Jump to content
 

RobboPetes

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    182

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Entries posted by RobboPetes

  1. RobboPetes
    I have come to a crossroads regarding where I take this layout and one important thing that needs to be considered is cost.
     
    One thing that bugs me about standard N gauge is the PECO track. For me, it is crude and the sleeper spacing is wrong - for others it might be OK. There are now 2 finescale versions on the market - the 2mm Scale Easitrack and the new N gauge Finetrax system. As I want to go down the 2mm scale route I need to consider the cost of re-wheeling my stock.
     
    For the Easitrack option:
     
    To convert the locos to 2mm scale I would be looking at £4.50 per powered axle and £2.50 per unpowered axle. At the moment I have a class 08, class 37, class 45, class 46 and a class 47. The class 45 and 46 work out at £32 each and the class 37 and 47 at £27 each. That is £118 in total (without the class 08)!!! Ouch. The 2mm scale underframe etches for the class 08s are £20 per loco and I would eventually be looking at 2 of these. The loco fleet would eventually swell to about 12/13 units as and when the stock and funds become available.
     
    The wagons work out at £1.05 per axle. For my air-braked stock I currently have 18 bogie vehicles and counting and the 4-wheelers are 43 and counting. There is vacuum braked stock to consider too. As I learn more about the type of freight carried so I will add more wagons to the fleet.
     
    The cost to upgrade my current wagon fleet is £165.90. I would eventually be looking at over £200 just for my wagons.
     
    The total price for conversion would be £500-600, if not more.
     
    Looking at the Finetrax option:
     
    I need 2 points (£16.50 or £18 each) and several yards of plain track (£4 per yard). For the fiddle yard I could use PECO track to save costs.I would need to purchase enough wheelsets to convert almost 20 Poole-based Farish vehicles to run on this track. The cost of 10 axles is £6.95. I would not need to convert any locos as they are all the new models.
     
    The total cost of conversion here would be about £100.
     
    What with having a family to consider and a home to run, the choice is made for me. There is no way I can justify the amount needed to convert all my stock to 2mm scale. What started out as a small layout with a few locos and some items of rolling stock has lead to this. I still have limits on the amount of rolling stock I need per train. I just did not realise how many wagons I had purchased over the last few years, let alone the kits I have to build??? Any one reading this who feels the 2mm route is best for them should consider the outlay needed to convert all their stock. I did not think it would cost so much to convert.
     
    With the move in recent years away from the old crude dimensions for wheels and the availability of finescale N gauge track I think we will see more layouts moving away from PECO track to this new standard in N gauge.
  2. RobboPetes
    Only the chassis are left to do.
     

     
    This has been one project that has been both a joy to do and frustrating and the same time. There were certainly times when I thought about reducing the amount of work I did to complete the models in order to get them finished but perseverance and determination kept getting in the way. There were a number of re-visits to the drawing board and a number of times when just I felt like giving it all up. A number of the things done on these wagons are new to me and so needed time to think about their execution.
     
    One thing being the grab rail located on the upper part of the tank just below the walkway. I was originally going to use brass wire for this but found it too thick once it had been put on. Brass wire being much more pliable. After much thought the wire comes from the excess DG loop wire. The larger lower grab rail is micro rod glued between the pillars. On one wagon I used a razor saw to make the cuts whilst on the other I used a craft knife. The razor saw left cut marks on the body which was cleaned up with paint being used as a filler. The knife was easier to control. On close inspection the saw gives the better cut of the 2 methods used.
     
    The filler hatches and walkway are those supplied in the TPM kit. To me these give a better 3-D effect than those used by Farish. I have used all the parts supplied with the TPM kit except the thin pipes that run along the solebar that I believe were on the first PCAs when introduced???
     
