Jump to content
 

MikeOxon

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,368

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Entries posted by MikeOxon

  1. MikeOxon

    Horse Power

    By MikeOxon,


    general
    One of the things to remember when 'turning back the clock' is the former widespread use of horses, which continued up until WW2 and lingered even into the 1950s. I felt I needed to learn a bit more about how they were used, so that I could replace some of my more modern traffic with appropriate period vehicles. I found the book 'Great Western Horse Power' by Janet Russell, which proved to be a mine of information but seemed to concentrate on large depots and cities, whereas I was interested to know what might be found at a small country station. Then I spotted a photo of a horse bus at Bampton Station, on the Fairford Branch, and decided that this would be a good starting point. I bought the P D Marsh kit of a one-horse bus, which turned out to be a reasonably straightforward white-metal kit.

     
     
    The interlocking joints at the body ends might have seemed a good idea to the designer but were hard to get to fit well, in vew of flash and distortion, and were also very difficult to disguise in the finished model. Eventually, I ended up with a reasonable appearance, as below (note that luggage rails are not included in the kit). I've since seen that there is an etched brass kit of a similar vehicle available from Scale Link so, perhaps, this will be a better bet, next time

     
     
    To complement this model, I bought another couple of kits from the Langley range - a small farmers cart and a larger van. Langley, very usefully, also supply a range of wheels, which I have used to convert a pneumatic-tyred old 'Merit' plastic model into an earlier type of vehicle.

     
     
    The differences between the horse breeds in the two Langley kits are very noticeable. I suppose the equivalent to 'rivet counting' in the equine world is knowing all the different breeds of horse, and the details of harness for various applications. I'm just beginning to understand how the collar provides the 'pull', while breeching straps enable the horse to hold back a following vehicle. While at Swindon Steam museum recently, I took the opportunity to examine and photograph the harness on their scene of a horse and parcels dray. I need to do a lot more reading yet!
     
    I think my own railway should be classified as a 'working diorama', as one of my main interests is setting up small scenes, within the overall layout, to illustrate specific themes. I found an old photograph of horse shunting in progress at Barnstaple Junction, back in Broad Gauge days, and decided to try and emulate the scene, as shown below, where the horse is attached to a provender wagon. Note that the horse is in the 'six foot' (actually much wider on former BG lines!) and pulls from the side, to avoid being run over if the wagon 'runs away'. As usual, a few other people feel it is necessary to watch the proceedings!

     
     
    I found a very useful plug-in for Photohop (and Elements) from www.photo-plugins.com , which simulates the effect of various Black & White film types - even old non colour-sensitive emulsions - and can also add grain and toning effects. It does a great job of 'turning back the clock' as shown below:

     
     
    Now that the longer evenings are coming, I am considering several other projects of which, more later.
     
    ---EDIT (26 Sep): I felt the thread looked a bit insubstantial for pulling the wagon, so tried some fine chain instead. Better, I think - now perhaps a bit heavy!
     
     
     
    Mike
     
     
     
  2. MikeOxon
    I see that we’re now in the 10th year since I started writing my pre-grouping blog. Looking back, I realise how much my approach to railway modelling has changed over that period. There have been two major technical innovations and one significant change of emphasis in my interests.
     
    The first technical innovation, which occurred soon after I started exploring the earlier period, was the Silhouette Cutter, which opened up the possibility of creating complex panelled carriage sides. Since this cutter could also register cutting patterns with colour printing, it also made it possible for me to reproduced the complex liveries especially popular in the 19th century.
     

    My late 19th-century train using Silhouette cut and printed carriage sides
     
    A few years later, I made my next technical step into 3D printing, which allowed me to move away from ‘decorating’ essentially flat surface and to create all sorts of raised details onto components such as boiler cladding and riveted frames, as well as more complex vehicle shapes.
     

    My 3D-printed Broad Gauge train from the 1840s
     
    My interest in railway history received a major ‘nudge’, when I discovered that members of my wife’s family had starting working for the GWR almost from the beginning, progressing from general labourers in 1840 and working up the long career-road, through cleaners, firemen, and eventually succeeding as 1st class enginemen. Their employment records provided me with many interesting details about where they were employed and which engines they drove.
     
