Gingerbread

Unfortunately the text labelling one of the diagrams seems to be chopped off, but I interpret it as "Lower edge of baseboard at 1.0m agl". I assume this means the circular(-ish) layout of Upton Dene is 1 metre above the ground, and operator therefore has to duck below 1 metre (which sounds feasible). The U-shaped layout of Ambridge is a further 450 mm higher - which sounds a bit high to me, but not excessive. The "450 mm duckunder" between the two layers in the diagrams probably should be reworded to something like "450 mm clearance between levels" - if I understand the concept correctly. David

I think the main question is which part of railway modelling do you enjoy most. You indicate that you have some advanced tools, suggesting that you enjoy "building", but also want to have fun "running trains". Looking at 2mm fs, which is the only one I really know, the timing could be quite good. There's a small range of etched chassis just becoming available from the 2mm Association shops, including 3 which should suit your preferences (assuming that the GWR shirtbutton avatar is accurate) - Collett 22xx 0-6-0, 57xx 0-6-0 pannier, and 14xx 0-4-2T. There's also a brass chassis conversion kit for the Ixion/Dapol manor which should be available soon, and a similar conversion kit for the pannier in development. Also an etched chassis kit for the 45xx small prairie is available, and I believe one for the Dean Goods is under development. I would also suggest considering the possibility of building a dual-era layout (or even triple-era), with some modern image stock (which for this purpose means diesel) which can generally be easily converted from N gauge RTR stock either by using the "drop in" replacement wheels or by doing it yourself with the lathe. This would give you some high-quality stock available to run almost immediately. The one thing that you can't really get around in 2mm fs (apart from by subcontracting the job) is building your own pointwork - that's still on my "to do" list, so I can't give you any advice from my personal experience, but it seems that generally if you are willing to discard your first few attempts you will succeed in due course. Looking a little wider than the 2mm fs field, I think within 4mm much the OO/EM/P4 discussion is largely similar to the N/2mm - do you want to get something running quickly (OO/N) or do you want to spend your time building (EM/P4/2mm)? I believe that there are similar alternatives within the 3mm and 7mm world too, but in both cases there is relatively little RTR equipment available, so it will be largely build-it-yourself whichever gauge you choose within those scales. Your final comment indicates that you already appreciate one of the main pieces of advice I would otherwise have given you - start with something fairly small and simple, so that you can get it built. Ideally build in some scope for extension, but it's unlikely you will ever get the layout completely "finished". Good luck with your project (specially if it's 2mm GWR!) David

Nick Tilson's N Brass Locomotives is probably a good place to start - http://www.nbrasslocos.co.uk/GWRfit.html Another possibility is Dean SIdings, which produces a couple of GWR kits (0-6-0 ST and '517 0-4-2T) and may be able/willing to provide the fittings separately - unfortunately no web site available. Limited details at http://www.ukmodelshops.co.uk/suppliers/40069-Dean_Sidings David

Ian - NMRA recommends 0.5 ounces, plus 0.15 ounces per inch length, for n gauge - see http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/rp-20_1.html I am not convinced that these weights would be appropriate for our circumstances, as I assume they are intended for long bogie freightcars, rather than short 4-wheel wagons. Assuming that weight should scale with volume, then 1 gram of 2mm wagon weight represents about 3 tons of full-size wagon weight. The NMRA recommendation would be about 0.7 ounces, or 20 grams, which appears to be equivalent to about 65 tons (against about 5 to 15 tons for the prototype). I am still procrastinating on adding weight to my own rolling stock, but from limited testing it does seem to run better with a little more weight (etched bodies better than plastic ones). Kitchen scales used for weighing the wagons, so accuracy is very questionable, but I think my heavier wagons are about half the NMRA recommendation, and lighter ones about a quarter. Need some proper track, and a working locomotive, before I can offer any useful advice from personal experience. David

Mikkel - Thanks for posting this. I have some 4-wheel coaches in 2mm that I hope to build and paint fairly soon, but haven't decided yet whether to try this method or the "lots of tiny bits of masking tape" alternative. Either way, it looks a bit challenging to handle the mixture of chocolate/cream/mahogany on the uprights (see http://www.rmweb.co....e/33684-t49-01/ for a 305mm scale example). Will J - No doubt there are examples to disprove me, but I thought that most toplights were a bit too late for the elaborate Dean-era fully lined out livery - they would generally have started life in the Churchward maroon lake livery, and later have acquired the much simpler Collett chocolate and cream style. David

