Ian Simpson

Thanks, John, it's really good to give such a decent amount of time to prepare! Would something on shareholder revolts during the Railway Mania be of any interest? It might concentrate on southern lines, I'm afraid.

Completely agree that the alignment seems okay. But i don't think this lathe is designed to work with metals. I think "metal lathe" in the title refers to it being made out of metal instead than plastic! The description says: "Suitable for engraving and grinding of wood, stone, peach kernel, eggs, handicrafts, glass, ceramics and other materials" - so it might be okay for soft metals but I suspect it won't work well with harder ones.

Apologies, I realise this is quite a long post! And it doesn't finish here, either: there's a second part that I will post in a week or so. But I thought I would try and give as much info as I could about my attempts to use the Bachmann Prussia coach to produce a more representative British carriage of the early 1840s. 1) What are we working with? The Prussia coach is a nice model moulded in green plastic with yellow window frames and brown door panels printed (I think) onto the body. If you dislike the sheen to the plastic, it can easily be toned down with a coat of matt varnish (or a weathering wash, I suppose, although early carriages seem to have been kept pretty clean from all accounts). If you decide to paint the body another colour, I include a few tips on painting later in the post. The length of the body is 58 mm. In 1/87 scale this represents 16 feet 7 inches, a typical length for coaches of the early 1840s. (The length over the buffers is 66 mm.) The width of the body at the widest point (over the windows) is 28 mm. This scales out at 8 feet in HO, which makes it rather wider than an average coach of the time. Loading gauges varied considerably at this time, but most British railways used carriages between 6 feet 6 inches and 8 feet wide. In addition there is quite a significant curve to the sides of the coach, with the sides tapering inwards below the windows. Edited 13/2/22: In fact they look rather like the Grand Junction Railway's First and Mail carriages in Francis Whishaw's 1840 The Railways of Great Britain and Ireland (available as a free downlaod on Google Books): It would be possible to narrow down the model by removing a vertical strip of plastic from each end of the body (which would mean you would also need to trim the seating unit inside). Achieving flat sides would involve a degree of scratch building: not impossible, but you might as well scratch-build an entire new coach to suit your own requirements. Personally I’m happy to leave the width and the tapering sides as they are, since the south-eastern railways of the early 1840s tended to have generous loading gauges and rather characterful little coaches. In addition I like the slightly broad-gauge appearance of these low, wide coaches and I think it adds to their charm. However, if I was modelling the London and Birmingham or the Liverpool and Manchester in the 1830s I think I might decide it was too much effort to turn them into the narrow flat-edged coaches common in these very early years, and I might decide to use a different model as a base. (Of course, if you are modelling in 4mm scale the width is a bit of a bonus: unlike most HO rolling stock, the Prussia coach won’t seem too thin! At just 38 mm high from rail tops to the lamps on the roof it might seem a bit low for 4mm, but some early railways did have some coaches that seem incredibly low by modern standards (and there are several visual tricks to increase apparent height such as placing baggage on the roof.) The ideas below are simply my own suggestions. You don’t need to follow any of them unless they appeal to you. The coaches are very nice, attractive models as they are and they will give a delightful period flavour to a layout. But they do provide such a convenient base for adaptations and tweaks that they almost call out to be bashed to meet modellers’ individual tastes and requirements. 2) Dismantling the coach body Most of my suggestions, such as fitting new running boards, do not require any dismantling of the model. In fact it is really only necessary to take the model apart if you want to repaint the window frames (because dismantling the coach lets you remove the glazing inside) or you want to change the roof. It is easy to dismantle the coaches. There are two small crosshead screws on the underside of the model, visible near the wheel sets on the left-hand coach in the photograph below. Removing them separates the body (including the steps) from the chassis. The roof is a separate moulding from the rest of the coach body. It is glued fairly lightly onto the top of the body, and in every model I have seen it is easy to find a gap between roof and coach side large enough to insert a small jeweller’s screwdriver. Then gently start loosening the roof and the coach body, working around the roof much as one would gradually prise up a floorboard with a crowbar. I hope the photo above gives some indication of the approach I use. If you do encounter a point where the glue is so strong that it resists a screwdriver, a modelling knife with a sturdy blade will quickly free it. Prising off the roof allows you to remove the seating unit and the two strips of stiff transparent plastic that slot into the coach sides to provide the glazing. At this point you might consider whether to paint the seats to tone down their glossy shine (bear in mind that second class seats would probably have been bare wood, not upholstery) and possibly paint the inside of the carriage. And that’s all there is to dismantling the coach body! 3) Tweak 1: adding flat ends to the coach body The most noticeable thing about the coach sides are the curved gaps (the tumblehomes, I suppose) at the bottom of the coach’s ends. It is visually interesting and it adds character, but almost all British coaches of the period had flat ends rather than tapered or curved ones. To be honest at most normal viewing angles (i.e. from above) this feature is not especially noticeable. But if you like to run models nearer to eye level or you want to reproduce a specific railway rather than freelance, you might decide to fill