Clem

6 minutes ago, Headstock said:

I have an Iwata, a trigger type, I hate it. I have two venerable Badger 150's and a Badger 155. The 155 was bought because of its adaptability and easy maintenance, I haven't even used it so far. I love my 150's, a good general purpose airbrush, they have been around since the Ark. Double action and separate cup (I use bottles) rules the roost in terms of flexibility, from general coverage to detail work. Spare parts are a reasonable price, are readily available and you can change head and nozzles from small, medium and large. Nozzle size depends very much on what you are spraying out of it, the 0.5 medium head is the best for quality coverage using enamels, but to be honest it works just as well for detail work, because of the control the double action provides. Small nozzles are usually used for inks etc though detail work with enamels is possible as well.

Thanks for the info, Andrew. I have a couple of neo for Iwata cheap Chinese copies, I believe. Easy to take apart for cleaning but the cup is fixed above the nozzle and this can hinder alignment with the eye. Otherwise, they're pretty reasonable for general use but not so good on very fine work. I was thinking of getting the HP SB plus specifically for finer work - (actually, although it comes with an 0.2mm nozzle, there is an option for 0.3 instead).

However I think the quality of your finishing probably suggests maybe it's more about the skill factor. Also, I have got a cheap compressor. That may also be replaced, now. I read somewhere that for finer work you have to work at a reduced the pressure.

Cheers,

Clem

7 hours ago, Headstock said:

 

Are we still doing box vans? For those bored by such things, get another hobby! Whizzing out of the paint shop last night is this standard LNER unfitted 9ft wb van. It seems like a lifetime ago that this was constructed, it still awaits three link couplings. There have been a number of kits in the past, but the easiest way to produce one now is currently by cross kitting a modified Parkside body onto a Cambrian underframe. An essential item for LNER/ex LNER layouts.

Evening Andrew. I've still got a few 3-H kits to do of these. (I have completed a few also including a rarity - a 9 ft wb fitted van. The problem you get is these kits is quality of the plastic mouldings which were of their time. The brakes and brake levers are particularly brittle. I love your paint finishes. Such excellent subtle shade variations. I'm thinking of getting a new airbrush - possibly an Iwata HP SB plus. I note it has 0.2mm nozzle. Any thoughts?

17 minutes ago, Ray Flintoft said:

Hi Clem ,

     Replacing the moulded pipework on the W.D. is well worth the effort ,it makes a big difference . Here's one of mine which has also been modified to represent the redesigned firebox fitted to many of the class . The distinctive clank could be heard for miles . We could hear them coming into York whilst sat in our class at school . over a mile away !

                        Cheers ,

                                  Ray .

Hi Ray, 

Yes, that proves the point. It looks so much better. You made a very good and realistic model there, Ray. WD in typical condition. By 1960, a lot had the modified firebox but in the period I'm modelling (1954-5), they were still fairly thin on the ground.The problem is, there is no record which boilers/fireboxes were modified and when. As regards the moulded piping, I will make the effort on the next one but, at least for the time being,  I'll live with this one. On the right side of the loco, many had a series (4) of small oil feed pipes from the cab just below the front spectacle. That'll be another detail I'd like to tackle. But you really need to make the holes in the cab front before you fold it up.

35 minutes ago, Headstock said:

02's left of, sorry, west of Colwick. Annesley had regular workings and 02's could be on Leicester shed overnight on a Sunday. Frank Stratford remembered working on them on a number of occasions.

Sorry Andrew, I meant/should have said  West, specifically on the GN Derby/Pinxton line. I know they were regular on the GC and came down the Leen Valley line and GC main line to Annesley. I personally never saw one South of Annesley on the GC though. Having said that, I only lived in sight of the GC line from January 1960 onwards. I presume Frank Stratford was talking 1950s and the O2s were on freight from.... Doncaster or York?

I know there are plenty of pictures of O2s on Annesley. I have a slight interest in this as when my brother passed away in 2014, his kits came to me including a Nucast O2/2. So I'm looking for an excuse to build and run it, although it would be down the list a bit.