Ian - Thanks for the update. I think I will finish the first one to match the reference in Atkins/RWA, namely four wagon-type brakes, no sand pipes. The second has also been built with four wagon-style brakes, so I probably won't convert them to 8 clasp brakes, but the addition of sand pipes (and the corresponding fittings in the verandah) sounds a plausible alteration for that one. I will check the various references given, including yours, and see whether they inspire me to add a third alternative (presumably with the 8 clasp brakes). I have already moved the first stove pipe to the middle of the enclosed non-verandah area. I think your confirmation means I will do the same with the other(s) - unless I decide to add a departmental version, and I don't plan that at present. David

Ian Those cast plates look excellent - rather better than I expected, and as I intend to use a darker grey for the background on mine I hope mine will be as legible. Just need to decide whether to put them onto red wagons (probably 4 plank opens) or grey (probably W1 cattle wagons). Having resolved that problem as far as we can, let's open the next can of worms... What colour should the underframe be? Atkins et al unhelpfully says "Most GWR freight wagons were painted dark grey with white lettering, this colour scheme having become standardised about 1898; before that time black and red had additionally been used". This leaves it unclear whether the earlier colour scheme was that most wagons (excluding brake vans I think) were a combination of black and red, or some earlier wagons were wholly black and other earlier wagons were wholly red. One source, Modellers' Guide to the Great Western Railway (from Silver Link Publications in 2002), suggests "red with black ironwork" - not sure if this is independent research or just an interpretation of Atkins. Another source ( http://www.gwr.org.uk/liverieswagonred.html ) indicates red solebar and black below (and quotes Atkins et al differently from my copy) - as this was the first reference I found this is what I have used so far. David

Ian Sorry - my mistake. The one date that Atkins et al indicates as firm is "summer 1904", when grey with 5" lettering changed to grey with 25" (GW) and 5" (numbers), so there should be an extra 1902-4 grey 5" lettered period in my list. Atkins suggests "late 1890s" for the start of the cast plate era, which is why I used 1898, but as Nick says it's all pretty vague (with the probable exception of the 1904 start for 25" GW). And I did disclaim with "the timescale was probably something like:" So your 1894 could well be correct, based on a specific photo. However, I think that Atkins and RWA used the same photo for my "old Toad", with two different dates (1888 and 1900) attributed to it, so it's worth looking for some corroboration! This uncertainty is why I have been procrastinating before printing my attempts at cast plates, or one of the reasons. Smallest size I have successfully used to date in my experiments with PO wagons is about 2.2 points, which would be about 4 inches high. It's clear enough to read (under magnification), but with normal vision it's little more than a blur. In this particular case it is black lettering on light brown background, I see no reason why white lettering on grey/black background should be significantly different. David

Richard - My reading of Atkins et al is as follows: W4 - 53 built, 1888-1898 W7 - 30 built, 1909-1926 So I see all of the 53 W4s as being available in my period (wherever it finally settles between 1900 and 1910), whereas some of the W7s would be too late, even if I settled right at the latest date in the range. [Looking again, I suspect 20 of the W7s could scrape into my period, 10 couldn't, which is more hopeful.] Having said that, if you do have one looking for a good home, then I think I could stretch that far - looking again at my original plans for adding grilles to the BR cattle wagon to convert it to a W4, together with rebuilding the ends, removing the strapping from the sides, it's not a trivial conversion. Thanks for the offer - add it to the pile for when we next meet (St Albans?), unless you find a taker that it suits better in terms of date. So next I need to research the appropriate livery for a W7 built in 1909-1910 - grey or brown (I think crimson lake was a bit later - 1916?). Then to work out some plausible numbers from the two different sequences (though I think they would be difficult to read at normal viewing range). Assuming it was amongst the first lot (of 20), it looks like 68464-83 in the goods sequence, then renumbered as 981-1000 in passenger. David

