Dave at Honley Tank

Hi Dave, happy new year, and nice to hear from you.

Yes it is narrow gauge, 32mm gauge, 16mm - foot or 19:1 scale ratio. Mostly freelance, certainly mine will be.

It's much more forgiving than my last 40 odd years experience and rather than, - " those locos had five front lamp brackets.....", its much more like, " it's my train set andI'll do what I want...."

Assuming that I'm not called to join that big model railway club in the sky, then this will give me another ten years of pretending to be a good modeller.

Incidentally I passed by Delph just before Christmas - mill gone,- loads of houses appearing, so your model is now so important as a historical record.

Dave

Dave,

Thanks; same to you and thanks for the card, see you some where, some time.

Dave

Cobbles,

The cobbles on Birch Vale were originally a purchased product in embossed card and pre-coloured; - make unknown, but I was never happy that they looked prototypical to the area.

When I started on the scenery of Bowton's Yard' (I might finish the scenery one day!) I made a rubber casting of a section of hand embossed plaster. Unfortunately I used air-drying latex. This is an easy process; - simply paint the master with release agent (fairy liquid works) and then paint all over with the latex. Allow to dry between  about 5-6 coats and you get a reasonable but frail mold. I managed about twenty casts from the one mold, certainly enough for both layouts, but now it has degraded and is no longer usable. I would make the mold in the air setting rubber used for white metal casting if I were to repeat.

The idea of using plaster (plaster cast type not decorating type) was to over come the problem of joints in the cast slabs- I left a 'cobble-width' space between slabs, filled those in and hand-embossed the filler when it dried.

The other reason for using plaster was the final colouring.

You've got the colour description right; I'd say "mucky buff";- its mainly local sandstone I think.

I flooded my cast plaster with a watery black mix and when dry, one or more coats of matt varnish, which dependent on make, will dry a bit brownish; if not add a touch of buff paint to the varnish. The black highlights the cobble joints.

Good luck with it.

Dave

Hi Dave,

" Obviously, you're a tidier modeller than I am!"

If you went in the workshop right now you would not say that!; I can barely move.

However I do tend towards returning tools, stock, materials etc to their normal storage places. If I don't I won't find 'em next visit!!

Brass wheels:

It's about twenty years or more since I made the first set and those were left plain brass at the tyre. I can't say that I notice the colour of the tyres when running and I don't remember any averse comments from others. Since those early days, most have been nickel plated which gives a closer impresion of steel; this may also improve electrical pick-up, but it is not a pleasant process; nasty chemicals and fumes - would only do it outside!.'Shan't do it for the Lima.

For my own thoughts, diesel wheels are so small and fairly well hidden inside a bogie, the chance of noticing the trye colour is virtually negligable. Certainly I have dificulty getting all wheels on the track 'coss I can't see 'em!

We went through real (Delf-- Oops!)  Delph last week - how's the model going?

Dave

Hello26power,

I've pm'd you about your request; you should have my reply now.

Dave

You're quite correct Dave; there were many more yard and minor line derailments than the management were often kept aware of.

However, even if our track construction is so good, that we have the number of derailments "just like the real thing" had then we all consider it to be too many.

My track building and laying skills are even worse than my loco building skills. Years ago I used to take my newly finished locos to Dean Hall for testing because they always ran better on the P4 layout there, than they did on my home layout.

I work on the principle that derailments due to poor driving, like approaching an incorrectly set turn-out, or excessive speed, will always occur. Derailment of my locos and stock, which can be blamed on poor track work, I accept. But derailment due to poor loco/stock building must be seen as totally unacceptable.

EM is less forgiving than OO in these respects and P4/S4 is even less forgiving; but we should not be building locos or rolling stock that will forgive poor track; the answer must be to improve the track.

'Birch Vale' was re-railed with track to S4 standards after I had built 'Bowton's Yard' and the track on BV has benifited from the experience with Bowton's.

Currently, locos and stock which run perfectly (well nearly!) on BV don't run so well on Bowton's.

The answer is that I should re-rail Bowton's !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dave

Thanks both for your comments.
 
Dave,

no doubt because the picture ended up away from its words(see comment from me above), you missed my;
"   That apparent kink in the RH rail is not so apparent to the naked eye and certainly causes no running problems; - (the camera cannot lie!?!)."

 Ian,

As every thing seems to run perfectly, change is unlikely, but as it's supposed to be "hidden sidings", the "character" hardly matters!

That last pic is SbridgeB.jpg and should be a above the craft room pic. Not sure what's happened, its OK on my pre-post copy!