29 minutes ago, Headstock said:

A question about the nomenclature of locomotive nicknames. The ex GC men that I interviewed, almost twenty years back, referred to the Robinson O-8-0's exclusively as 'Tiny's'. Are these the locomotives that you referred to on the Iron ore trains in another post?

Yes, the Tiny's as referred to by the GC men were indeed the 0-8-0s but I believe it was the O4s that were referred to as Tiny's by Colwick's ex-GN and LNE men. Certainly when I used to speak at length with Alf Henshaw,  who worked in control at Nottingham Victoria and later East Leake during the war, he always referred to O4s as Tiny's. I once brought this subject up with him but he said, certainly withing the locality, it was O4s. It was probably a GN thing. You know, 'all GC freight engines look alike', never mind the front pony!

As regards the Hush hush, I could do a representation on here but you wouldn't hear it. 

You're correct 90000 was at Annesley - for the summer of 1947.  But from October 1947 to February 1959 it was at Colwick.

Finally, I thought long and hard about cutting off the moulded piping on the DJH WD but chickened out in the end. However, I have got another DJH WD to do and I *will* cut it off on that. You're absolutely right that it's not a great representation of the real thing.

11 hours ago, t-b-g said:

The restored one is probably too well maintained to give the sound recorders a good "clank" to capture but there must be some on old recordings.

How about this. It's a recording from Kimberley signal box taken by Alf Henshaw. The date is 10th July 1964 and WD 90392 clanks by.  The recording is taken from when the levers are pulled. There are kids playing near the level crossing and although you need a little patience, sure enough you here the WD clank by on a train of empties at about 1:35. Worth listening through the full 2:35 just for the atmosphere.

08 Kimberley_19640710_008_90392.mp3

38 minutes ago, ROY@34F said:

Some of them were terribly rough Clem . I've been on them on the iron ore trains and some main line goods . I believe they were only lightly and cheaply built to last a few years for the war effort weren't they  ? other people on here will know the ins and outs of the engineering of them no doubt . But they certainly felt like they were falling to bits sometimes .

 

Roy .

Evening Roy. Yes it's interesting to compare the WDs with the tinies. Generally, I believe tinies were often preferred by Colwick men to WDs on the iron ore trains to Stanton in spite of the extra power of the austerity. But to their credit, the WDs did put in an incredible amount of work all over the country in those post war years and, being a fairly large cog in 1950s motive power, an absolute must for a layout representing an ex-GN coal carrying line.

It's funny, but from the point of view of an enthusiast as opposed to someone on the business end, I have quite a liking for them. Having said that, I still prefer a tiny! Obviously Grantham had the O2s, which for some reason never seemed to travel west of Colwick. Did you work on them, Roy?

28 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

CLONK - CLONK - CLONK .........

... more like dang   dang    dang  .... (fades) ... roughly a musical 3rd or 4th between the dang and the . Jeez what a conversation... I hope I'm not going senile!

It's no good. I've tried 3 or 4 edits but the auto spell check just won't do the WD sound. (there should be a '' after every 'dang' but it just cuts it out. 

OK it must be a prohibited word - try 'bang bong    bang bong   bang bong'  but with a 'd' in front of 'ang' and 'ong' instead of a 'b'.

9 hours ago, Headstock said:

I am ultra picky on the quality of the primer I use.

Morning Andrew.

I'm sure you've divulged this before, but can you remind me what you use for primer. I have been using bog standard Halfords grey acrylic for locos but not always 100% to my satisfaction. I'd be very interested in using something better if readily available and as Mike mentioned above, your paintwork is exemplary. Thanks in advance.

Clem

4 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

That said, your phone camera almost gives a worm's eye view (if worms had eyes), and really shows off the mass of your splendid WD. Even with my camera standing on the floor adjacent to a loco, the viewpoint is that of a Brobdingnagian! 

That's true. But I'm probably more gullible than Gulliver!

31 minutes ago, Chamby said:

 

Good afternoon Headstock,  

 

My first acquaintance with the GCLE was in my Grannie’s back garden in Wilford, it was at the foot of the embankment on the line’s approach to Trent Bridge.  Seeing the steam locomotives silhouetted against the skyline as they noisily rushed past left a lasting impression.  I also remember Grannies constant irritation at the soot deposited on her washing line.  Happy days.

