding customers for any surplus models in that event.

David

The more and more I look at your work in 2mm FS, the more I want to sell off my 4mm and have a go at it! I think that, if it's done well, 2mm can actually look more convincing - it's something that's really started to intrigue me as it's counter intuitive. It'd be worthwhile exploring this - what do other modelers think about this I wonder?

Yes, I am sure that 2mm FS can be more convincing than 4mm.

It depends what criteria you use in making the judgement:

• Track quality of 2mm FS can be roughly equated to EM (not to P4) - gauge is correct, but flanges are rather overscale, so probably a draw (unless you are starting from OO, in which case 2mm FS is a clear win).
  
• It is obviously difficult to obtain the same level of detail in the smaller scale, so 4mm probably wins on that comparison - but as can be seen the better 2mm FS models are so good that the difference is tiny.
  
• Similarly the larger size in 4mm means there is much more weight in the loco, so running quality is probably better there, but if you watch something like Highbury Colliery running you will probably decide that 2mm FS can be more than good enough.
  
• Where 2mm FS gains is in the space occupied - you can produce a much more realistic layout in the same space, without having to squeeze the plan to fit (or without squeezing so much, depending on just what you are modelling).
  
• Alternatively you can build a more extensive layout in 2mm FS in the same space with similar level of "squeezing", or the same layout in less space, or just add more scenery around the same layout in the same space.
  

David

Can't really add much to what has already been said - so "me too".

I would certainly like one of those cranes - a nice challenge for my slowly improving soldering skills

I can't find any justification for a City on my layout, but if you do proceed with the smaller-wheeled alternative a Bulldog would suit me fine (and going down one size smaller to an Aberdare would be even better, but that involves a minor change in the wheel arrangement too...).

Whilst searching the floor under the 2mm Roadshow tables on Sunday for a lost solebar we encountered a tiny etched coupling of DG-like appearance, which we assumed was one of yours - I think Noel has it now. Unfortunately beyond my photographic abilities to capture such a tiny beastie...

David

Even if they did all use the same batch of paint, sun bleaching really did effect locos in later life.

Can't help feeling there is a flaw in the logic there - sun bleaching, in Scotland? (More particularly, near Skye, where either it is raining, or it is about to start raining...)

But I agree, the colour should vary somewhat between individuals, so don't worry that they aren't uniform.

And I add my voice to the chorus of approval - that much-discussed backscene is looking good too.

David

I don't know how relevant my comments wil be, as they are based on 2mm models, which have an etched underframe below a plastic body.

• O5 probably isn't really a sensible choice. Approximately 98% of the GWR's four plank wagons were of the earlier version, which initially didn't have a diagram number, and had conventional single-sided brakes. Those which survived to the 1930s (probably most of them) were converted to either sided brakes, and acquired the diagram number O21. The O5 diagram had DC I either side brakes from the start.
  
• The 2mm plastic bodies share the same floor for four and five plank versions - which creates minor problems as the five plank body was 6 inches wider on the prototype. The solution is to provide a small "ridge" of plastic along the bottom inside edge of the body to fill the gap, but it is tempting to treat that as a support for the floor (which then creates two problems - the floor is both too high and too narrow...).
  

I don't think I can help on the W-irons issue.

David

The August-September 2010 issue of the 2mm magazine includes an article by Jim Watt, under the name of "Variations on an 1887 Theme", which covers a number of alternative builds of the 1887 RCH kit - including dumb buffers. Though written from a Scottish perspective, some of these may be helpful for your GWR-ish models.

David

Looks good for a first attempt Ian - I don't think I would want to put mine on public display.

I had much the same experience with escaping axleboxes - it gets easier as you develop tricks to foil their attempts, but there's also a few other alternatives:

• use cast axleboxes instead (and springs too)
  
• make your own - I have done this from plasticard for grease axleboxes
  
• some of the underframe etches foresee this problem, and provide spares or combine axleboxes and springs with solebar overlays.
  

I wouldn't worry too much about building the body before the underframe - I did most of my early models that way, and didn't see any particular problem with that.

You might also like to look at using the 4-plank wagon from the 4/5 plank GWR dual kit as the basis for cutting down to a 3-plank wagon - it has the advantage of no diagonal bracing to hide. For one and two plank wagons the planks should be significantly wider, so I chose to scratchbuild the bodies from plasticard, but you should also be able to proceed as with the three plank, then fill the gaps between the planks and re-scribe as a two-plank.

David

I have to express a dissenting view here. Whilst the 3-d printed body is excellent, I can't approve of the underframe...

As justification for this view, I confess that I have the "other" body from the batch that Richard had printed. Having looked at the amazingly detailed underframe he has made for it, he has set the bar much too high for me, so mine will remain unfinished (or at least well out of public view) to avoid comparison with his models...

Excellent work Richard

David

I model a similar period (1900-1910) and also GWR, but in smaller scale (2mm). I am interested in the early MICA vans, though mostly the unrefrigerated ones for the Birkenhead-Acton trains, as I am intending to model the Crewe-Wellington line and I have a picture of meat trains using that line in slightly later years (ca 1920), though I suspect they probably used the Birkenhead-Chester-Wrexham-Shrewsbury.-Wellington lines as their usual route.

I've also had a brief and inconclusive discussion on the early livery of the fruit vans, which would probably also be relevant here - were they red/grey/both before they switched to crimson/brown? It's all interesting detective work, trying to draw logical conclusions from incomplete records. Not helped by the habits of these wagons to run in overnight trains, rarely appearing in photographs (and inevitably being "grey" in the monochrome photographs anyway...). I look forward to seeing your discussions of similar questions here.