Ian Interesting to see your progress (or lack of) with the cast plates - specially after I suggested the "print on paper" idea to you recently. I intend to try the same idea myself, though I haven't yet resolved the question that Nick raises - I think the plates would look much better on red wagons than on grey, but I fear that the timescale was probably something like: Up to 1898 Red wagons, letters/numbers 5" painting 1898-1902 Grey wagons, 5" writing on cast plates 1902 onwards Grey wagons, lettered 25" GW, 5" numbers Fortunately nobody seems to know for sure, so I may just invoke rule 1. The other aspect for me is that I know that I don't have the dexterity/eyesight to paint (or score) lettering 0.8mm high, so it's going to be computer printer or nothing - whether transfers, plates, or a mixture of both. I think we just have to accept that they aren't going to be legible at normal viewing distance, just visible as a white blur, and it's only when they are unkindly blown up in photos like these that they might be readable. That's certainly my experience with lettering of similar size on some PO wagon sides I have been printing. David

Thanks for the comments Richard - Yes, "rare" is probably putting it a bit too strongly. I intended to make the point that W1 should dominate the cattle wagon fleet on any GWR layout, and W3 should be present at about 1/12 of the numbers of the W1 (which would typically be "none"). I heard that you were showing a "special" cattle wagon on the 2mm stand somewhere recently - at Peterborough I think ? Unfortunately a W7 would be too modern for me, but I'm tempted by the idea of converting the BR cattle wagon body to a W4 - haven't decided whether to lengthen your NPC underframe or use the DC 11'6" frame with 6mm solid wheels and conventional brake levers (and 8 clasp brakes). Ian - Agreed - I think it would definitely be worthwhile to use the BR cattle wagon for the sides. Scratch-building the ends might still be the better option - I am not really happy with mine, as there is still a "shadow" of the diagonal strapping that I have filed off, and the new X-strapping is a bit rough. However, I am not too worried about the quality of the ends, the sides are much more visible. David

Worsley Works clerestory coaches - you will probably need to scratch-build the roofs, and most of the underframe, but there are now some Dean bogies available in various lengths (6'4", 8'6" and 10' I think) from Richard Brummitt. Also available from him are various 6-wheel siphon kits and a suitable underframe carcass for various NPC stock (10' wheelbase, 16' length, for 7mm wheels, 8 clasp brakes) such as meat and fruit vans, early horse boxes - see his Littlemore blog for some details around http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/416/entry-7470-int-milk-brillyant/ . David