 

I haven’t decided yet whether to extend the embankment, or undulate the scenery into a shallow cutting to give a little more variety.  Either way, the remaining flat top will go.

 

 

Good Afternoon Chammy. From 1960 to 1966 I lived on Wilford Lane with about half a mile from the GC with a long clear panorama of the line from Trent Bridge all the way South  to the Coronation Hotel, just off Wilford Lane. I spent many an evening after school waiting for the fish trains at the bridge on Wilford Lane - first a K3 on the Hull about 6-50pm and then a Brit on the Grimsby at 7-30pm. Over that period I watched the endless stream of 9Fs, V2s, B1s, L1s, K3s, B16s and eventually Brits, Scots and black 5s etc both from the upstairs windows of our house or by the line side at Wilford Lane or Coronation Avenue. I saw 'Cheltenham' on the 12-15 from the house in 1962 after Annesley borrowed it for a week or so, plus many other memories. Very sad watching the line's decline but those first couple of years of that period were magic!

5 minutes ago, grahame said:

 

For me it's not the fear of the height but the fear of hitting the ground should I fall. Nonetheless I've walked the glass floor on the Toronto CN tower, the Tokyo tower and Tower Bridge, and sat on the edge seats against the full height windows in the New York World Trade Centre (before it was destroyed by terrorists).

 

 

Hi Grahame, ha ha ha! Not a chance! I struggle with stairs greater than 2 floors high, particularly if they are open. I'm staying on the ground in my workshop.

29 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

 

Blimey yes, mine is certainly ahead of that both in quality of print and design - there's a clear rebate behind each window (but not droplights or ends) to glaze into.   I have been taking pictures but I don't seem to have included the inside of the sides.  I'll try to do something today.

 

I superglued mine but all four corners needed some filling.  I've also used the central lavs to allow bracing pieces across the body which has helped it stay square and rigid.

 

Yes I see what you mean. The rebates in your kit are well pronounced. Thanks Jonathan.

30 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Regarding Isinglass 3D-printed rolling stock kits, I've now built two items. 

 

The first was a GE section BTK 'shorty', given to me to assess. This must have been about four years ago; maybe more.

 

 

It ended up with a most-pronounced bow!

 

I used superglue to put it together, and added MJT/Comet components to complete it.

 

 

 

Such was the 'roughness' of the finish, I used rattle can 'filler' primer to try to disguise this; without success! 

 

The roof was in two sections, and hiding the joint was very difficult. 

 

 

I made no attempt to flush glaze it, resulting in a teak version of 'Bayonet'! 

 

 

Even as just a 'layout coach', it was unacceptable, so I gave it away to a friend. At least he could use the bogies and underframe in future.........

 

In fairness, the printing technique used by Andrew Edgson has improved an incredible amount in more recent times. 

 

The recent 'Pigeon Van' is much, much better in terms of the surface finish.

 

 

How I built this is featured in the latest issue of BRM. 

 

The camera has cruelly revealed the patchy Pressfix loading data. 

 

 

Thanks for showing your experience with the earlier Isinglass kits. Sorry - this seems to have got posted before I finished it.  What I was going to say was that the Gresley BTK  really doesn't pass muster, but yes the pigeon van is much better. This helps to put things in context. I may spend a little time on this D246 but I'm not going to invest too much in it. I'd love one of the etched brass side kit manufacturers (MJT, Bill Bedford or Comet) to produce a D246 that would be my preferred solution.

6 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

 

Blimey yes, mine is certainly ahead of that both in quality of print and design - there's a clear rebate behind each window (but not droplights or ends) to glaze into.   I have been taking pictures but I don't seem to have included the inside of the sides.  I'll try to do something today.

 

I superglued mine but all four corners needed some filling.  I've also used the central lavs to allow bracing pieces across the body which has helped it stay square and rigid.

 

Yes I see what you mean. The rebates in your kit are well pronounced. Thanks Jonathan.

