DayReturn

Thank you Richard, BB and Melberby, all sage advice. If I were to take your advice to heart, I think the most expedient route would be to forget about fonts and simply re-render a bitmap image from a current photo of a preserved carriage. I did that previously for the GNR emblem on the lower part of Howlden carriage doors, retaining the teak background and using teak brush paint work to blend it in. I'll post a pic here at some point to illustrate. That is probably adequate for my deficit of suitable "MIDLAND" text, though can be a pain overcoming all the image edge rendering - I forget the proper jargon for that - and simple bit-by-bit rendering always looks clunky without that rendering. Context is everything though - we are talking about lettering that is 2, 3 or 4 inches high, circa 1mm or a few points. 600 DPI laser printing allows 600 / 25.4 dots, i.e. 20 to 30 toner dots per letter height, so about 6-10 coloured dots allowing for the 3 colour toner, less per letter body after accounting for shading and relief. So that gets close to Impressionism if not actual Pointilism (fine art is not my area of expertise, just ruminating), and makes PC Models' silk screen products all the more remarkable. I'll try a bit more with Word and the things you have suggested. It's probably impractical but I did think of overlaying transfer films - I have both white and clear film and need to use white because the toner density is too thin for pale colours on a darker painted background. Thanks again and I'll post again after some further attempts.

I'm trying to set up laser printing onto waterslide transfer paper (decal paper if you insist) for text that is either unavailable or in short supply commercially, and interested to know if anyone has found a good software tool or font source to do the typical raised effect lettering artwork of steam-era carriage liveries. I need to reproduce Midland Railway carriage lettering in 4mm scale, particularly in the pre-1906 style. I've got a small stash of Peter Chatham's excellent PC and Methfix sheets, but they don't cover everything, and for example there are 'only' 4 instances of "MIDLAND" in 4in high waist level block letters on each sheet - enough for a single bogie carriage in the pre-1906 liveries. I've had some useful results laser-printing other designs onto laser-printer waterslide transfer paper, and am interested to know if anyone has found a good representation of any of the shaded raised block styles of railway company lettering using e.g. MS Word Text Effects and specific fonts. For the Midland block style waist lettering, "Arial Black" font seems to be a close representation of the particularly fat, slightly stretched character shape, but I can't work out options that will generate a graduated left-and-below red to white raised effect as well as a right and below black shadow effect. That sort of style was fairly typical of many railway companies of the time and continued into the 1930s. The picture I've linked to is post-1906 style, but it illustrates the challenge.

They were made by Ron Cadman in Coventry. I'm not sure but I think he was closely associated with the Models & Leisure shop in Coventry. I went there occasionally when I was a student at Warwick in the late 70s. Etched brass kits were an eye-opening novelty at the time and I think these and the M&L kits were very good in lots of ways, not least because they didn't try and make almost all the parts in etched brass, still having a good grip on whitemetal casting. <editing this in here ...> I've also found an old instruction sheet with Bill Brown's name and an address in Nuneaton too - obviously just down the road so probably in collaboration with Ron Cadman I guess. No dates, unfortunately. Actually I can do better than that, an unmade LNWR 6-wheel chassis etch signed and (C) by Bill Brown, 1981. </end edit>

Actually GNR ones also have longer J hangers (aka spring stays) on the middle axle. It’s probably a mechanical necessity to achieve the sideplay. Midland ones didn’t have these before around late 1870s I construe. Meanwhile having done the easy bit (as above), I need to fabricate the parts for the underside, and am toying with the idea of a stamp tool to punch out step brackets with a nice bolt plate at the top, since I always need them. Obviously a part ideal for etching although Slaters kits did them in lost wax casting, very robust for such an exposed feature. That rules out styrene for the solebars unless I dog-leg plain wire for these step board hangers, soldered to a metal floor, with dummy bolt plates glued to styrene…. too fiddly, reduces wheel clearance and I’ve probably got hundreds to make across numerous projects. Having ruminated thus, and not yet having answers to my OP questions, is there a protocol for moving this thread into a modelling projects folder? Because that’s what my ramblings are becoming.

Makes sense, thank you. Because GNR 6 wheelers have centre axle W irons on the outside of the solebar to provide a bit of sideplay, whereas eg Midland ones have longer J hangers instead.