    Since that discovery, my interest in the early history of the GWR and, especially the broad gauge era, has continued to grow, which led to the creation of several models to help me appreciate more completely the ‘look and feel’ of those early railways.
     
    It has also meant that I somewhat lost track of parts of the ‘world’ I initially created around my fictional station of ‘North Leigh’ , on the planned but never built branch from the OW&WR ‘Cotswold’ line to Witney.
     
    Looking back over some of the comments on my posts, I realise that I did create some links between the Wilcote family in North Leigh and my later interests in the area around Bullo Pill in Gloucestershire, where members of my wife’s family once lived. In a reply to a comment by @Mikkel, I ‘discovered’ that Lady Wilcote*, before her marriage had lived at Flaxley Hall, a little to the West of Gloucester. The remark was made in the context of a ‘luggage truck’ and it set me thinking about how the move from Gloucestershire to Wilcote might have been achieved.
     

    Flaxley Hall, Gloucestershire, (DAP ‘aquarelle’ painting)
     
    I thought about my model of a ‘pantechnicon’, which could have been used for the job, but then realised that I never completed a model of the ‘road van truck’, needed to transport the pantechnicon over the GWR. It was a quick and easy lengthening of the ‘carriage truck' that I’d already built for Brunel’s Britzka’.
     

    3D-printed components of Road Van Truck
     
    Once I had printed the new version, I had everything needed to create a train to transport all the newly-wed Lady Wilcote’s goods and chattels to North Leigh station. The key vehicle was ‘Knee’s Furniture Van’. This vehicle, when loaded on to the GWR road van truck, took full advantage of the generous BG loading gauge.
     

    My model ‘Pantechnicon’ on GWR road van truck
     
    I like to set up my models as a ‘diorama’, by photographing them against a plain background and then superimposing a suitable back-scene by means of ‘Photoshop’. As shown below, I assembled a complete ‘house removal’ train, comprising a luggage truck, then the pantechnicon on its truck, followed by my recently-constructed closed van , all brought up at the rear with a horse box  and carriage on its truck. The whole train is in the charge of the Gooch bogie-class 4-4-0T ‘Aurora’.
     

    My diorama of a ‘removals’ train headed by 4-4-0ST ‘Aurora’
     
    As a slightly more ambitious ‘montage’, I have also superimposed a photo of my ‘removals’ train onto an engraving of Ealing Station, derived from Measom’s Guide to the GWR, of 1851. I’m not sure what route the train must have taken but it seems that it first travelled to Paddington Depot and then made a separate journey out to North Leigh, via Oxford.
     

    My ‘removal van’ train passing through Ealing Station
     
    Mike
     
    *footnote:
    I know a little about Amy Wilcote's mother - she was born in 1849 at Flaxley Abbey, into the family of the Crawley-Boevey Baronetcy, and married Lord Wilcote in about 1870.  Flaxley Abbey is not very far from Bullo Pill and she once commented on the accident there, saying "all those poor cows".
     
     
     
     
     
  3. MikeOxon

    Broad Gauge Covered Van

    By MikeOxon,


    General
    Because of various distractions, I’ve not had much time for model-building recently. I have however been spending quite a lot of time thinking about those very early days of the GWR when those first engines, which I modelled last year, were being delivered. Some of these engines were delivered by canal to West Drayton, where it seems that the first depot of the GWR was established. At that time, the way ahead was far from certain and concerns about the desirability of adopting Brunel’s proposals for the ‘broad gauge’. were still being hotly debated.

    Illustration from Measom’s Guide to the GWR 1851
     
    Whereas we have quite a lot of information about the early locomotives, the other vehicles – carriages and wagons – have received much less attention but, fortunately, the late Eddy Brown of the Broad Gauge Society (BGS) collected a lot of information about these, which was produced as a series of Data Sheets, available to BGS members. I have already made models of several vehicles, which I based on the information from these Data Sheets but I also became aware that there are gaps that were either omitted altogether or received scant attention in these documents.
     