    The main work on the body shells was the reduction in their length. Anyone familiar with these wagons will know the ends on the model are too deep. These would be reduced in size by cutting through them with a razor saw - but how could I do that satisfactorily??? It took me a while to work it out but I used 2 1p coins laid on a piece of glass with the razor saw blade laying flat on these. The end, with the pegs cut off to allow it to lay flat would gradually be rubbed against the blade whilst moving it round once I was satisfied with the cut that was made. This takes time and is messy but the work I feel is worth it. Once the cut is deep enough I cut the rest free-hand so to speak. Be warned! One of the bodies was moulded in white plastic while the other in perspex. I cut one of each and glued them to the ends. No problem. When I cut the third end I found the cut was deeper than the first 2??? When I sized this up the the barrel the end was now SMALLER than the barrel! Problem. It looks to me that Farish use a mould for each side and possibly a mould for each end. If they do, it looks like one end is deeper than the other??? The other problem is the end should have a slight lip on it which the first model doesn't. What I did was to put a piece of 40-thou plasticard underneath the end when cutting it to raise it sufficiently to give it that lip. One end might be slightly longer than the other due to the aforementioned problem. Here is a photo of the wagons alongside a Farish wagon for comparison. An excellent source of pictures of the prototype are available from the Paul Bartlett website:
     

     
    Another problem was always going to be the final colour for these beasts. I posted a question on here several weeks/months ago and came to the conclusion that it is a matter of personal taste and there appears to be no definitive answer. I have a few shades of grey here and the one I have used is the Phoenix/Precision P133 B.R. Rail Grey (dull) (1966-85) colour. The match I feel is very near to the current metalair tank, as seen here:
     

     
    It just leaves me to add the brake wheel to the chassis and prepare the chassis for DGs. Once done I'm going to have to find a suitable way to successfully glue the body to the chassis.
     
    Overall, a project I am very pleased with despite the hurdles along the way. I have another 6 to do and these will be done in much less time thanks to my experience in doing these. If anyone has a nagging doubt about an item of stock, give it a go. I am another of the countless number of modellers who has overcome an obstacle and will certainly not be the last. As I and many other have said - 'give it a go'.
  3. RobboPetes
    Although I've been working on 2 of these for the last few months, here is 1 that has a coupling on one end.
     

     
    Thanks to Paul Bartlett's excellent website, the model has been back-dated to the early/mid 80s style. I contacted Bachmann asking if they were going to release this particular model without nameboards, to which they replied - we only get the models as we receive them! Obviously I'm barking up the wrong tree here.Thinking about it, maybe they should release them with the boards loose in the box, thereby allowing the modeller to fit them as they see fit???
  4. RobboPetes
    I recently read an article in the Hornby magazine, June 3013 edition, on salt weathering and thought it would be a good idea to have go. I asked the missus about non-perfumed hairsprays and she said she had one that she didn't like, saying I could use it. Well, what could I say?
     
    I followed the advice in the article on a wagon that will never see the light of day. I only did one side to see how it would turn out. This is the result:
     

     

     
    The hardest part was getting the salt to sit where I wanted it to once it had been put on the hairspray-soaked side. With practice I will be able to manipulate it and be happy with it. Overall, I am happy with the result and all I would need to do is to tone down and dirty the bodyside once the transfers have been added and to weather the underframe, if I was to make it into an operable model. It certainly has yielded promising results!
  5. RobboPetes
    These have always been one of my favourite wagons and many years ago I bought a couple of the John Grey kits. I made the wagons up minus the bolsters: these were fabricated from the relevant thicknesses of plasticard.
     
    The bolster pins were going to be made from Bambi mini-staples. I checked these against scale drawings and found they were spot-on. All I needed to do was to drill 0.3 mm holes through the width of the 40 thou plasticard I used for the middle bit of the 'H' of the bolster. Having done this I assembled one and the rest were left while I continued with other bits model-wise.
     
    Enter Bachmann on to the scene and the release of their BDA. On studying the model against what I had I quickly realised the John Grey kit was severely lacking. I have since bought 3 railfrieght and one Loadhaul version. The loadhaul one had the holes drilled out to accept the Bambi bolster pins, as the bolsters on these are rectangular as opposed to 'H' section and easier to drill without damage to the outer wall of the bolster. To anyone else thinking of doing the same thing please be pleasantly warned! If you knock the pins, even slightly, the bolster tends to break from the model. I have abandoned this idea and will stick with the pins supplied by Bachmann having already broken off 2 of the bolsters.
     