It's curious how we cultivate our affinities and allegiances to these ancient denizens of raw Victorian capital dedicated to screwing raw profit out of raw iron and raw-skinned labour. In my case I bind myself to the Wyvern's standard which for all its Quaker-inspired liberalism, gained vast riches for the coal- and iron-masters of its heartlands at untold human cost; even its erstwhile owner Hudson driving the company in pursuit of his own corrupt greed at the expense of more naive members of the 19th century bourgeoisie. Meanwhile my modelling effort is diverted to two of its enduring rivals, in the form of the LNWR's estate at St Albans, punctured by its GNR neighbour as above. And my credentials as an environmental activist are trashed by my determination to run 300 (scale) tons of coal a day into the station to be turned into coal gas and accumulated global meltdown. Still, it's my hobby and I enjoy it!

One curiosity of the replacement of POTs of the same length is that the ridiculously short Tri-ang operating mail train, one of my many treasured artefacts of misspent pre-teens, actually corresponds more or less to a real LMS D1937 POT of 50ft length.

I dare say you are right about the offset gangway providing assured isolation from the public part of the train, but I think there must be a bit more to it. If you look at the layout of the inside of the sorting vehicles, it is clearly very asymmetrical, and the offset gangway seems to be more of a consequence of the way sorters worked in the space, than a cause. As you will be well aware these gangway connections are wider than passenger ones, again because there was lots of sack humping between sorting and stowage vans, and keeping the gangway offset would minimise interfering with sorters at work. I'll look out for the TPO book you reference, but meanwhile I've always wondered what the marker lights signified, guessing at warning of the approach of the projecting traduction gear. One curiosity is how the LMS and probably other lines too, replaced POS and POT vehicles with new ones of identical length to their pre-group replacement, usually as one-offs. I imagine that the platform loading and unloading positions had become so much built in to the process that it was simpler to replace like for like than to make changes to the station load points. While I am sure some routes would have been completed with the stock the wrong way around, I think for the most part that the active schedules were mostly one-way, i.e. return empty. Long distance overnight mails in opposite directions would have crossed each others' paths en route, each night, and not made a return mail journey the same night. Perhaps their return workings might have been with parcels traffic, but I imagine that the dedicated rakes would have simply returned empty. So there would have been no fundamental need to turn the stock around. But I'm just idly surmising.

Thanks for sharing these Dave, it captures the van very well indeed. I've often mulled over getting into etching, though my propensity to make mistakes magnified by the cost of the process has made me reluctant to start. Out of curiosity, was the single pair of springs, hangers and axleboxes part of this project or an experiment? Anyway here is a trial cut, in thin card - too thin to be honest, cereal box card would have been better. I did it to show up any cutting problems - none - and errors in my dimensions - yes the inside sides were 1mm too short because I sized them to fit between the inside ends instead of the outside ends. Everything else fitted correctly.

Here's the Silhouette file ready for a trial cut onto 0.020" styrene. Not very complex at all. On second thoughts, the roof arc does not look quite right. It's an ellipse, and the unstripey ends are narrow by 2 x 1mm - so cropped, the stripey ends by 2 x 0.5mm, cropped less, but to fit between the sides, and the roof would have some eaves woodwork to add, so I think the arithmetic is correct. I'll take another look in the morning.

Possibly, very probably in many cases, but I suspect not so in this case. While the Diagram is far from detailed, what it does show in the way of arrangement of sheeting and frame does correspond to the photo, and given that the orchid rail traffic was only significant for about 20 years and that other vehicles did handle it, I suspect Diagram and photo are the same vehicle. And confusing future historians was no doubt second place on their mind, after confusing HM Revenue regarding capital and revenue expenditure!

Actually having gone back to Taylor & Anderson, the likelihood of the van turning up at Abbey station is rather slim, according to the description of the movements involving parking it at London Road station after propelling it up the running line, though that goes contrary to the concern about sufficient water supply. They also say the siding was installed in 1890, that there were other vans (not what kind - perishables, etc?) and that 964 was used later for the hat trade as the orchid trade fell away, and then it was added to LNER parcels vans as 4183. Plus a reference to a photo of it in 1923 in a goods train. Oh well! Its my railway and there's definitely no extra water available (unless my loft leaks, heaven forbid).