Although it's not obvious from the product list, the 2mm Association kits provide a good start for building GWR cattle wagons - known as MEX (or should that be MEXes?) for identification purposes. The Association body kit 2-561 is intended for a BR cattle wagon (Diag 1/353) which is very similar to the late GWR cattle wagons of diagram W12. By substituting the Association 2-363 underframe (11'6" DC) for the recommended 2-352 underframe, you can easily build the GWR W8 diagram of 1913 (the underframe kit helpfully includes replacement doors, providing the earlier style of lower horizontal planks, rather than higher vertical ones). However, I wanted something earlier, so a slightly more radical piece of kit-bashing was required. The following are candidates for my period (1900-1910): W1, size=large, 1200+ built from 1888 to 1904 W2, size=medium, 300+ built from 1878 to 1982 (outside-framed) W3, size=small, 99 built in 1888 W5, size=large (but convertible), 575 built 1902-1911 Briefly summarising the later versions, all of which are similar size to W5: W8, 700 built 1913-1927 W10/W11 300+ built 1923-1928, as W8 but with Morton either-side brakes (ie as BR cattle wagon with GWR doors) W12 200+ built 1929-1933, as BR cattle wagon For the purpose of completeness, I should also mention W4, which was the "special" or "pedigree" cattle wagon, fitted to run in passenger trains. Of similar size to the W1 or W5 large cattle wagons, it had louvres at the top instead of open space, and no external bracing on the sides. Vacuum brake gear was similar to fruit and meat vans, and similarly it ran on passenger wheels (3'6" solid instead of 3' spoked ). About 50 were built, from 1888 to 1898. Later versions were larger (about 26 ft long), with a cattle compartment each end and a central attendants' compartment, and formed diagrams W6, W7, W13 and W14, about 50 in total being built. And finally the missing W9 was for two cattle wagons for the Vale of Rheidol railway. As cattle traffic moved form rail to road, various cattle wagons became surplus to requirements, and were converted to carry fruit or ale in 1939. Based on numbers built, and assuming my train is of six wagons, it should probably be something like 4 x W1, 1 x W2, 1 x W5. I haven't yet obtained or built a W2, but will be building a W3 instead. Simplest to produce in 2mm scale is actually the W5, which is largely similar to the W8. So I started with the 2-561 body and 2-363 underframe, cut out the upper part of the doors and substituted the etched ones from the underframe kit. So far this follows the W8 conversion. Next came the more challenging parts - the ends require X-shaped flat cross-bracing, instead of L or T-shaped diagonal supports. Perhaps the ends from the early mink body (2-525) could be used instead - but the body is solid, so that would require a lot of cutting and filing. So I carefully filed off the diagonals from the 2-561 body, (re-)scored planks then added some thin strips of styrene to simulate the cross-bracing. These thin strips are actually square in cross-section, rather than flat bars, so need a little gentle flattening when soft while they are being added. Meanwhile care must be taken to try to avoid leaving various distortions (such as fingerprints) in the softened surface of the ends. The other significant difference is that the roof is much flatter, so I filed the ends lower/flatter, and decided to discard the plastic roof and replace it with an etched one from 2-336 (actually designed for LMS, but I think they are acceptable for GWR). Brake gear had various options, DC1 or DC2, with or without vacuum, 8-shoe clasp or 2/4 shoe wagon block style. The one I have built is DC1 with two shoe wagon brakes - which means I should probably snip off the tiebars (which were fitted only to those with vacuum brakes, i.e. DC2). Two things probably worth mentioning here - 1)From the prototype perspective, this (W5) saw the introduction of the Wright-Marillier locking device which allowed the partitions in the van to be moved - so that the space available could be approximately 18' (large), 15' (medium) or 13' (small) in length. Thus small and medium wagons were no longer needed, and no more were built. 2) From the model perspective, fitting DC brake levers is painfully difficult - the holes in the etched levers are too small for wire to pass through, and too small for any broach I had at the time to pass through. And furthermore there isn't really enough spare metal around the hole to allow it to be safely opened out. The best two suggestions to date are: i) Use the smallest available broach - nominally 0.4mm, from the 0.4mm to 1.4mm set, instead of the 0.6mm I had at the time (Noel Leaver) ii) Chop off the end with a hole, and solder the remaining lever direct to the frame (Richard Brummitt) Fortunately there are plenty of spare levers provided (4 on each GWR DC etch, of which two are needed). The W1 conversion is similar, but the design predates the introduction of DC brake gear, so there are two plausible options: 1) Use the same underframe style as W5, on the basis that many of the W1 cattle wagons were later updated to DC brake gear (and often fitted with vacuum brakes) 2) Use the intended 2-352 underframe (plus doors from 2-363) to build conventional brakes, with single sided lever. I intend to have some of each, but primarily in the "old" version with non-DC brakes, as these should probably be the more common in this period. W2 should be available as an etch from Stuart Bailey - I've not acquired any yet, so they aren't covered here. Most interesting is the W3 version - although rare, I think I can justify one as an attractive alternative to the W1/W5 large cattle wagons (and not much more work). For the 8'6" wheelbase underframe I chose the RCH chassis number 2-326, which needs a little filing off the ends to shorten it to 14 ft length. Unfortunately there isn't really enough space available to shorten it, without weakening the fold-down support for DG couplings, so I decided on an additional change - I soldered a single layer of brass etch to the underframe for the headstock, and filed the headstock off the plastic ends - thus reducing length by about a mm each end. For the ends of the body I used the BR cattle wagon kit, with similar filing and rebuilding to obtain cross-bracing. The sides came from the 1907 RCH 7-plank wagon (2-552), but these needed shortening from 16 ft to 14 ft, by taking about 2mm from each end - which unfortunately meant that the diagonals on the sides no longer run quite to the corners. I cut out the top part of the doors, and glued in replacement doors from another DC underframe etch. Floor was scratchbuilt from styrene - probably as quick to scratchbuild as to shorten either of the existing kit floors. As is usual with my models at this point, they are "mostly complete" - meaning that roof/body/underframe haven't yet been attached (and need some fettling to fit properly), and though most are painted, the lettering and weathering are still to be done. In particular, the W3 needs some styrene strips added to the sides to represent the various vertical and horizontal framing missing from the upper half. At this point, the horizontal bars are missing from all of them - I have my doubts whether these would be visible at normal viewing range, so I may leave it off. I suspect that to the correct scale they would be about half the diameter of the smallest readily available wire (i.e. about 0.15mm). In defence of my cavalier cannibalisation of 2-363 underframe etches for the replacement doors, I have identified alternative uses for the rest of these kits. Unfortunately there appear to be no other suitable GWR designs using the 11'6" wheelbase (a failure of Churchward's standardisation policies?). Possibly the Serpents might fit (almost), but the only one that's correct wheelbase is the G8, which dates from about 1870 and had wooden underframes, and only about 20 built, whilst G21 which had DC brakes, albeit on 11 ft wheelbase, was a bit late (1907 to 1913), with only about 30 built. G9 remains a possibility, 11 ft wheelbase and conventional brakes, with about 70 built. But all these have a couple of significant problems - the floor needs lowering, except at the ends, and in most cases the sides (which are about 6 inches high) need some holes drilled in them. There were numerous North Staffordshire Railway wagons using an 11' to 12' wheelbase and 18' to 19' overall length - not only the obvious cattle wagons, but 2 and 3-plank open wagons. I intend to build some of these later, converting the underframes back to conventional brakes. Livery and Lettering - I intend the W5 to be grey with 25" lettering, whilst the W1/W3 (and W2 if/when I add it) to be (mostly) GWR red with 5" lettering - possibly cast plates for one or two of the W1s. Not forgetting the liberal application of lime wash, which would probably be seen dribbling down the outside (this stopped around the mid-1920s, when it was banned for potential damage to cattle's hooves). David PS Apologies for quality of photos - I will use lack of sunshine as today's excuse.

