Gingerbread

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

Unfortunately progress has been rather slow, so there's not a lot to show in this update. I blame the recent cold weather - it didn't seem like a good idea to attempt such delicate work with frozen fingers... The chassis is now soldered together - not a difficult job, with the jig holding everything together. The insertion of worm and motor shaft into the gearbox looks somewhat unclear - the motor shaft is 1mm diameter, the inside diameter of the worm is 1.5mm diameter, and the motor shaft isn't long enough to reach the far side of the gearbox. My understanding of the solution is to use Nigel Lawton 1.0mm -> 1.5mm adaptor on the motor shaft, plus a stub axle of 1.5mm axle steel. A rough sketch of the scheme is shown below: Closer examination confirms my fears that the gears and muffs aren't compatible. This arose mainly from the "Out of Stock" situation with my originally selected gears (64DP), and substituting Metric O4 gears meant the selected muffs needed changing too, which somehow got lost in communications. So another order will shortly be sent to shop 3, and I also need to check if the 10.5mm wheels are now available for the 517, and see what else I should add to the order (maybe the Quartering Tool?). I had hoped to obtain some copper and steel paint to improve the appearance of the body, but couldn't find any on my recent trip to Watford Finescale Exhibition. Similarly I hoped for some mahogany paint for the coach bolections/droplights, but will have to continue experimenting with various alternatives. However, I did obtain the Dean Sidings body kit for the 517. I have made a start on the next project - the jig has been built and the bushes soldered into the side frames. Checking the body against the frames raises a problem - the frames are about 2mm too long to fit. The 517 body is too small for the Dapol chassis (necessitating some radical surgery to the Dapol chassis), and the Dapol body is reported to be rather small for the Association chassis (potentially too cramped for the Faulhaber motor which is widely preferred by members) - adding the two together suggests 517 body too small for Association chassis... One option would be to cut off the resin buffer beams from the body, and rely instead on the etched buffer beams from the chassis kit. The Association chassis kit is designed for motor in cab, which I would prefer to avoid if possible, so I intend trying to fit a 6mm Nigel Lawton micro-motor into the boiler. Main problem with the 517 body kit is the lack of any gap in the tanks for doorway into the cab. Understandable that cutting such a hole would substantially weaken the kit with a half-cab loco (and expose the motor in the cab to view), but I think it needs to be done. Having reviewed the articles in issues 74 and 75 of the GWR Journal, I think that I can "sort of" justify the 517 in my area based on the allocation of four to Wellington in 1914. I think they mainly worked on the Much Wenlock branch, but I know they occasionally worked to Crewe in later years. Studying the accompanying range of pictures suggests that the Belpaire firebox on the kit needs backdating to a round-topped one, and probably there should be a spectacle plate at the rear. However, the 517s did vary substantially between individuals, and changed over the years, so there are plenty of alternatives available. David

Weighbridges, at least on the GWR, were usually made by Pooleys, who later became part of Averys. There is a picture of such a weighbridge here, though I can't comment whether the colour is specific to that site or general for all such weighbridges. David

I haven't got that far myself (yet), but the way I interpret the instructions is that you use a piece of axle steel to form an "extension" to go through the "far side". This becomes a little more complicated with the recommended flat can motor, where I think you need the axle steel inserted into one end of the worm, and a Nigel Lawton adaptor in the other end, with the motor shaft into the Nigel Lawton adaptor. David

Looks like Kader is the Chinese company which owns Bachmann. See the Bachmann side of the story here, and the Kader side here. 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

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

Welcome to the GWR corner of the 2mm fan club (or should that be to the 2mm corner of the GWR fan club) There are a few potential problems with those new kits, but at least the GWR ones don't suffer from misaligned jigs that caused withdrawal of 3 of the non-GWR kits while replacement jigs are produced. There's a wheel shortage (temporary) which certainly affects the 14xx kit, and probably the 2251, and I've also seen reports of shortages of gear muffs - apart from that everything looks good... There's also an underframe kit by David Eveleigh for the Dapol 45xx small prairie, though I don't know if he currently has any in stock. Also planned for the near future are milled brass replacement chassis for the Ixion/Dapol Hall and for the Farish Pannier. Plus a variety of others which are rather further away from production. There should be plenty of rolling stock available, including drop-in wheel replacement for many N gauge models. Good luck with the new project. David