There was a one-off (possibly two according to one comment) 6 wheeled van that was used to convey orchids from Sanders Orchid Nurseries east of St Albans, presumably to London. My St Albans (Abbey) model assumes that it would have turned up on trains terminating at the LNWR Abbey station, and its a fairly straightforward vehicle (!) so worth representing. I'd like to know what colour it is, i.e. is it painted plain passenger brown to blend in with teak passenger and NPCS stock, or is it GNR freight stock brown? The one and only photo is of good quality and shows it clad in plain sheeting painted a single colour and varnished, definitely not teak panels or teak scumble paint. It shows gas lighting pipes and the Diagram Book page reproduced in Taylor & Anderson's book "The Hatfield and St Albans Branch of the Great Northern Railway" states that it is 32ft long over body, vacuum braked with (if my interpretation is correct) Westinghouse through pipe. So I am fairly confident that teak-colour plain brown is correct. I note that Nick Campling's book in the Historic Carriage Drawings series references "chocolate" colour in his livery notes, but in context he may be referring to the state of very aged bodywork. Also the lettering is highlighted to the left, again suggesting a coaching stock finish. The 32ft length suggests that the vehicle may have been converted e.g. from a 32ft 6 wheel full brake, although I understand that GNR 6-wheel carriages appeared in numerous lengths. Whether the body was built from scratch and mounted on an existing chassis, or refurbished from the skeleton of a withdrawn vehicle, or entirely purpose-built, is obviously conjectural. There are some apparent discrepancies between the photo and the Diagram Book: The latter appears to represent a cove roof whereas the photo looks like a shallow elliptical roof. The diagram shows 6 skylights (I assume) and the photo shows presumably 2 rows of 3 torpedo vents and possibly three central gas lights between them, and no clear sign of the skylights. Obviously the photo takes precedence, but I'm tempted to cover my bases by adding the skylights too. Slightly harder to confirm is the shape of the sides. They appear to be plain verticals, as shown in the Diagram Book. The far end of the photo appears to confirm this - the end edge looks vertical and the reflection of "G N" from a nearby wagon, looks undistorted. It may be a trick of the light or the photo rendering, but the near end looks like it has a turn-under. I'm assuming it hasn't, and that therefore the body was probably purpose-made, not using the joinery frame of a previous carriage stock body. Operationally, GNR St Albans branch passenger trains did attach goods vehicles even though there were timetables freight trains as well, and since this one is clearly NPCS is makes more sense for it to turn up on a passenger train. Whether it is realistic for it to have traveled between St Albans Abbey station and Sanders Siding is a moot point. It makes sense for it to have been picked up loaded from Sanders siding at the Campfield Press halt en route to Hatfield, but returning empty, it would be simplest for it to be at the head of the train from Hatfield, run through to Abbey, and then a simple reverse back into Sanders siding on the return to Hatfield. There was no watering facility on the branch so generally tender engines were stipulated for freight, so by the same token, passenger train tank engine movements would have been kept to a minimum. (Yes they would anyway of course, but that's an extra reason for expecting to see the van at Abbey station.) My model thus far is still only on the sketch pad but the body will be cut from two layers of 0.020" styrene on my Silhouette. Roof will be rolled from tinplate for strength - styrene roofs invariably get their corners chipped off - with soldered-on square-section wire for gutter and cantrail. Chassis will have either brass solebars with punched bolt heads or plain brass with an embossed styrene overlay, plus etched washer plates etc., Mike Trice's Shapeways axleguard assemblies, home-turned sprung buffers in MJT Shapeways housings, and (probably) Bill Bedford sprung inside bearings with the centre axle of 2mm tube sliding laterally on 1mm fixed axle rod. It will probably be ready by circa 2052. ;-)

As above, assuming the Cricut has comparable capability to the Silhouette (and possibly less capability), my Silhouette will cut clean through 0.010" white styrene, most of the way through 0.015" styrene in 1 or 2 cuts, and a clean foldable break cut in 0.020" styrene on 1 or 2 passes. More than 2 passes can be problematic due to stretches and burrs being raised by previous cuts, depending on how intricate the cut is and therefore how well fixed down the material is. With Wills building sheets most of the designs are way too thick, some probably won't even fit under the carriage. The thinner embossed brick might work maybe the 2mm scale one, but the brick outline valleys will interfere with the blade turning, and the reverse side is also not perfectly flat either, leading to the blade's constant pressure meeting different resistance.

And no I’m not parting with my as yet unmade one, not for a while anyway!

His 2017 list;

David Geen produced an etched brass kit for the D397 horse box. It may have been taken on from Alan Gibson, as was his D402 CCT I think. David has retired now I believe.