    For example, when I built my ‘Coal Wagon for Bullo Pill’, I couldn’t find anything about 12-ton coal wagons in the BGS Data Sheets. Fortunately, however, I found an article in the BGS Journal ‘Broadsheet’ No.9 (April 1983), which described such a wagon and included a sketch. That same article included the comment that “The basic coal wagon shown featured many detail differences such as door types, number of doors, number of planks etc. In one case the addition of roof and sliding door produced a lime truck.”. That set me thinking about other variants and recently I discovered a list of OPC/BR drawings in ‘Broadsheet’ No.8 (Jan.1983). These drawings cover the short period from 1852 to 1854/5 and include a group of wagons sharing a standard design of underframe with various types of body. One that caught my attention is described as “Covered Goods Wagon, Henson's Patent Slide: Sliding side doors, patent sliding roof door, no breaks shewn. Body of wood with outside framing of wood and iron to accommodate sliding doors. Body side planking extending beyond the corner posts.”
     
    Covered vans seem to have been rare in early BG days, since most goods (and third-class passengers) were carried in open wagons, often fitted with hoops to carry a canvas tilt cover. I was intrigued by the reference to ‘Henson’s Patent Slide’. Henson is better known in connection with the LNWR and, according to the ‘Steam index’: “In 1841 Henry Henson was a civil engineer in charge of the Camden workshops of the London and Birmingham Railway. When the L&BR became part of the L&NWR Henson continued to hold that position and in 1847 he was appointed head of the wagon department of the Southern Division.”  Possibly, members of this community with more expertise about LNWR matters may be able to shed more light on the nature of Henson’s Patent.
     

    Henson’s Covered Wagon – Proc.Inst.Mech.Eng.,1851
     
    I also realised that, just as in the case of the coal wagon I modelled, this van was the subject of dimensioned drawings in Alan Prior’s book ‘19th Century Railway Drawings’. Thus, I had the basis for constructing a model by following my usual method of copying over a printed drawing using ‘Fusion 360’ software. To re-cap, I imported the drawing as a ‘canvas’ into ‘Fusion 360’ and then drew a series of rectangles to represent the outlines of various body features.


    Next, I extruded the areas enclosed between the rectangles by appropriate distances, to create solid bodies of the depths needed to represent framing components, as shown below:
     

     
    For the roof, I extruded the arc cross-section from one end and then added braces underneath to maintain the shape. I also added surface details to represent the roof hatches.
     

    I use the ‘pattern on path’ commands in ‘Fusion 360’ to create regular structures, such as the cross braces and the planked sides of the van, automatically.
     
    The underframe was of the same design and wheelbase as that I made before, for my model coal wagon, so I only needed to increase the length of my existing model to match the new body.
     

     
    So, that’s the hard part done and the next thing is to transfer the design files to the ‘Cura’ slicing software, which prepares the ‘gcode’ files for my Geeetech E180 printer. I printed the various components in four separate print jobs. For the record, the printing times were:
     
    Roof 70 mins. Sides X2 73 mins Ends X2 31 mins Chassis 65 mins  
    As I have mentioned before, I prefer to break the printing into several parts, so that I can check each part separately for any problems, without having to wait for the entire job to be completed.
     

    3D-printed Components
     
    I was very pleased to find that the roof printed well, despite having no ‘honeycomb’ helpers to support the hollow underside. My basic FDP printer successfully bridged the 10mm gaps between the cross bracing, saving both time and material.
     

    3D-printed Van Roof
     
    All that remained was to fuse the components together by running a 200°C soldering tip along the seams between the parts:
     

    3D-prnted Covered Van – assembled
     
    As usual with my models, there are various details to be added but I feel it has captured the appearance of an unusual prototype from the early 1850s.
     
    Mike
  4. MikeOxon

    Lock-Down 'Pastime'

    By MikeOxon,


    general
    Finding things to do in lock-down is something of an ‘art-form’. A friend recently introduced me to some software called 'Pixbim ColorSurprise AI'.  He showed me some remarkable results, where it had automatically coloured some of his old monochrome photos.
     