David

Richard

Personally I would vote for brown from about 1916 onwards, previously grey (based on my 1986 copy of Atkins et al, which I presume to be 2nd edition).

"Goods wagons which often travelled in passenger trains, such as BLOATERS and BEETLES, were painted brown with ochre lettering during, and after World War I ... Although the introduction of brown livery for some goods stock has been identified with the World War I period of brown coaching stock, photographs demonstrate that some vehicles were already so painted before 1914."

The first 20 (Lot 639 of 1909-10) would presumably have been initially painted in grey, and would have been due for repainting about five years later, namely around 1914-15. I am guessing that the repaint would have been delayed a bit due to wartime, say to 1916, and thus to have fallen into the "brown" period. Stretching to Grouping before the repaint looks unlikely, but I don't really know how much delay was caused by the War and its aftermath.

David

Good to see Highclere again - when are you next showing it?

There seemed to be one set of points giving problems when I saw it - the rest seemed to be working well. It was good to see the new fiddleyard - a simple design, with a single through line providing "roundy-roundy" capability, plus a siding in each direction connecting to cassettes.

I have fond memories of my warship from N gauge days, many years ago - it was by far the most reliable performer, with excellent haulage properties. Looks like the current version is similar.

Choice of stock was good - a few more steam locos would obviously have been better, but the diesels and dmus looked fairly plausible there. Some of the mineral wagons seemed to be lacking couplings - or were they just so ultra-fine that they defeated my poor eyesight?

David

Ian

Thanks for your latest blog article - I guessed when I read it that it was largely aimed at me

I hope to pick up some suitable brass rod this weekend and have a try next week - the next instalment of my blog will relate how it has turned out (unless I get distracted onto describing coach-building and lining).

I agree that painted cast domes fall short of the highly polished finish of the era that we are modelling, so I hope I can produce something better, in a similar way to what you have done.

David

The model looks good.

The construction method of multiple layers of etch, positioned by a bearing-sized hole, is familiar from the David Eveleigh old toad (unfortunately, so is the difficulty of fitting the corners together afterwards...).

I have recently acquired a small/cheap ultrasonic cleaner - judging by the colour of the water after using it, it provides another effective way of cleaning up after soldering.

David

Ian

I have to admit I did something similar in the distant past too, in my N gauge days - I think mine was a Minitrix 0-6-0 to which I added various bits of plastic to create an imitation of a 45xx small prairie, though as I recall clearance problems left it looking rather obese, and not very much like the prototype.

The John Birkitt-Smith approach does have its attractions - filing away at a large lump of metal, though time-consuming, is likely to help with the weight (lack-of) problems which I expect my resin kit based approach to suffer.

Your suggestion of drill plus file sounds as if it should work for turning a replacement chimney for the 517, so I will look around for a suitable piece of brass and give it a try.

David

Ian

I can't disagree with anything that you have said there. I was expecting something rather closer to the 1701 saddle tank in quality, but when I compared the model to the prototype its shortcomings became apparent.

I don't have the confidence/skills/tools to tackle scratchbuilding myself, though I hope that will change eventually. Although somewhat expensive (as you say, it's nearly £40 in price), I hope this will provide a reasonable basis that can be fairly easily hacked into something better.

Some of the castings look OK to me - the dome, which is part of the main body casting, looks good, as do the toolboxes, and the fireman's shovel looks a bit closer to GWR standards than the 1701 fireman's shovel. Others look less good - the handrails look much too fragile, the buffers rather anaemic (both easy to replace), and the outside frames for the rear wheels can be omitted (many 517s had inside frames). The chimney also doesn't look totally convincing, but I haven't decided yet whether/how to replace it.

I intend to build a second 1701 kit - also acquired at Watford - but as a different variant. I am hoping to try the alternative 2mm chassis from Alan Smith (solid brass, rather than etched), but latest news is that it may be cancelled because it has "missed the boat".

David

Mikkel

Thanks for your comments.

The situation with the 517 body kit reminds me of Nigel Ashton's 48xx/14xx article in the December 2006 edition of the 2mm Association Magazine. He started with the Langley kit, and gradually discarded the bits that he disliked, replacing them with scratchbuilt versions. In the end, all that remained of the original kit was tank fillers, toolboxes and buffers...

I don't think my conversion will be so radical, but it certainly needs some work, and any replacements of resin by brass will help the weight (lack of) problem that I foresee for this loco.

David

Richard

I'm not sure it's the first thing to attack, as other problems are more accessible, but I agree that the boiler bands need to be removed (or at least reduced in size to "almost imperceptible").

Another change I intend to make in the construction of the 517 is to replace the cast handrails with home-made ones - I think I have some spare handrail knobs, so it should be fairly easy to make my own (and I think there should also be a couple of rails on either side of the non-existent doors). This was described as "an experiment that didn't quite work out", and conventional wire/knobs were included with the saddle tank kit (and worked quite well, though it was difficult to get the right shape for the curve across the front in that case).

For somebody with your metalworking skills (and equipment) I think making these models in brass would be a better solution - amongst other advantages, it would help with the weight (lack-of) problem. For my ability level, I think these resin kits are worth trying, but they do ensure that I aspire to better things one day...

David

I think you could justify 10 feet by assuming the railway was built to 7 foot gauge, before being reduced to narrow gauge

David

BTW - where do you get the '2mm' logo from? I've noticed it on several Association-linked entries.

Paul Martin (when wearing his 2mm publicity hat) supplies them.

David

The other possibility that has been widely suggested is to use a shelf from a well-know Swedish chain as the basis for small layouts such as this. Unfortunately I don't think I have seen one that has actually been completed yet (I know mine isn't).

David