I think Richard was referring to the NBrass Dean Goods, from Nick Tilson. For the year or so that I have been pursuing it, delivery has always been promised "real soon now" - last account I heard was that it is complete apart from sourcing a suitable drive shaft (it uses a "motor in tender, driven loco wheels" design). I've also heard 1) that it has been "just over the horizon" for several years before I took an interest. 2) that as it is designed for a proprietary chassis (Farish 4F) so may not fit the etched chassis from Chris Higgs - whether Collett or Dean version. Not sure if it is round top or Belpaire firebox - there is an illustration in http://www.nbrasslocos.co.uk/catloc.pdf, but it's not very clear, and the final version may differ anyway. I know that Chris Higgs is also working on GWR tender etches - don't know when they will be ready. The outside framed brake van is available from David Eveleigh, the outside framed cattle wagon (W2) is by Stuart Bailey (not sure if it's actually available yet - need to check that myself). I don't think you need to be in the 2mm Association to buy from them, but you will probably want to join to obtain various components for them (wheels, bearings, chassis, etc). Another possibility worth mentioning is four wheel coaches, though if you already have the Stuart Hine set you probably don't want any more. Bodies are available from Worsley Works, for a set of four coaches, and the corresponding underframes from David Eveleigh. David

Ian You've now given me a couple more excuses to procrastinate Atkins merely suggests white lettering a dark background, so your dark grey is at least as likely as my assumption of black. I wasn't too worried about which font to use for lettering of this size, but it would be nice to find the right one. I know there's a few specific GWR fonts in the "files" sections of the gwr-elist on Yahoo, so I will have another look to see if any of them appear to match. I also haven't worried too much about the colour in my interpretation of GWR red - as long as each wagon is reasonably self-consistent, I don't mind if it varies a bit from other wagons (blame it on age, weathering, etc.). I do however have another consideration to tackle - my station was shared with the North Staffordshire Railway, which used "dark red oxide" as the livery for their goods stock, and a lettering style very similar to the GWR in this period, so I want to find suitable shades of red to distinguish GWR from NSR. David

Richard I bought four Iron Mink kits from the Association about a year ago - what I received clearly matched your description of the NGS kit. Conversely the accompanying photograph on the 2mm website stock list corresponds to your description of the 2mm Association kit. That just leaves us with the minor question of whether the current "TOS" status means that neither version is available, or the NGS version is currently being substituted for the unavailable 2mm version. I think I recall an earlier notice indicating that the Iron Mink was available, but without roof - which suggests it was the 2mm version at that point. I must remember to ask one of the relevant 2mm shopkeepers when I am next in contact with them. David