    So I thought I’d try it out on some of my collection of 19th-century railway photos.  There’s a ‘free trial’ version but, as is so often the case, it is hobbled by printing multiple watermarks all over any saved results. To show the effects it produces, I made screen copies of some of the preview images.
     
    I’ve no idea how it works but it does turn monochrome images into quite pleasing effects, like tinted postcards. The colours seem fairly weak but I couldn’t help noticing that it seemed to favour the view that GWR wagons should sometimes be red (ish)
     

     
    I thought it added ‘atmosphere’ to the scene in Huntley & Palmers yard in Reading:
     

     
    It also made a reasonable shot of a Broad Gauge scene at Dawlish, seeming to recognise the sand colours and again brown/red wagons but I had to turn up the blue to get a pleasant-looking sky:
     

     
    I played with it on several other scenes but the results are rather ‘hit and miss’.  I think if I wanted to do more of this, it would be better to spend some time editing with Photoshop.  I read somewhere that it is supposed to work better with portraits, so I tried it on Brunel:
     

     
    Again, my feeling was ‘could do better’. Still, it’s something to play with in lock-down and it can create some evocative scenes. Thank goodness, though, that I have Amy Wilcote to paint some scenes for me
     
    In a more serious vein, I set up to do some more 3D printing after a break since before Christmas.  In the meantime, I had changed my laptop and had to re-load the Cura software.  When I started to print, things went horribly wrong, with poor adhesion and very poor surface finish. I thought that perhaps the filament had degraded over the break, so tried another spool but it was no better. Eventually, I tried converting the file on my old laptop and it worked perfectly well!  Somewhere, I had gone wrong in setting up the parameters on the new machine, so I simply copied all my old settings files across into the ‘Application Data’.  I examined both sets of data and found several differences but I’m still not sure what was the main culprit!  It felt like being back on the initial learning curve again!
     
    Mike
     
     
     
  5. MikeOxon

    Into a New Dimension

    By MikeOxon,


    general
    Five years ago, I came across JCL's splendid thread about the Silhouette cutters at an appropriate time for dropping heavy hints before Christmas. This resulted in my acquiring a 'Silhouette Portrait' machine and loads of ideas for making my own coaches and buildings.
     
    It proved very fortuitous since, only a few months before, I had decided to return to railway modelling by re-furbishing my old small layout and turning back the clock to the 19th century period. The cutter was a great source of inspiration, since it allowed me to explore a wide range of carriages from the Dean period and earlier. I greatly enjoyed constructing models of long-forgotten prototypes.
     
    Time has moved on and I have been feeling for a while that I should consider machines capable of working in three dimensions, rather than just cutting out flat sheets. Until recently, the affordable 3D printers all seemed rather ‘geeky’ and needed a rather daunting amount of ‘setting up’. In addition, they were not the sort of thing that could easily fit into the domestic environment, where I do my modelling!
     
    Then, while browsing on the web, shortly before the recent Christmas, I spotted a very neat-looking mini-printer called the Geeetech E180 at a very reasonable price (<£200). It had received several favourable reviews and was noted as being especially suitable for use by children. That fact re-assured me that it should not prove too difficult to set up and operate! I wasn’t looking for anything particularly sophisticated but wanted to ‘dip a toe’ in the water and explore the possibilities for making various small parts and fittings for the ‘odd-ball’ locomotives and other vehicles that I enjoy creating. The overall build volume of 130 x 130 x 130 mm seemed adequate for my purposes.
     
    Once the festivities were over, I got around to setting up my new machine and was very favourably impressed by its compact size and attractive appearance. There was no doubt that it would sit easily on my work-desk but could be lifted out of the way when not required. I also discovered that the dust cover for a Kenwood Chef mixer was a perfect fit, to keep the machine dust free while in storage.
     