I think you need to divert those siphons into the sidings on Highbury, as the banana was - they were effectively backlit during the photo-session, making them too difficult to catch (specially with the "no flash" rule in effect). There's a reasonable picture of them in the photo section of the VAG - pdm_3827small in the "2011 AGM and Competition" set. There's also a few other items scattered around that set which look strangely familiar... Maybe the siphons could be re-routed via Wenford Bridge sometime soon, for a change? David

Richard Unfortunately you have confirmed what I feared - boiler mounting of the motor in the 48xx is likely to be beyond the capabilty of the beginner (i.e. me). I suppose the Nigel Lawton micromotor, which is only 6mm in diameter, might be part of the solution - subject to power/reliability questions about a motor that small. David

Richard I also recall brief discussion on the VAG of mounting the motor in the boiler on the 48xx, which should help by moving the centre of gravity forward, as well as leaving the cab clear (useful for the open-cab version of the '517). I think it concluded that it's not an easy conversion - would need to raise it a couple of millimetres to clear the gears, and it's not clear from a quick glance at the drawing how the various motor options would fit with the boiler/tanks. Probably feasible for a scratchbuilt body, but I suspect the existing Dapol 48xx or Dean Sidings '517 body would need significant work to make enough space there. My Nigel Lawton order included a midimotor, and I have no specific plans for it at present, so perhaps we can arrange another mutually beneficial swap. I suspect the gear muffs I received from Shop 3 aren't going to fit the gears, so will need replacing, but haven't checked them yet. I have a couple more PCB spacers to cut and solder in place before I start worrying about assembling all the gears/wheels etc. David

Hi John Thanks for the comments. I see your point on the adapter - cost £1, overseas post and packing £5, with a further £5 to pay if you choose the "signed for" option, and probably some currency exchange costs on top. Have you suggested to the Association (or shopkeeper 3) that the adaptor should be stocked at shop 3? Recent correspondence on the VAG has also highlighted potential problems for the 48xx build - the motor is going to be rather a tight squeeze. I assume the second shaft will need to be removed if the new flat-can motor is used, otherwise it will poke out of the back. Richard Brummitt's blog includes an entry on building the initial prototypes of the 57xx and 48xx. It also mentions the difficulty of getting enough weight into the 48xx body to provide good traction - which was highlighted on its recent performance on Highbury Colliery. David

Kris Thanks for the comments. The photo probably flatters the body at that point - I think I took it from its "good side", the other was worse. It's now been repainted, and looks somewhat better (including getting the roof in black), and cab handrails have been added. Unfortunately one of the sandboxes came adrift during the repaint, and hasn't been stuck back in place yet. It's not as good as I would like, but it's not too bad as a first attempt, and I hope to improve it further. David

Ian, Nick Thanks for the comments/updates. The kit has three alternative domes, and various part-drilled holes to fit them allowing various different options to be built. For this one I have tried to build a 1701/1854 from the appropriate period (1900-1910), and I think I used the Russell vol 1 picture of 1752 as built in 1892 as my reference (with handrails which I interpreted as brass, but you have now convinced me should be steel). One of the discussions we have had elsewhere on panniers in 2mm is the desirability of seeing daylight under the tanks. The picture of 1752 clearly shows daylight, and the model of the body does too. Whether that will still be visible after the motor is fitted I'm not sure... But I think many of the actual locomotives in use in the area were Wolverhampton builds, so I will probably make the next one as a 1501/645 (assuming I finish this one successfully). Locomotive allocations for Wellington for 1921 (haven't got an earlier one yet) give three STs: 1510, 1748 and 1778, plus others as PTs. There's a picture in Russell vol 1 of 1543 (in 1907), which ought to be useful for this discussion, but the brasswork looks so dull that it's darker than the tanks, and the front is obscured by the attached snowplough! David