in the gaps at the ends of the coach to make the model more representative. I used Humbrol filler, pressing it into the gaps between the coach body and the top of the chassis until both gaps were completely filled. Of course other fillers would work just as well: Milliput, plaster of Paris, probably DAS or fine PolyFilla as well. All that really matters is that the filler is relatively easy to sand down when it has dried. If you have decided not to dismantle the coach, I suggest putting a bit of tape over the top of the chassis that is visible below the end of the coach before you start adding the filler. This means you don’t end up with the body and chassis permanently fixed together. Sellotape, masking tape, a bit of printer label: all work fine, and probably so would a small piece of cling film, kitchen foil or similar wrapped over the top of the chassis. Afterwards, when you have sanded down the filler, you can trim off any exposed tape. When the filler has set hard (probably 2-4 hours in most cases, but I waited 24 hours to be on the safe side), sand it down to get the correct profile. I wrapped a strip of very fine 400 grade wet-and-dry paper around a thin block of wood and found I could easily sand each end and the adjacent sides down to a reasonable profile in less than 5 minutes. I definitely recommend a dust mask (and if you have sensitive eyes, some eye protection as well), ideally some good ventilation and a work area that is easy to vacuum or brush afterwards. Sanding Humbrol filler is very quick and easy, but it does produce a fine dust that is light enough to hang around in the air for some time and IMO tastes pretty nasty! I found it was worth taking the filler to the top of the coach ends (rather than halfway up the side, as I did in the photo above) to prevent the visible joint that I managed to achieve on my first attempt, and which I only noticed after painting: 4) Tweak 2: painting the body If you have filled in the ends, you will definitely want to paint the body because of the harlequin patchwork of colours that you now have on your model. Even if you are happy with the original shape, you may still want to repaint it in a different livery or tone down the plastic sheen of the model with a coat of matt varnish. Personally I prefer hand-brushing with Humbrol enamels, and most of these paints only come in matt and/or gloss finishes. When I was painting the coach I found that the matt enamels were too flat and boring and they didn’t seem to reflect any light, while gloss paints looked too brash and toy like. However, a coat of gloss paint covered by a thin coat of Humbrol’s matt varnish did seem to provide the right sort of finish – at least to my mind. The photo below shows the general effect: In this period railways often still painted the top section of the carriage sides black in imitation of the road coaches that they were putting out of business. This can add to the period charm, although anyone modelling an actual railway will probably want to carry out a bit of research to check whether there is any record of the chosen railway’s actual colour scheme. The Birmingham and Gloucester coaches were buff with black at the top, but I chose to paint my model in the blue of the London and Croydon railway. I am afraid I can’t offer any useful advice on using acrylic paints on the coaches, although I am practicing with them on scenery and buildings. But I will end this section with one comforting thought for other coarse modellers: remember that no one really knows the exact shade or finish on most early carriages! 5) Tweak 3: fitting running boards below the coach The coaches have steps moulded beneath each compartment to allow passengers to climb down to the low platforms of the period. Steps like this were used by some early British railways in the 1830s, but the style was already going out of fashion by 1840 with most new coaches (and having just opened, most railways had nothing but new coaches) having running boards stretching along the full length of the coach. I made the running boards out of a piece of T-section plastic strip 2.4 x 2.4 mm, trimming off one of the arms of the “T” so that I was left with a “L” section 1.2 x 2.4 mm across. The 2.4 mm part of the L becomes the flat running board for the passenger to step on, while the 1.2 mm side is glued vertically to the axle boxes to fix the board in place. The axle boxes have a bit of detail on them, so I filled this off with a needle file and carried on filing back the axle boxes below the coach springs for about half a millimetre before super-gluing the narrower side of the L strip onto these flat surfaces. Fixing the L strip to the axle boxes provides all the structural support that is needed. But I also wanted to model the hangers that drop from the underside of the chassis to the running boards. Small pieces of plastic rod or stiff wire would be fine, but I used the very small (Size 25) staples sold for pocket staplers such as the Rexel “Bambi” stapler. I straightened out one of the arms of a strip of staples using a pair of pliers, separated them into individual staples and then superglued the long arms of the resulting L shapes to the underside of the coach chassis and the ends of the short arm to the back of the running board. (The advantage of staples over bent wire is that staples have flat sides, making it easier to fix them in place.) I found a map pin extremely useful in tweaking the staples while the glue was setting. It is important to allow plenty of time for the glue holding the four staples on one side to set firm before starting on the other running board. The photo below shows the staples in place on one side of the coach before painting. I hope some of these ideas will be useful, or even better that they will inspire readers to find other ways of converting the model. If anyone has stuck with me this far, I will certainly be very interested in any questions, ideas or comments you have! In the next post I’ll look at ways to alter the roof (and the lamp covers on the roof), change to finer scale wheels (plus some ideas on how to camouflage the deep flanges on the existing wheels), add weight (the model only weighs 20 grams) and also discuss some ideas on suitable couplers.