     
    When it came to switching on, I realised that the supplied ‘manual’ actually contained very little information and that the operating instructions were cryptic, to say the least. Even the software has to be loaded from a ‘user forum’ and it was not at all obvious where to begin. At first, I downloaded an old version of the software by mistake, but eventually managed to track down the (apparently current) version of ‘EasyPrint3D v.1.2.6’. This can load an STL-format 3D model and slice it into layers, for laying down by the printer. The ‘layer’ model can be saved onto a mini-SD card, which fits into a slot on the printer. (It’s also possible to connect directly to the printer though a USB lead)
     
    Initially, the ‘slicer’ would not start on my Windows 7, 64-bit machine. The EasyPrint software uses a version of the ‘Cura’ engine that needs the 32-bit version of vcomp140.dll to be installed in the SysWOW64 subdirectory of the Windows directory. (on my machine, it wasn’t present). The main EasyPrint.exe file, in the Program Files (x32) folder, also needs to be run in ‘Adminstrator’ mode, so that the preferences can be set for the E180 printer.
     
    An SD card was supplied with the printer but with no information about what it actually contained. The file was called bitonga8.gcode and I have subsequently discovered that it creates a largish pot. (I think bitonga is Chinese for pen-holder) Not quite what I wanted but it provided somewhere to start.
     
     

    There is a real need for a simple guide to starting out with a printer like this but it would be presumptuous of me to attempt to write up my findings in detail, before I have gained a lot more experience. The following are a summary of my findings, so far.
     
    Setting up the Printer
     
    The first task is to level the print bed and I found some 'YouTube' videos, which demonstrated that their authors didn’t really understand the machine either!
     
    I worked out that one starts with the central point on the ‘levelling’ display (called position 5) and uses the up/down buttons on the touch screen, to adjust the height of the printer head until it just grabs a sheet of paper laid on the bed. It was not immediately obvious that the height can be varied in either 0.5 mm or 0.05 mm steps, to achieve the required result. After that, the print head can be moved to the four corners of the bed in turn and small screws (initially hidden under the cutting mat) have to be turned until the paper is ‘grabbed’ by the same amount as at the centre. By going around the four corners a couple of times, I found it quite easy to get an even ‘feel’ at all these pre-set locations.
     
    The next task is to feed the filament to the print head. There is a small lever under the feed mechanism (not mentioned in instructions) that releases the grip and allows the thread to be pushed by hand along a clear PTFE tube to the ‘hot end’, which carries the actual extruder. Some cryptic symbols on the display allow the filament to be ‘motored’ forwards or back very slowly.
     
    Starting a Print
     
    Now, with the filament in position and the SD card (containing the model file) inserted, a press of the print button allows the file to be selected, when fans start whirring and the print head moves to the start position. Almost at once, filament starts to be laid down on the bed and, very slowly, layers begin to build. The display shows an estimated time to completion and, for the sample file, this was around 23 hours! I watched for a while and then, after the first few layers, the model detached itself from the bed. Obviously, still quite a lot to be learned!
     

     
    One of the child-friendly features of this printer is there there is no heated bed and the hot end has a maximum temperature of 200°C, although all the easily touchable parts remain cool. This limits the type of filament that can be used to PLA but does mean that there are no unpleasant fumes emitted while the machine is working.
     
    Choosing a Model
     
    I decided to look on the web for some STL models that were of greater interest to me and also substantially smaller than the example provided on the SD card. I found several railway-related models on the Cults website (https://cults3d.com/en/collections/stl-file-train) and chose a free version of Thomas the Tank Engine for my next trial.
     
    I loaded the thomas_body.STL file into EasyPrint, rotated and centred the model within the 3D box (set up for the E180 printer – which is not the default, as I quickly discovered). Then I pressed the ‘slicer’ option to generate the .GCO file, which I saved onto the mini-SD card. (I have an adapter, to use this card with my regular SD card reader/writer)
     

     
    Completing a Print
     
    Once the SD card was in the printer, I pressed the ‘print’ button on the touch screen and the machine whirred into action. It estimated that the job would take about 4 hours. All started well but then after the first couple of layers, the model again came loose on the bed, so I stopped the printing. I decided to apply a little Pritt Stick glue to the bed, to improve adhesion, and started again. This time all went well!
     