Dave

Thanks for your interest 'Focalplane', but I believe my mate Dave Holt is correct; - lampbrackets on 4mm can be plain, but on 7mm they need the rivets!  

(See you at Roy's tomorrow Dave?)

I did seriously consider 7mm about twenty years ago but John Langan, who I am proud to say was one of my mentors,came up with; - "Well I can see what you mean Dave, but remember a thou is still a thou what ever scale you use". A joke perhaps, but so true.

I've been trying to model to P4/S4 standards since before the inception of either society and have two layouts, over 25 locos, over 100 goods vehicles and some twenty coaches; all scratch, kit, or RTR converted by myself over many years. That's too much history for any acceptable change. At least it is at this stage; - who knows what the future holds?

Dave

Many thanks for those links 26Power; I'd not realised that clicking on "recent entries" only gave you access to that one entry. I normally go direct to my blog page which has a series of numbered buttons, (currently 6), each of which will take you to the individual page.

Dave

I've just thought that the "CSB" in the subject may have attracted readers new to this blog. If that's why you are here then you may wish to click your way to page three and look at pictures of two simple chassis under "Q4 Progress" and "A Dinosaur's Opinion". These may add to my words above.

Dave

For Mad McCann

The maths can be done using the spreadsheet on CLAG's web page so no real problem there assuming spreadsheet literacy. My objection is that there are many pivot and holding points along each main frame, all needing good precision positioning; and then there is need to distribute body weight fairly accurately over each driving wheel. My argument is that the needed skills must be applied so much more frequently than the method I was taught, and my experience shows no improvement on performance.

For any type of chassis a degree of accuracy (or tolerance in engineering terms) must be achieved in the relationship of axleboxes, crank pins and coupling rods, and non-engineers can easily be taught those skills. Indeed it is possible to purchase equipment that lowers the needed skill levels in this area of chassis building.

The skills to make a CSB chassis need be no higher than that, but with the considerably increased number of positions that need accuracy then there is increased chance of one or comullative errors occurring during the building progress..

If that risk guaranteed a better performing model then the risk is worth taking but my experience is that the performance was no better and maintenance was more difficult.

The choice is of course for the builder but good ideas very often prove to be not so good as once thought, and historical engineering can throw up many examples of good ideas that in real life were impractical. I believe the principle of CSB to be excellent but its end result to be no better than simpler design theories.

If like Will you find CSB easy to get right then that is the route for you, but If you have never built a successful chassis then my advice is to start with simpler designs. When you've built a few of those then perhaps try CSB.

Dave

Will,

Neither of us will change the others opinion, we've had the discussion more than once before; therefore, at least as far as this blog is concerned, let's simply agree to disagree.

Incidentally, one reason for my continued use of split-axle is that I could never adjust those da***d springy scrapers correctly!

Dave

Will,

The fact that I went to the trouble of building a csb loco surely disproves what you infer.

I built one and found it much more complicated than my usual system; tested it and showed it was no improvement on my usual system. That's hardly a reluctance to "change the habits of a lifetime"

Emma

You have the old chicken/egg situation; which comes first loco or somewhere to test it?

If this is your first attempt at loco construction then whatever you do go for the option that you see as simplest. By all means PM me if you want more info about the simple and well proven system I use. If you choose the csb option then perhaps Will is wiling to give you guidance; he may have built more CSB chassis than I; I certainly will not build another.

As I said before KISS!

Dave

Smashing Dave; I'm jealous.

Ah! but though!

I've got two C13s erning their crust.

Happy New Year from us both,

Dave

Hi Dave,

Well, you know me; - a simple bloke!

KISS!!!!!!!

0.018" p/b

It's a bit of a fiddle to make the shallow 'S' bend and also get a shallow turned up nose but both of us are used to tweaking, eh?

See you at Roy's next month?

Dave

Amazing how small jobs can escalate into much bigger ones! Madness, indeed. I'm sure you'll get it all done in time for the show.

Regards,

Dave.

Ah! Dave ; but you already knew I was mad!

Is that Honley in West Yorkshire????

 

It is where I live if it is! :-)

Yes indeed it is. Honley Tank (my workshop) has been here for around twenty years.

It's built as part of my garage building which was also designed to have a layout room and a domestic storage facility.

Thanks Ralph,

I knew about your 108 but I was unaware that it was split axle.

I've already tried to order from Branchlines but 'phone was on answer mode so I'm waiting for him to get back to me.

However I think I could use the Bachmann wheels by re-profiling the tyre, turning of the pin point, then centre drilling through which would take the stubb shaft but not the larger dia section behind the wheel disk. Add half a 2mm pin-point axle and re=join with Bachmann's sleave.