I'm not an engineer by profession, at least not in the traditional disciplines, and I'm only relaying what I learnt from someone who is, my friend Alistair Wright. When I asked him about different spring configurations, this is what he wrote to me: "The leading springs were often made a bit stiffer by adding extra leaves. The axle loading would not be affected as this is set by adjusting the spring hangers, but the spring deflection for any given increase in load would be less. This gives greater stability to a leading set of wheels. The parallel boiler Royal Scots are one loco I know for sure was like this, since I got to adjust the leading springs on one at St Rollox in 1951. The Scots were noted for losing the weight on their leading axle due to the springs relaxing (sometimes due to fatigue cracks in the leaves) and were forever needing adjustment which was normally only done at a main works on a special weighhridge. The PB Scots had an alarming tendency to roll when entering curves at speed. It was quite a simple but tedious, iterative, job, so obviously a CME's pupil who happened to be in the erecting shop that week, got to do it! I have also looked out a drawing I had published in the Modeller of a Kirtley 0-6-0 probably in 1952 or 53, and sure enough it shows the heavier springs!" For myself, I'm not sure that it's correct to say that the number or dimensions of the bearings has a straightforward relationship with the strength of spring required (at least as long as the bearing was doing its job), since there are still the same number of springs and there is only one spring at each end of the axle. The load (at rest) on the spring would not be changed unless either the inside or outside bearing was in direct contact with the frames, which I don't believe is a desirable circumstance. In motion, the load would change due to a long list of factors - connecting rod's cycle, acceleration and braking, rail cant, rail joints, designed-in frame flexing and rail flexing, etc. With a leading rigid axle as in a Victorian 2-4-0, an 0-6-0, or here, in the 0-4-4T, the leading axle will be the first to receive forces *from the track* due to forward motion and then transmit them to the main frame. That's why reliable bogies became a requirement for faster engines - there's not a lot of technical difference between Johnson's 1400-class 2-4-0 and his 1312-class 4-4-0 except for the bogie in place of the leading axle. I would have supposed that the inside bearings on the big-end axle on the inside frames are all about preserving the integrity of the axle section between the inner and outer frames and resisting the moment/turning force of the connecting rod against the crank portion of the axle when the frames flex. If I'm right, then that would be an explanation of why the remaining axles had external bearings only. Anyway, it's a lovely discussion to have, and I'm forever fascinated by the history of the way the associated technologies developed (metallurgy, lubrication, steel making, fluid dynamics, etc.) to allow railway technology to progress. In our endless enthusiastic "if only, what if, ..." musings we often forget how much of the design of our favourite engines and the ones that annoy us by superseding them, were done at the limits of what was known at the time. For example here, above, yes the Deeley smokebox looked far less elegant and homogeneous than the Johnson design, but Deeley had a more robust design for maintaining the smokebox vacuum - if the door leaked, the engine was crippled.

I am loath to mention this, but the 780-class, Dubs-built 0-4-4Ts had flush countersunk rivets on flared bunker sides and pairs of stays (spring hangers) that can be fabricated from the brass strip, whereas the 690-class Beyer-Peacock 0-4-4Ts had straight-up bunker sides, snap rivets as per your lovely model Mr Rowsley, . . . and tuning fork shaped stays. John Redrup's LRM kit has both options - etched for Dubs, cast brass for B-P. So if you are inclined to work-up the stays from the etched brass strip, well, good luck with that! You could turn a suitable bottle-shape and then file the fat part into a stay shape - turn in a drill with a file if you don't have a lathe. If and only if you are going to that much trouble, you might want to thin down the numbers of leaves in the springs themselves - the leading axle bears the biggest lateral stress on bends so is the chunkiest, as you have. The big-end axle has to flex in multiple ways, so is lightest-sprung - if you are up for it, you could file out the exposed portions of each leaf working from the bottom, to be about 30% thinner than the leading axle springs. (This applies to all of our steamy-beasties, not just this model. a six-coupled engine's trailing axle will have spring thicknesses midway between the leading and driven axles.)

32mm long? Nothing etched into them? The coupled wheelbase is 32mm and platform width is ~32mm - maybe it's brake pull rods. Stupid question, but they aren't the coupling rods are they?! They may be arbitrary space fillers. If all else fails, read the instructions . . . . Jidenco? . . . . umm, well maybe not :-) !!

I don't think I've seen the Jidenco frets for the Kirtley 0-4-4T but based on the Kirtley 2-4-0s and the 0-6-0, you may find some mysterious little strips of brass probably unnumbered and probably with holes or half-etched "rivets" etched in the ends for bolt heads, 16 in total, to make up these spring stays. I won't comment on how to actually fit them if you find them! The George Norton/LRM version has them lollypop shaped and has little half-etch grooves in the running plate to located them.

I still use my slide rule for exactly that purpose. Having set the ratio up, it’s much quicker than a calculator or spreadsheet, though I usually log all the dimensions I need in a spreadsheet and e.g. sum the measurements in each dimension as a cross check.

Wonderful - it's the Hornby Weetabix van, my son had one in the inevitable train-set I bought him 27 years ago! https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/114952568738