     
    Because I was impatient to see how the printing would progress, I used the controls to accelerate the print speed to 150% and then sat back to watch progress. After about an hour, the model was building up nicely and I invited my wife to come and watch the process in action. Unfortunately, I then managed to knock the power lead out of the printer, which promptly shut down.
     
    One of the claimed features of this printer is its ability to recover from a power failure. So, after restoring the power, I hit the ‘resume’ button. Something went wrong, because the top of the model became displaced from the lower part by about 3 mm along the length axis. It may have been ‘finger trouble’ on the touch screen but I need to investigate further and make sure that all the plugs are firmly attached in future.
     
    Anyway, it got here in the end, with a somewhat mis-shapen model The surface finish seemed quite rough, especially on the curved surfaces and the chimney came out a rather odd shape (far from round) but I don’t know if this was due to shortcomings in the model or in the printer. There were also several stray lengths of fine filament, bridging different parts of the model. I was surprised by how ‘solid’ the model was, with a completely filled body of honeycomb structure.
     

     
    Next Steps
     
    I am hoping that experience will enable me to make improvements but I am satisfied that the machine does work, albeit with some teething troubles. There are plenty of selections for varying parameters such as hot-end temperature and speed, so I will try more experiments. I think this machine should be capable of making small parts of complex shapes quite quickly and easily.
     
    The greatest difficulty will lie in creating the 3D models themselves on the computer but I shall take this in easy stages – one step at a time. I am planning to try out the Fusion 360 software, which is currently being offered free for non-commercial use.
     
    EDIT (13th Jan): As I mention in the comments below, this post records my initial 'warts and all' experience with my printer. I have been doing a lot of reading since writing the above and am somewhat amazed that I managed to produce anything at all, in view of my slender understanding of the processes involved. In particular, I am becoming aware of the roles played by the Cura 'slicer' software, which has an enormous influence on the final result. Already, I am finding out how to achieve a far better result
  6. MikeOxon

    Cautionary Tales – 2

    By MikeOxon,


    General
    Last year (October 2021) I wrote a post under this same title in which I referred to the need for caution, when making models based on published drawings. In some cases, even manufacturers’ drawings, especially in the early days, can be suspect, since the finished product was based more on the skills of individual craftsmen, who trusted their practical knowledge over that emerging from the drawing office!
     
    When I designed my recent model of ‘Vulcan’, I derived the dimensions from sketches by the young Swindon apprentice, E.T. Lane. Although these were only sketches, they were made ‘from life’ and I feel are more likely to represent the actual appearance of his subjects than more polished drawings made many decades later.
     

     
    Nevertheless, I was perturbed when I realised that my use of these sketches had resulted in the driving wheels of my model appearing to represent a 7 foot prototype diameter, whereas the RCTS book on GWR Locomotives, Part Two, states that the diameter was 8 feet. This statement has been widely repeated in other works ever since. So, I have spent some time examining the evidence more closely
     
    It is in that subtle matter of ‘appearance’ that Lane’s sketches differ markedly from the works drawing of ‘Aeolus’, a sister engine to ‘Vulcan’, both built by the Vulcan Foundry. The works drawing may well indicate 8 ft diameter wheels but, on looking at the wheelbase relative to the driving wheel diameter on the works drawing, the proportions can be seen to be different from the Lane sketch, in which the driving wheel is noticeably smaller
     
    My first step was to photograph my collection of early broad gauge models together, in order to demonstrate their relative proportions:
     

    My Four recent Broad Gauge Models
     
    It was widely reported that the early engines ordered by Brunel had inadequate steam-raising capacity for main-line performance. Daniel Gooch addressed the problem when he designed his Firefly class, of which ‘Argus’ was a member, One of the reasons I had for constructing my models was to help visualise these differences.  The difference between the sizes of the boiler on 'Vulcan' compared with that of 'Argus' is very apparent when the models are placed together.
     