1 hour ago, jwealleans said:

 

Morning Clem,

 

I see Andrew has picked up on this interesting comment as well.  I'm working on one of his D274 BTL kits at the moment by way of trying them out and the glazing fits into a rebate at the back of the window so it's not as deeply recessed as a Kirk.  Ian Kirk himself has said that were he doing the range again he'd do the same.  You obviously don't flush glaze a wooden Gresley carriage, so do you mean that the glazing on the isinglass is not set back far enough or have you found another problem which I haven't yet reached?   I'm only just at the teaking stage with mine.

Morning Jonathan, Yes of course I don't strictly flush glaze Gresley teaks, it's just that I put the glazing in from the front and it does sit a little way back but closer to  flush compared to placing glazing the back, if that makes any sense - see D210 below. 

In my Isinglass kit, there doesn't seem to be a rebate of any useable nature at the back of the windows. (see below).

I wonder if he's improved the kits since I received this, some time ago. Can I also ask what glue you used to put the kit together with?

Cheers, 

Clem.

6 hours ago, Headstock said:

I would be interested in your opinions on the Isinglass dia. 246, it sounds like you have the kit. The fact that you favour the Kirk is................interesting.

Good morning Andrew. Thanks for asking me that question as I've just got the Isinglass 3-D kit out again. I think I'll have a go at it next but I'll only use the sides and possibly the ends. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how to approach it - what glue to use and the big question as mentioned in my previous post, how to glaze it. With Kirk coaches, I have a method, which though tedious, works very well with a reasonably good result. I suppose I may have to use a similar method using one of the glazing glues to try to achieve a similar result. The Kirk kits have a tapered lead in to the windows which allows a push fit, reinforced by the smallest smidgen of solvent (not enough to cause fogging).  I don't see myself using the kit's roof which comes in two sections (I'll use an MJT one) and for the under frame/bogies I may either a) use a Hornby donor or b) use an MJT floor with ABS bogies. The sides do need quite a bit of cleaning up, particularly some of the windows. To be honest, if etched sides were available, I'd have built a couple already such is the prevalence of this diagram on the Grantham-Nottingham-Derby line. Anyway, here's a photo of the parts, if it helps.

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

That's a very natural-looking A5, Clem,

 

I'm not surprised you're fond of it. 

 

I think they're a very elegant prototype - as handsome a Pacific tank as ever ran in this country.

 

Strange, isn't it, when Robinson turned the wheel arrangement round, it resulted in the only ugly engine he ever designed?

 

My sightings of the ex-GC big tanks were at Manchester London Road, towards the ends of the lives.

 

 

I can certainly justify an A5 (or two) on LB, because a few were shedded at Grantham in the late-'50s. 

 

 

 

The later build ones were longer and some had round buffers on the front. 

 

Because the cabs were lower, the spectacles were of a different shape. And the oval buffers were of a different pattern to the originals. 

 

The vacuum standpipe was on the opposite side. Oh, those joys of loco-picking! 

 

Though the GC Pacific tanks were very good-looking, I'm not sure that could be said of the ex-NER A7s.

 

 

It would be interesting replicating the creases in this one!

 

Please (all) observe copyright restrictions. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good evening Tony. I'm very much with you on elegance of the A5s and just wish one had been preserved. The A5/2s were not the only ones with round buffers at the front:

69809 entering Grantham. Note the Diagram 246 Brake third next to the engine and the Thompson Lavatory Comp behind. I've got an isinglass 3-D kit for one of the D246s but I just can't see how I can get the glazing looking OK so I'll be looking to cut and shut a couple of Kirks where I'll be able to flush glaze it, more realistically. So many blooming projects to do! Thinking of this is the nearest I get to feeling pressure in lockdown! :-)

I quite like the A7s which I believe were a 3 cylinder freight engine.

Oh, and like you I have a fear of heights. It's dogged me all my life and even cost me a day's train-spotting at Crewe in January 1959, But that's another story.

5 hours ago, dibateg said:

Camden shed looks impressive Iain - especially managing to tape together all those A4 sheets!