    The gripe I have with these wagons is the plastic brake disc wheels that are attached to each bogie on both sides. I saw some at an exhibition last year and was disappointed when viewing these from normal viewing hieght - above the wagon. I personally don't like the look of the disc wheel when looking along the length of the wagon from above either. I purchased the excellent brass brakewheels from TPM: item number 1824C Plain and blind spoke brakewheels. Another problem seems to be the fixture of the wheels to the bogie. I have found them to be at varying angles, probably due to the soft nature of the plastic. See the following pictures:
     

     

     
    I did think about painting the backs of the plastic discs. The problem would be in getting a consistent depth to the black on the edge of the wheel. Doing one wagon might be OK, but doing more might show inconsistencies along the length of the train. I feel that when viewed from the side there isn't much to determine between the two versions. See the next photo for a comparison:
     

     
    To do this I made a simple jig made out of two pieces of wood, making absolutely sure the right angles on these where definite. I made a score at right angles on the upright piece to hold the pin when soldering. The angles are vital in such a small scale as this, as any inaccuracies are greatly magnified! This worked well for the first two, but I soon realised the limitation of control on the next couple. Solution: use a smaller thickness of wood to be able to press the pin on to the brakewheel when soldering. I plan to do the other two wheels for the other side of the first wagon soon, and for the remaining two wagons in the not to distant.
  6. RobboPetes
    A few weeks ago I thought I would do some weathering on my rolling stock. I wanted to create the filthy conditions that you get with the ferry vans. I thought I would use the side of an old Tiger POA, as this closely ressembles the sides of the Cargowaggons and VGAs, i.e. panels with ribbing.
     
    I used Railmatch Sleeper Grime thinned with enamel thinners using a no 3 brush in downward strokes. The end result is the paint does not dry in the recesses for some reason. Next time I will dry-brush these areas before appying the weathering.
     

     
    The best part of 20 years ago a good friend of mine showed me his PECO tankers he had painted and weathered. Impressed, I wanted to do the same with the eight wagons I had just super-detailed. Allowing my enthusiasm and impatience to get the better of me I used some Railmatch paint that had a slightly thick texture to it. I was happy with the wagons once they had been lettered and quite often ran them at my local club.
     
    Roll on to now and I thought it would be a good time to try and weather one of these mites. Using a similar concoction to the above, I used a soft, wide brush to do the work, ensuring I got into all the nooks and crannies. As can be seen from the image, I missed (top right-hand corner level with the walkway).
     

     
    I am not happy with the texture, which is dimply in appearance. What I should have done all those years ago was to thin the paint BEFORE painting the wagons, thus saving time and frustration now. It might not seem like at the time, but taking an extra day or two at the time will prove its worth years later. Do not do what I did and allow one's enthusiam and impatience to rule the head!
     
    Nowadays, I will take the extra time to do what needs to be done. Is it down to age or experience? I don't know, but it works.
  7. RobboPetes
    Another thing to consider when evaluating options is the cost. The more stock one owns the greater the importance of such consideration. The price of the Dapol units have been checked against the Hattons website whilst the cost of the DG couplings is via the 2mm Scale Association website.
     
    I currently have 72 frieght vehicles, with at least another 8 to make up and at least another 10 to purchase. Add to this a loco fleet that currently stands at 4 units, with up to another 9 to purchase.
     
    Of these, 44 frieght vehicles are runnable with another 8 to make - none of these have the NEM pocket. This would mean I would need to purchase at least 18 Packs to convert these units to NEM pockets (3 units per pack). Add to this the purchase of magnetic couplings to deal with 72 + 8 + 10 = 90 frieght vehicles and 4 + 9 = 13 locos.
     
    I would need to purchase:
     
    Pack for non_NEM couplings each @ £ 8.00 x 18 = £144.00;
    Magnetic couplings (x 5) each @ £17.00 x 21 = £357.00
     
    Total £501.00
     
    OUCH!
     
     
    The cost of DGs is £2.50 for 8 pairs.
     
    I would need to purchase:
     
    DG coupling fret (8 pairs) each @ £2.50 x 13 = £32.50.
     
    Total £32.50
     
    Both prices do not include the coupling magnets. The differences in the cost of these is negligible.
     