Initially, early railways weren't very interested in third and fourth class passengers. Firstly they saw the big money coming from goods traffic rather than passengers anyway, a misconception that quickly vanished as the first main lines opened. Secondly, the passengers that they did want to attract were the well-heeled people who had previously travelled by stage coach, not the poorer folk who hitched a ride on the carter's wagon (or simply walked everywhere). But it didn't take railway managers long to realise there were lots of poor people out there ... and when they did recognise this fact they soon started providing open coaches - not always with seats - to earn a few extra quid. I decided to see if I could cut a Bachmann Prussia coach up into an open coach, and I was surprised to find how quick and easy the work can be. First I disassembled the coach and removed the seating unit and the glazing. My plan was simply to cut the sides of the coach along the top of the quarter lights (the curves at the bottom of the windows) with a razor saw. But when I removed the seating unit, the plastic side seemed a bit too thin, and so a bit too flexible, to saw across accurately without some reinforcement behind it. So I used some of the freebie lottery cards to pack out the interior and support the coach side during the sawing. (Pieces of wood, card etc would do just as well.) After sawing the sides, I turned to the ends and sawed through them as well ... ... by which time it was taking shape ... ... especially when I cut the partitions of the seating unit down to match. The basic job took under 20 minutes, although a bit of tidying up was needed afterwards to improve the appearance. The seated passengers are by Preiser, although some of the figures on the platform are by Andrew Stadden. The early railway companies' decision to provide open coaches for the poor was based on financial considerations. My own spur to experiment with the Prussia coach was a chance to exhibit some of my models at Wealden Railway Group's Annual Exhibition when an exhibitor pulled out at the last moment. But the real star of the display was Nigel Hill's brilliant conversion of the Airfix/Dapol "Rocket" kit into an 1830s Stephenson Single (right hand side of the photo), so that will be my next post!

Brilliant job, thanks so much for all your hard work! Richard's article on the S160 was great as well!

Following Suella Braverman's rapid return to the Cabinet, I can't help wondering if it's fair to judge people (say a shiny new Prime Minister) by the company they keep? If it is reasonable, I guess we have to put this one in Rishi's credit column:

I imagine the swivel-eyed ones would see this as "Cancel Culture". (And accurately so, for once.) The Thatcher government's plan to deprive the IRA of "the oxygen of publicity" didn't work out any too well (except for NI's voiceover actors). The problem is that there's always someone somewhere willing to listen:

Well, I just hope Jacob did give his poor nanny some paid leave in the end 😡 I know Monkeys would have spotted that no comedy scriptwriter would try to get away with such a shallow and one-dimensional character. It's as if R-M realised at age 12 he'd never achieve anything impressive, so he decided to chase money instead. Perhaps his nanny fixation is a result of his parents never telling him they loved him. As Al Murray once pointed out, that wasn't likely to be because they were bottling it up.