The motorised axles could have same treatment but with a plain 2mm axle stubb and into the gear cog.

I might try that, ready to convert another Derby Lightweight, but one of the "Manchester Group". Mine's from the "Carlisle Group" but I have invented a story which allows its use over the Hayfield Branch.!

Dave

Thanks you three for the reminder about Branchlines. Thanks too to 'Pannier Tank' for his "Like" tick.

Is the Bachy 105 also split-axle? I agree with Dave that it would be odd of Bachy to design different types; but they do do odd things!

i checked Ultrascale, and I 'spoke' (e-mail) with Colin at Gibby's. His comment when I referred to the weird method of spli-axle was along the lines of..."Why do you think I don't do a drop-in set?"

I'll check the Branchlines route, but that model engineering challenge is starting to appeal!!!!!

Dave

I've found that the 'Brassmasters' Cleminson chassis works well under 6-wheel coaches (the chassis is suitable for 00, EM, or P4)

 

Mike

Thanks for that Mike but the reference to Cleminson is spurious really. It was some 45 years ago when I part-made that model, it's probable that I'd been reading about such devises for the first time and set off to make one with negligable understanding of them. This 6-wheeler certainly don't need one!

It will have front and back sprung-axlebox W-irons with non-working middle W-irons and the middle.

axle will be on internal bearings with about 0.020" side-play.

For Nick:

Not coaches but a six-wheeled brake van. I build all my rolling stock to run on S4 track, - greater B-B than P4 - but capable of having the P4tread wheels pushed in for EM track.

Incidentally, I've never had problems with differing tyre profiles; most of my scratch-built locos run on my own wheels made as per Sid Stubbs (etal at MMRS). His wheel profile is for a well worn tyre and I've run such wheels happily on OO; EM; P4 & S4.

I've also thinned down Hornby & Bachmann RTR wheels, usually for EM, and had no problems.

I've read a lot of rubbish about wheel standards!!!!

Dave

Hi Dave. The material you have used looks quite thick? Have you tried to cut any other materials? The web page says it will cut chipboard, but i have never seen any .8mm thick? Brian

Brian,

The huts were in 0.020" plasticard for roof  & body but 0.010" for window/doorframes etc.

The reference to "chipboard" is miss-leading; I think it's Americanese for what we would class as course cardboard; it certainly is not the type of chipboard (wayrock) we used to build baseboards with!

My experience of the 'Portrait' model is that 0.010"styrene(plasticard) is the thickest that it will cut cleanly and easily without multi-cutting. Even with as many as six double passes (equal to 12  cuts) I've not got 0.020" beyond the 'scribe and snap' method.

Of course the machine's designer was aiming at the greeting card craft fraternity rather than we pretend engineers. (smiley).

My wife is a member of the above craft fraternity but is not computer literate so I have cut paper and card (about 0.010"thick) for her.

Originally I expected to  only use the machine with card, that's what just about every piece of model  architecture I have built over many years is made of. The attraction was being able to cut very fine accurate window frames etc, with a pretty much guaranteed repeat accuracy. Indeed my first cuts after those huts were window frames for Model Railway Scenery's '1930s factory'. (May put a picture on here next time).

Next was sash widow frames and paneled doors for terraced houses. I cut these in 0.010" styrene and 'Kellogs' card, both came out very well.

My view is that if such work, - doors, windows etc, - was all you could achieve with this machine, then the machine would pay its way. With care and thought it can be used over much wider field than just that!

Dave

Thanks for your comments Mike.

Since using CorelDraw X6 I have had no dxf problem with Studio3 opening files correctly; (actually not in same page position as in Corel, but dimensionally correct!).

When I ask C-D to save as .dxf I get a drop-down menu which offers me a selection of various autoCAD 'years' listed as 2008-2013.

As, the first time round I had'nt a clue, I ignored making any year selection leaving it as dropped down;i.e. 2008-2013. It's worked OK with that, so I still hav'nt a clue but I have a method that works. Your "Autodesk R12/LT2" selection in Autosketch is not an option in C-D; (as far as I can see!!??!!).

Dave

I now need to gain experience about material type & thickness, and the related blade settings

Thanks for the "like" ticks PT & Jock.

For KH1 and any one else interested in this approach to card or styrene cutting I recommend that you go to forums and search on "topic 79025" &/or "topic 80563". Both these include easy to follow tutorials and you too could quickly have one of these dinky little huts! (Always assuming you have access to a Silhouette cutter - about

all looking good Dave. When's its first exhibition???

Good luck,

Dave