    As can be seen a considerable saving can be made with the DG option. The problems I thought I was going to have fitting DGs to the Peaks was resolved in my last post thanks to a link http://neag.2mm.org.uk/2008/11/work-continues-on-my-farish-peak.html. The research I did for the telescopic hoods and the ferrywaggons confirmed these would be easier than first thought. Using the results above I will be opting for the DG coupling system.
     
    The only problem with purchasing the DG couplings is the time it would take to make them up. There is a link on this site that shows a quick way to produce these. Obviously, once you have made the first few you get quicker as you make more.
     
    I hope this might help others in making an informed choice between the 2 systems.
  8. RobboPetes
    When I wanted to create some corrugated iron using 2 Nescafe jar lids last year, I was well disappointed to find the lid edges were smooth instead of having a milled edge like that found on the edge of a coin. On finding this out I turned my attention to something else, model-wise.
     
    Whilst at work about a month ago my manager asked me if I would like a cup of coffee, to which I answered in the affirmative. He told me he had started drinking the Everyday Value range from Tesco. When I went to return the favour some time later I noticed the edge of the lid was rough. On closer inspection I found the edge was actually milled like that as per the old Nescafe jars. Bliss! We're back in business again.
     
    Over the next couple of weeks I surreptitiously removed the lids from the empty jars to take home.
     
    I've messed about on an old pie dish and created the following:
     

  9. RobboPetes
    Yes, that is what a fellow member of my local club said to me some years ago when I told him what I had done to the model.
     

     
    The model is the mating of a Poole-based Grafar body on to a Minitrix chassis. A good friend, Rolf Farrell, said he was looking at doing this to have a model of a class 47 where the undercarraige ACTUALLY sat underneath the model rather than level with the sides, as per the old Farish offering. The Minitrix bodyshell was deemed unworthy as the Farish one was better detail-wise and in proportion than the minitrix version.
     

     
    Detailing includes the removal of the old bufferbeam and the creation of a new one higher up. This is made from the appropriate sized microstrip glued on and filed to shape. The rainstrip is made from thin microrod glued at one end, then pulled and glued in place via final manipulation with the back of a modelling knife. The moulded handrails were removed and replaced with seperate wire ones (the front ends on the model has more holes in it than a dart board)!
     
    The most interesting part to do was the non-marker light headcode box. I started off by painting a concentric circle in black paint on to clear transfer film. On to this is placed a small white-circled transfer to represent the white cover of the lens on the real thing. The interesting part was to scrape away the black paint a little at a time until one is happy with the thickness of the rim (the grommet on the prototype). A chunch of black paint came away whilist doing this, so I glued it in place and left it as it was. The rim should be slightly thinner than it is. Oh well, never mind!
     
    The model was to represent one of the few that had a white cantrail stripe as opposed to an orange one. The stripe is from a 00 gauge carraige strip sliced in two. The model was orinally numbered 47 236, but I messed up the original numbering. Hence I have removed these and this is how it currently is. I will get round to numbering it again in the not too distant future complete with Railfreight logos on the opposite cab corners. Once done I shall be weathering it once I have experimented with different techniques now available to us modellers.
     
    I did look into converting it to 2mm finescale but have decided to leave it as it is. I will get the new Farish model of a 47 and use the drop-in wheelsets for 2mm scale, leaving this one as an N gauge model.
  10. RobboPetes
    Dilemma! Which way do I go?
     
    I used DGs on Clive Road Sidings at a 2mm Scale Area Group meeting back in the late 80s and was impressed how well they worked. Standard N gauge couplings at that time were unreliable and inconsistent across the manufacturers. A friend advised me to look at the Kadee system, but I considered this too American in appearance. With nothing else available in N gauge at the time as far as I was aware it seemed the logical way to go.
     
    I have made some DGs up and started to put them on to my stock. The problem I have now is how do I fit these to the Dapol Ferryvans and Telescopic hoods? I am also trying to work out how best to fit the to to Bach/Far Peaks? Any vehicle that uses a close-coupling system might prove to be problematic where DGs are concerned. Virtually anything else is straightforward enough. I've also read recently you have to continually adjust these couplings if you exhibit your stock a lot???
     