 

The Craftsman A5 - I built two of these, a nice little kit, but with some fundamental errors for the unwary. The width of the bunker is too narrow, it should be a few mm wider and present a 'big back' appearance. I think there was a mistake in one of the classic drawings that was used to design the kit. To me the cab looks too low and I suspect it was scaled from the top of the lip of the tank side and not the bottom. There was another kit, Wills maybe - it was chunkier in white metal, but the proportions looked better. I built 69800, which was a Leicester engine, but don't seem to have a photo of the model. Maybe you have one Tony?

 

8Fs - One of the things that converted me to 7mm scale was Richard Lamberts MOK 8F. A real Rolls Royce kit and a joy to build. I've always liked 8Fs since having the Hornby Dublo 48109 as a child. I borrowed Richards model whilst I built mine - I still don't think he's painted his one!

 

That BR emblem looks rather yellow now...  48396 was a Canklow engine, I chose it as I had an excellent photo of it double heading a freight south from Woodford Halse with Bickmarsh Hall.. Here it is with A DJH Fairburn - which is at the opposite end of the spectrum, more errors and compromises and omissions, than you can imagine. So it's been heavily re-worked

 

Regards

Tony

 

 

 

 

 

Good afternoon Tony, It's pictures of models like these that provide the almost irresistible urge to drop everything 4mm and move up to 7. Luckily, common sense prevails and my head tells me it's too late in the day (metaphorically) and in any case, I would never have enough room, even if I had enough time left. These pictures really bring out the detail and feeling of sheer size of the real thing, though. Fantastic models and great finishing/weathering. If I were 25 years younger, I'd be very tempted to make the jump!

The white metal A5s you were referring too were Nucast. Here's an example of mine, 69807. It was one of the first white metal kits I built (it shows!), but I'm still very fond of it as it brings back memories of when they were common on the Nottingham-Derby and Pinxton trains in the late 50s. It now runs on scratch built chassis.

22 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

With regard to the jib, I assumed that it wouldn’t be required for a compensated chassis. It’s all tab and slot and fits together very well, so not much chance to get things out of square. If I give up open compensation, then obviously I’d need something to keep it square while soldering it up. 

Hi Andy, a compensated chassis, with horn blocks set up from the coupling rods, would allow acceptable running in a chassis out of square (although you wouldn't want it). However, to achieve a square chassis you need to use something like a set of Comet jigs ( I think they are still available) which you can get at Wizard models.

For the setting up of horn blocks, I mainly use an old set of perseverance coupling rod jigs for Gibson/Ultrascale wheels and I've got another set of pointy ones that will set them up for Markits wheels. 

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

It's each to their own. Your WD runs exceptionally well, and if it's because of compensation, then that's good. 

Hi Tony. Thanks, but one correction: it's not compensated, it's sprung. But I agree, it's very much each to their own. As I've said before, we've all got our own methods. It's what works for you. I tend to use compensation more on 6-coupled. On 8-coupled I've used springing. I think the key to good running whether rigid or compensated/sprung is setting up the chassis with a jig using the coupling rods to ensure accuracy. That, and making sure the axles run freely in their bearings and coupling rods not overnight - or the opposite, over sloppy, particularly fore and aft.  It takes quite a long time from being fairly inexperienced in building locos to then learn and develop and finally focus on your own individual approach and, of course, you learn the biggest lessons by your mistakes. I'm still very much at the learning stage. (...and enjoying it... with one or two moments otherwise ;-)  )

13 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Austerity valve gear........

 

 

I didn't fix the front ends of the radius rods (omitting the valve rods, which can't be seen, anyway). 

 

There's an extension just ahead of the pivot for the expansion link, and I soldered this to the (white metal) motion support bracket. This anchored the radius rods just fine. 

 

 

 

I think the DJH WD makes-up very well. 

 

The little extension can just be seen in this view.

 

 

Typical workaday condition? 

 

 

Ian Wilson's Pacific Models' front numberplate just finished it off (prior to weathering). 

Thank you, Tony. That never occurred to me....  And what a brilliant way to answer a question!  With superb illustrations which couldn't be more clear. Right, I'll give that a go. I've made one or two bloopers on the kit so far but I suppose you only make progress by learning from mistakes. Anyway, best wishes to you and Mo.

Clem.