    ‘Vulcan’ was a sister engine to ‘Aeolus’, both being from the Vulcan Foundry and all the key dimensions are in agreement between my two models.  My earlier model of ‘Aeolus’ was based on a detailed sketch by E.T. Lane, which had copious annotations giving the dimensions of many features of this engine.  ‘Aeolus’ had been re-built with smaller driving wheels when Lane made his sketches but other key dimensions, including the wheelbase, had not been altered, so far as we know.
     
    It appears, however that when Mike Sharman showed a drawing of ‘Vulcan’, derived from an illustration by G.F. Bird in The Locomotive Magazine, 1901, in his book of Broad Gauge engines, published by Oakwood Press, a scale based on the assumption that the driving wheel diameter was 8 feet was added.
     
    When I placed this Bird drawing below the Works drawing of ‘Aeolus’, aligned to the wheelbase, it is clear that the wheel diameters are considerably smaller in the Bird drawing and, indeed, are a good match to the sketch by Lane. 
     

    Drawings Compared (based on wheelbase)
     
    I suggest that 'Vulcan' may have been delivered with 8 ft drivers in 1838 but that these were changed to 7 ft sometime during the 1840s. I note that Lane indicated on his sketch that the leading carrying wheels had 14 spokes, whereas the trailing wheels had only 12. This difference is borne out in the later photograph of 'Vulcan' as a tank engine, although not in the Bird drawing.  Perhaps it is an indication that 'Vulcan' was re-fitted with wheels salvaged from other engines during the 1840s?
     
    There is an early illustration of Ealing Station, dated 1839, which includes 'Vulcan' (or one of the similar engines in the group) apparently in original form with 8 ft diameter driving wheels.
     

    Extract from illustration of Ealing Station 1839
     
    Overall then, another reminder always to treat published drawings with suspicion. Distortion frequently occurs during publication, so that vertical dimensions may not correspond with horizontal ones! There are plenty of traps for the unwary modeller and I hope that not too many have built models of 'Vulcan' to the dimensions shown in the Oakwood Press book.
     
    I am especially pleased, however, to have found that the late Mike Sharman’s own model of 'Vulcan' does appear to have been based on the proportions shown in the Works Drawing, with its larger (8' diameter) driving wheels. A collection of photos of Mike’s models appeared in Railway Modeller, March 1968, so I was able to compare a good side-on photo of his model with the above drawings. 
     
    I should also be interested to know where Mike's tender design came from - I used a 4-wheel Gooch tender with my own model
     
     
  7. MikeOxon
    Some time has elapsed since I first decided to paint the wagons red on my GWR 'North Leigh' railway but I still look out for any further information that may shed further light on when and where this colour was used.
     

     
    My 1st edition copy of 'Great Western Way'(GWW) stated: "it would seem to be about the end of the 1870s that wagons and vans first sported a standard pattern of painted lettering. It was about this time, too, that the change from red to grey as a body colour was apparently decided upon." Since that was written, however, opinions have been revised and many now think that red was still in use up to 1904. (the way things are going, I'm sure someone will eventually conclude that red continued until nationalisation, when it was renamed 'bauxite' )
     
    My old GWW also states that the earliest lettering took the form of the letters "G.W.R",...on the left hand end of the vehicle usually three planks up from the bottom of the body side" The text continues by stating that the lettering soon moved to the bottom plank, with the legend "To carry ... tons" above the initials. At the opposite end (RHS), the wagon number appeared, with the tare weight above. Then, in the early to mid 1880s, the pattern was reversed, with G.W.R at the right-hand end on the second plank up and the number and tare at the LHS. Legends for load and tare were now below the letters and numbers. Numbers also began to appear on the ends of wagons. GWW also reports that, in 1894, the use of cast plates for ownership and number information started to be applied and continued until at least 1905.
     
    With that received wisdom in mind and some knowledge of later opinions, I happened upon an interesting photo in Ian Pope and Paul Karau's book 'The Forest of Dean Branch - volume one' This photograph shows Cinderford ironworks and is believed to have been taken in the 1890s and certainly after 1880, because it shows a structure completed in that year.
     
    There is another photo, also taken in the Forest of Dean, in 1883, of a wagon at Coleford in what is described in GWW as "the earliest style of painting with lettering on the solebar".
     