    Enter Dapol, who have now introduced their own automatic uncoupling system. I saw Horseley Fields at the Hoddesdon exhibition in the middle of last year and was mildly interested in the Dapol couplings in use; they worked well and none of the trains I saw uncoupled at any time whilst being run. This has left a somewhat lasting impression which has now brought me to the crossroads of decision...which way to go?
     
    DGs are less obtrusive in appearance but will prove to be more problematic to fit. Dapol will be the complete opposite. The only problem I foresee with the Dapol system is the modifications to the older Farish and PECO chassis', let alone the 2mm Scale Association chassis'. I am certainly erring on the side of Dapol the more I look into these systems. I wonder what other modellers think, or what experience they have had with these systems? After all, this might prove to be more beneficial than to just myself?! What do YOU think?
  11. RobboPetes
    I have been wanting to build a small layout for some time but was not sure what to do. I model B.R. in the early 80s until the end of Speedlink in '91. Trying to design a small layout running both passenger and freight during this time would be hard to achieve. Steam modelers do not have this problem. The move away from 10-foot wheelbase to longer vehicles exacerbated the problem I had.
     
    My interest is in freight trains, as I find these far more interesting than passenger trains. As an example, a VDA van can carry Cook-in sauces, Spillers pet food, rolls of news print, Cider, fertiliser, steel products, car components, bagged china clay, bagged cement, etc or used as a barrier vehicle.
     
    Looking back at old photos of an 08 dragging a single Cargowaggon through Didcot station provided just the inspiration I needed. Checking the track plan from the British Rail Track Diagrams, Western Region (Quail Map Company) book and checking the site of Dicot Distribution Centre on Google Earth spurred me on. I like Hereford yard but that would have to wait for another day.
     
    Looking through The Freight Only Yearbook, No 2, Michael Rhodes & Paul Shannon, page 63 gave me just what I was looking for. The same picture appears in the book - Modelling The British Rail Era, Flemming, Flint, Gibbons and Taylor on page 44. Warrington Dallem Lane sidings was built on the site of a former steelworks. Following this would limit the traffic I could run. I decided to make it a Distribution Depot. The diagram below is the plan I have settled on:

     
    I have added a transit shed as I would like to be able to unload flat/open wagons away from public view when exhibiting the layout. All too often these types of wagon are run on and off a layout loaded???
     
    The final width of the layout hasn't been determined yet but will be between 1'6" and 2 foot. Total length will be about 8 foot. Heavy use will be made of a sector plate in the fiddle yard and I will be using DG couplings throughout.
  12. RobboPetes
    Looking at the photo from above in the last blog made me realize I might have a lot of scenery to do at the front of the layout. This got me thinking (does any one remember Alan Dare's layout in the April and June 1981 editions of the Railway Modeller?). His layout was a freight only branch with a disused passenger station.
     
    On the layout I could add another track at the front (number 1 on the attached diagram), along with a platform. An extra fiddle yard could be added at point A, thus creating a through line on the new passenger line.The passenger service could be a couple of DMUs plying their trade from left to right of the layout, and back again. As a variation I could use the station as a terminal station and any traffic travelling towards point A would be freight only. Any freight that travels as a through service, such as a pickup service, would need to be vans, tankers or covered vehicles. If 16t coal or hopper wagons are used loaded wagons would travel from the main fiddle yard to the fiddle yard at A, and empties would travel in the opposite direction. The other option with open wagons would be to have removable loads if possible. This is assuming the main yard where all the freights come from will be the direction from the main fiddle yard. This would certainly bring some variation to the operation of the layout.
     
    The line marked B on the diagram is accessible from the sector plate C within the transit shed. Unloading would therefore take place off-scene.
     

  13. RobboPetes
    I've being wondering for a while what size the transit shed should be. I had originally settled on a length of 600mm (2ft), but was unsure what the height should be. Lucy had sent me some pictures of Wolverhampton Steel Terminal, but I had not sat down to work out the final dimensions. I posted a query on the Horseley Fields layout site on this site to ask how they built their shed - which is also based on the Wolverhampton Steel Terminal. Ben Ando very kindly provided details of the dimensions they used for their model. With this in mind I was quickly able to make a mock up model of what I wanted. Thanks to both Lucy and Ben for their help.
     