Looking at prototypes for 6mm (=3ft) gauge, I see Southwold and various Manx railways, or early Ravenglass & Eskdale. For 4mm (=2ft) gauge, there's a more interesting variety:- Lynton & Barnstaple, Vale of Rheidol, Ffestiniog, Welsh Highland, Talyllyn, Corris to name the more obvious ones. There's also a few intermediate size (2'4" or 2'6") - Welshpool and Llanfair, Leek and Manifold, Glyn Valley. Starting with your preference for things Great Western, adding the attraction of ripping up and relaying all that track, and finishing with the technical challenge mentioned by Don above, it's clear why you are moving to 4mm When you get bored with this challenge, the next one is to replicate Ravenglass and Eskdale and move from 6mm (3') to 2.5mm (15") David

Richard Thanks for the compliment - my skills have improved substantially over the last year or so, but from time to time events like this remind me that there's still a long way to go. Yes, that's the core of the GWR cattle wagon secret - get the BR cattle wagon body, add the 11'6" GWR DC underframe, swap the doors, and you have a GWR cattle wagon. And in the absence of the GWR roof etches, I find LMS ones are an acceptable substitute. For my earlier era, I need a couple of extra modifications unfortunately. David

Thanks for the comments Don. Unfortunately your photo is currently not visible - I presume it is lost somewhere in the RMweb system. From what I recall before it disappeared, you were modelling the same version (i.e. with grease axleboxes and 4 black wagon style brakes), but in later livery than I am intending to use - mostly white handrails, letters of either 16" or 25" for "GW" rather than the grey handrails and 5" "G.W.R" that I intend. One interesting minor difference was that your version had vertical handrails on both sides of the verandah doors, whilst I am fairly sure the photograph I am using as a reference (RWA fig 83) has only one, on the right hand side. It is possible that the two sides of the prototype differed - RWA showed the opposite side to yours, I think. I have to say that your handrails look better than mine - I presume you drilled the body, and bent the handrails and inserted the ends into those holes in the body. I felt that was rather too fiddly to tackle in 2mm, but perhaps next time... David

The smooth progress of the earlier sessions came to an end here - nothing monumental, just a string of things that didn't quite go right. Some have been re-worked to my satisfaction, some still need a bit more effort to fix (or work around). Mostly a problem with my limited soldering skills, abetted by lack of alignment aids in the latter part of the build. Anyway, back to the main story. Next I tackled the various ends to the body, and their overlays. The outer part of the verandah is fairly easy to locate, with a couple of alignment holes in the attached tabs (optional use of top-hat bearings here), though the outer layers are very flimsy and need to be treated with care. The inside end of the verandah has only one overlay, and this needs a bit of filing of the lower edge, otherwise it sits too high after folding up the main layer. The non-verandah end is also lacking in any alignment aids, but seems to go together fairly well with a bit of care. Attaching the non-verandah end of the body to the underframe should be easy, with a couple of aligment holes available if needed. It was at this point that I started to struggle - soldering took several attempt (my suspicion, looking back on it, is that I needed to apply more heat, as I was working with rather larger chunks of metal to solder together than previously), but eventually it was fixed, and correctly placed. Similar problems were encountered with the verandah end - it's difficult to find a way to clip the pieces together here, and there is no easy alignment aid. After several attempts I finally soldered it firmly in place, only to discover that it wasn't quite centrally positioned - it's firm against the end, but slightly to one side. It's also fairly challenging to solder the sides onto the ends - there's no obvious way to clip the two parts together while soldering. The corners seem to have aligned fairly well, and solderered reasonably neatly, though I don't think the inner end of the verandah has soldered properly, so I will revisit that later. The sides appear slightly high, leaving a thin layer of daylight visible between body and underframe. I think the alignment with the ends is correct, and the ends appear firmly seated to the underframe, so I suspect that I should have located the outer solebars slightly higher to avoid the gap. This suggests a radical rethink of the order of construction - perhaps complete the body parts first, solder them to the underframe while it is flat, then bend up the underframe and attach the outer solebars later so they can be adjusted to fit against the body.. Minor problem with the buffers - the holes in the buffer beams, even after reaming out , weren't really large enough to take my preferred buffers, or more accurately there wasn't enough room because of solebars/floor to thread the buffers through and still keep them straight. So I cut the buffers off short, just long enough to go through the buffer beam, and soldered them like that. One is slightly crooked, so I need to straighten that. I suspect that the best method to attach the handrail would be to drill the van sides, insert loco handrail holders, and thread the handrail through them. However, the outside framing of the van means that soldering the wire direct to the outside frames leaves it standing well clear of most of the sides, giving a 3-d effect with much less effort and skill required, so I chose the easy way. It took a few attempts to position the vertical sections correctly, and I've not split the wire at the doors (maybe later, but it looks good enough for now). I usually attach my DG couplings by soldering, but after my earlier problems, and without the usual fold-up box to form a base for the couplings I weakened and glued a couple of strips of styrene to the underframe and glued the couplings to that. Perhaps I should probably have attached them earlier, when there was better access to clip them in place, but I was reluctant to add styrene until the soldering was finished. The chimney hole in the roof is wrongly positioned for the example I am attempting to follow -it is positioned in the middle of the whole length, whereas both photographs and drawing show it in the centre of the enclosed section - so I drilled a new hole in the right place. This is what it looks like at the current stage - needs a bit of tidying up, adding the brake standard and chimney (and filling the old chimney hole), then painting, transfers, and weathering. That will take a while (particularly the transfers), so this part of the thread will lie dormant for a while. Note that the roof is still loose at this point, and probably crooked in the photos - I intend to fix it in place after I have installed the brake standard to the verandah. In the meantime, the next picture also includes some mostly-completed cattle wagons, which I intend to cover in the next post to the blog. David