Just to clarify, if I did anything wrong it was definitely the Chancellor's fault.

If there ever is a Model Railway Inspectorate, I'm certainly arrogant (and nosy) enough to volunteer to vet other people's layouts! But perhaps a simpler way would just be for us to recognise and recommend those layouts that attempt to capture and show working practices correctly and educate the rest of us on how railways really worked. (I think modelling 1840s railways has probably made me more aware of operation because early railways were operated so differently to their later, safer successors.)

TBH, I'm not too miffed by what other people do with their layouts, even at exhibitions. Perhaps especially at exhibitions, where stand-in operators like me are often running unfamiliar layouts in a rather heavy-handed way. But I do see the irony of expert modellers spending hundreds of hours creating wonderfully realistic layouts only to operate them in a haphazard and unhistoric manner. I think there can sometimes be an unwillingness to spend enough time and effort trying to understand how the prototype worked, not just how it looked. My own modest attempt at realism is to try to run my shunting layout a bit like a computer simulation game - it takes two workers an hour-and-a-half to load/unload a box van, shunting vans too hard risks damaging fragile goods, a PO wagon left unloaded in a siding for too long generates complaints from the owner, etc. (And yes, I find the 1955 Rule Book useful too.)

Well, even I can make the difficult decisions, as long as no one expects me to get them right as well. So it seems the PM and I share at least one characteristic ....

Or perhaps it's certain other people who are wrong in their belief that their wishful thinking trumps the collective economic experience of decades. Just substitute "science" with "economics" in the picture below (I think it's from a Florida March for Science).

I just use a couple of pre-soldered rail joiners pushed along the rails so that they are in the centre of the traverser,. The wires drop down under the traverser, with enough slack to allow the traverser to move from side-to-side without tugging on the wiring. Edit: there's some photos here, most of them towards the bottom of the comments: "... lessons have been learned." * - Modelling the 1840s in HO - RMweb Okay, it's a very small traverser - but the principle can be adapted for ones that are a bit larger.

Actually, I thought Compound did a good job of choosing examples where the evidence is firmly on one side of the debate. I think there are some issues where one side is much more likely to be true than the other. Setting up a false equivalence by treating them as equally plausible isn't just dishonest, it's confusing. There are other issues where the evidence isn't so clear-cut and both positions really do need to be tested rigorously, and there are even the Does-God-Exist / Is-Capitalism-better-than-Socialism types of debates driven by beliefs and values rather than hard facts, where we probably have to accept that agreement is impossible. I think the BBC needs different ways to handle all three types of debate. (And I think the rest of us do, as well.)

Ah, yes, that would be this Jacob Rees-Mogg:

Yes, my first thought on seeing the clip was "well, at least she seems to be enjoying it". My second thought was "oh ****, we really do not need another cheerful Prime Minister".

Or have we got bigger?

A Heart symbol just wouldn't be enough here. Thank Heavens they aren't trying to claw anything back.

And the wrong part of the 17th Century at that ... ☹️ Edit: I think that title is usually applied to Jacob Rees-Mogg, who represents a seat down in Somerset. God knows what's wrong with the voters down there, but I like to imagine they all model in Gauge 1 clockwork.

You could always ask Sam Tarry to join you on the picket line. It's seems he'll have a bit more free time now: Keir Starmer sacks shadow transport minister who backed rail strikes - BBC News

I think the Conservative Party members may be making a rational choice about what's good for them. They expect Truss to cut some public services, but not their state pensions, their bus passes, their winter fuel payments for well-off pensioners, etc. Whether it will be quite so good for their children and grandchildren is a different matter. Public policy is a bit like modelling; any fool can smash things up, but it takes a surprising amount of skill and effort to rebuild them afterwards.