    To be able to hold 4 BDAs or 6 SPAs I was pleasantly surprised to find I only needed a shed length of 550mm, rather than the 600mm I was originally going to use. With a few changes to the measurements used for the Horseley Fields building I had the sizes I needed. With the shed measured up on to some old sales cards I got some years ago I was able to make a full size model of the shed fairly quickly. The track plan had been drawn on to some old wallpaper lining paper a few months ago allowing 600mm for the length of the shed. Here are some photos of the progress so far:
     

     
    View from the road bridge/fiddle yard end with the shed on the left. The point into the shed will have to moved back towards the bridge to allow for the curve into the shed.
     

     
    View looking from the viewing side with the shed at the back of the layout. The 2 Ferrywaggons and 2 VGA vans are on the road next to the run-round loop. The Ferrywaggons could be loaded with specialised timber or Aluminium/Zinc ingots. The VGAs could be loaded with tissues, bagged cement/china clay, adipic acid, Cook-in sauses, cider or Guinness. The loads are left to the imagination of the operator! In front of the shed is a train the length of 6 SPAs. I have used an OCA and an OBC, as I only have 4 SPAs at present. The 08 is at the entrance to the shed with a VTG telescopic hood.
     

     
    An overview of how the plan fits on to a 4' x 2' board. The run-round loop and single road siding will be moved closer together as they are too far apart. This will give me more room for the scenics at the front of the layout. The final width will be between 1'6" to 2' wide, depending on the size of boot it will travel in. More for me to think about.
  14. RobboPetes

    Dilemma!

    By RobboPetes,

    The biggest problem I have at the moment is what type of building is the transit shed going to be?
     
    I could make it a typical railway company goods warehouse but that would make it dominate the layout, something I do not want to. If it was to be a goods warehouse that would tie the layout down geographically - again something I don't want to do.
     
    I could model a typical British Railway railway building - a fabricated unit consisting of a roof on top of a steel frame, such as the one at Pensnett. No, this is too simple and would not hide the manual unloading of the loads off the wagons. Hmmm...too simple!
     
    I could model a brick-built structure such as the one at the Tyneside Central Freight Depot. Trouble is, when I passed the site back in '93 the buildings had been razed to the ground.
     
    The last option would be to have the sidings as a part of a former steelworks, similar to Warrington Dallam sidings on which the layout is based. Once the company have closed the site would they have dismantled the building??? The building would have had a crane inside to allow for the unloading of opens/flats within the building itself. Nice. This is what I want but how to justify it without restricting the layout to the movement of steel traffic only, as I would like to be able to incorporate other wagons on the layout as well.
     
    Answer: whilst doing some research for Lucy's Burton on Trent layout I was looking in the Freight Only - Volume 2, Southern and Central England, where I found the solution. There are 3 exBR-owned steel terminals at Wolverhamton, Wednesbury and Brierley Hill. Wednesbury deals with sawn timber from Luxembourg and Brierley Hill deals with aluminium billets from Fort William.
     
    All I need to do now is to add some modeller's licence to the proceedings and away I go!!! Oh, and do some more planning and building of the layout as well.
  15. RobboPetes
    What has been really taking up my time over the last few months are these:
     

     
    They are the basic Farish Poole-based PCAs being detailed with the TPM detailing kit. I went to attach the walkways this morning only to find out I had to make a slight adjustment to get one of them to fit into the new holes. As I adjusted one, it pinged open. This is not the first time this has happened but it now means I'm going to have to solder them together, or they might spring open once painted. Then I'd have a problem on my hands!
     
    They are at slightly different stages in construction as I am using one to learn for all the others I plan to do (up to 8 in total). I have followed the instructions, but have digressed slightly in making the upper grabrails out of fine wire - seen on the right-hand model (this is clearer if you click on the lower photo). Although the ends are missing they are complete and ready to be attached. I need to file the lower end pieces further before doing this. The next photo shows the models against an RTR model for comparison.
     

×
×
  • Create New...