Richard Thanks for the references - I am using RWA fig 83 as my primary reference (and the smaller version of the same picture in Atkins, in the "AA" chapter - though they disagree on the date...). I assume David Eveleigh used the same reference when he produced the kit - I think he mentioned somewhere that he later discovered that the brakes he modelled weren't typical. I hadn't spotted the other RWA example in fig 304. I suggest "RW" for Russell's Pictorial Record of Great Western Wagons, which is the abbreviation used in Atkins. I need to locate (or replace) my missing copy. David

Thanks for the comments Nick - I have some plastic clothes pegs, which are useful when assembling with glue (I tend to use epoxy resin rather than superglue, so the joint has to be held for ten minutes or so), but I wouldn't like to risk them with the heat of a soldering iron nearby. I will look out for the wooden variety. Ian - I remember admiring your models earlier - similar vintage, even if we don't necessarily share the same livery (you will probably see some of my version of GWR Red sometime soon). I think the model is perhaps flattered by a bit of better-than-usual photography, and the next stages of construction didn't go quite so smoothly, but let's hope it all turns out well in the end. I would probably have built (or attempted to build) them in styrene sheet if the etch hadn't been available, and I have a styrene outside framed wooden mink that will probably make an appearance here in due course. I'd be interested to hear about that photo if/when you can locate it - I don't see anything in the "All About Iron Minks" booklet, but Nick (aka Buffalo) mentioned a couple of pictures in Russell's GWR Wagons, my copy of which has gone walkabout. Missy - Thanks for the compliments - there will be at least one more in this series shortly (Toad part 3), then a pause while I acquire the necessary bits to finish it (transfers, brake standard, etc), during which I will try to turn my hand to other subjects. Cattle wagons next, probably. Yes, it's a nice kit, and as you say all credit to David E - it's not much more expensive than the more modern Association Toad kits, but I think they would be extinct (apart from departmental use) by your era, so a luxury for Highclere. Wooden clothes pegs now added to my Christmas shopping list. David

Returning to the previous instalment, there's something worth mentioning (in case you've not read the comments): Normal practice is for 90 degree bends to be bent towards the half-etch, but 180 degree bends to be bent away from the half-etch. In this kit, the V-hangers are bent 180 degrees towards the half-etch, thus passing inside the solebar, rather than outside it. After fitting the brake gear, the next step that I tackled was the solebars. I cut out the four plain solebars, leaving the half-etched outer solebars for now, cleaned them up, and reamed out the holes to fit fairly loosely over the top-hat bearings. I snipped off the four small steps from two of the solebars, then carefully put them on one side for use later (only two of them will be needed, the other two will probably escape to the floor anyway...). I tinned both sides of each solebar, and the corresponding sides of the underframe, then reamed out the holes again, as some of the solder had run into them. Holding one pair of solebars firmly against the side of the underframe, with the top-hat bearings through the holes, I ran some solder paint along the joins near the point where they are held together, then applied a hot soldering iron. Not having the recommended asbestos fingers, I generally use a spring loaded pair of tweezers to hold them together - alternatively some small bulldog clips, and I've also seen ladies' hairclips suggested. This was repeated until the entire length is firmly fixed. Alternatively you can attach the solebars one at a time - each is easier and quicker, but you need to do twice as many, which is probably a nett loss. The final (half-etched) solebars need much more care: 1) There's no longer any alignment aid from the top-hat bearings, so you will need to position and hold them yourself manually. 2) There are two rows of small tabs - to hold up the steps (two tabs) and the running board (five tabs). You need to be careful not to cut off these tabs when cutting from the etch, or cleaning up afterwards, then to fold them up at some point (so make sure you don't solder them in place now...) 3) There's a "right" and a "wrong" way round, which isn't immediately obvious - the end with the two tabs for the steps corresponds to the verandah, and the two holes at underframe end are guides to the non-verandah end of the body, so you want the step tab end of the solebar at the non-two-hole end of the underframe. The basic process is the same - tin the surfaces, hold them together, add solder paint/flux, apply soldering iron, apart from the much-increased difficulty of holding it in the right place. Then I bent up the lower tabs, and soldered the footboard in place. With my first toad I also solded the steps in place, but for the second one I am leaving the steps until later, so that they align correctly with the verandah door - i.e. after the verandah sides are in place. Next I tackled the sides of the body. I cut out the block of six pieces - two main sides, two inner overlays and two outer overlays. There are large tabs attached with holes for alignment - first time through I used a couple of top-hat bearings in through the holes to ensure correct alignment, second time I omitted this and merely checked by eye. Alternatively wire or drill shafts through the holes have been suggested by others in similar cases. After tinning all relevant surfaces, I folded up inner overlays onto the main sides, and soldered them in place - initially just with a few small tacks. Following the example of the photograph I am using for reference, I wanted to add the frame (at the opposite end to the verandah), which according to RWA was used for diagramming letters. Two alternatives are available - three-sided which appears better size, but very flimsy, and four sided which appears a little too large. I used three sided on the first model, four-sided on the second. So after soldering the inner side in place I carefully positioned these tiny frames onto the sides, added tiny dabs of solder paste, applied the soldering iron, and they stayed in place (none lost to the carpet - no doubt if there had been no spares available, one or two would have escaped). I folded over the outer overlays, and tacked them in place. Then I snipped off the alignment tabs, and proceeded to run along all the edges and most of the interior bars, soldering the sides more firmly together. If you don't intend to fit the small frames, it's probably better to fold over all three levels and solder them together in one run.

Thanks for the comments Jerry - I admired your brake van at STEAM a couple of months ago. As I recall, you said that it took about four hours to build - mine took rather longer, split over several sessions, but I agree that it goes together well. There's a few minor traps in the process to fall into, which I hope to point out in the narrative (which reminds me - one was that the v-hangers bent the non-usual way, namely with the half-etch on the inside of a 180 degree bend, so I need to add a note on that). Tom - Yes, it will be something to show off at the next WLAG Meeting, instead of an armchair planning session - another "almost finished" wagon. When one of the promised underframe conversions comes out, I will be able to add that and have a complete "almost finished" train - probably about midsummer I forecast... Nick - Yes grey with a polished (through paint having worn off) handle sounds likely for the brake standard. Alternatively, as you say it's quite likely it varied which would justify alternative treatments. In the photo which is my main reference it is certainly too dark to be white. Variation in chimney positions also sounds likely. I will see how difficult it is to move mine to the "right" position, and use "variation" as an excuse if it doesn't work out. David

Not impressed by that modelling table - it's far too tidy Even allowing for the various bits trying to hide behind the foamboard, there's lots of unoccupied space on the table, whereas my modelling equipment appears to obey Parkinson's Law - rapidly spreads to occupy every available square inch... No wonder you can't find anything - it's not there (must be still hiding in boxes from the last move). David