    A selection of wagons appear in the foreground of the Cinderford photo, in a considerable mixture of liveries. For research purposes, I have copied two small sections of the photograph, to illustrate this point.
     

     
    In the upper row, five wagons can be seen, of which two appear to be of a darker shade than the others. Taking the two 'dark' wagons first: the one on the left has G.W.R low on the LHS with (presumably) load above, while the number and tare are to the RHS. The other dark wagon has the G.W.R above the load, to the left, and a number (level with the G.W.R) to the RHS, with some addition small lettering above and to the right of the number. The lettering on the 'lighter' wagons is less distinct but G.W.R always seems to be on the left side.
     
    In the lower row, the first wagon on the left is unclear but, next, is a dark-looking wagon, with G.W.R on the left and other lettering in the centre and RHS. Next is a lighter-looking wagon, with G.W.R at bottom left and (presumably) load above but what might be the tare seems to be below the number on RHS. The next wagon is not clear and the final wagon has G.W.R high on the left, with load below and number on RHS, though not on the visible end of this wagon.
     
    I have noted that there is a clear distinction between 'light' and 'dark' wagons and that the shades of these two types seem consistent, between the various members of each type.
     
    At this point, I decided to try some experimental archaeology.
     
    I set up a line of model wagons from my collection, some painted grey and some in my interpretation of GWR red. After photographing the group, I processed the photo using a Photoshop plug-in that allows a Black and White conversion, with an adjustable colour response. I chose a 'colour blind' response, typical of 19th century film technology, when film emulsions responded to blue, violet, and ultra-violet wavelengths but only very slightly to green and not at all to yellow and red.
     

     
    My experiment shows that the model wagons divide into 'lighter' and 'darker' shades, as in the Cinderford photo, with the red wagons being darker.
     
    If I extrapolate from my experiment to the Cinderford photo, it suggests that, at the time of the photograph (known to be after 1880 and probably around 1890), there were three red wagons in the yard, together with seven grey wagons. Both types, however, showed a mix of liveries, with G.W.R either above or below the weight information in both cases. If my guess about colours is correct, then it appears that both styles of painting were in use concurrently, both before and after the time of the change of lettering style!
     
    Could one have been predominant on the South Wales line from Gloucester, while the other was Swindon practice? I'm sure there are many knowledgeable people on the forums, who may have ideas on this matter.
     
    The books on the Forest of Dean railways are well worth tracking down for the superb illustrations of many industrial scenes from the 19th and early 20th centuries.
  8. MikeOxon

    Before I went Pre-Grouping

    By MikeOxon,


    general
    I am very grateful for the appreciative comments on my recent posts and very pleased to know that some of my earlier posts are still considered to be a useful resource.  I confess that I am still finding it hard to adapt to the ‘new’ (well, fairly new) RMWeb format and don’t seem to dip into here as much as I used to do – it’s an age thing I suppose.
     
    Progress with the 3D printer continues to be slow – two small grand-children do take up a fair bit of my energy resources and I have many other hobbies that I am trying to fit in as well!
     
    I recently introduced the nearly-three year old grand-son to ‘North Leigh’ and realised just how fragile most of my models are.  Fortunately, my model is completely enclosed with a transparent front screen but that does limit operations, which still depend quite a lot on the ‘big hand from the sky’.  A lot of my scratch built items were made more for the sake of appearance rather than robustness, so I find the ready-to-run (RTR) stock is by far the most reliable when exposed to the somewhat random movements applied to the controller by the grand-child.  Having said that, he really enjoys reversing a train into the tunnel and bringing it out again to the station, with a rush!
     
     

     
    The Tri-ang clerestories in the charge of my Wills 1854 pannier, built on a Hornby chassis, proved by far the most reliable stock, for exposure to such treatment, and reminded me how those older models were designed with ‘kiddie interest’ in mind, far more than is the case for most modern RTR models.
     
    By chance, my older brother was clearing out his loft recently and came across the model railway, which he had as a child and which passed on to me, when I was around 8 years old.  I added a few extra items to the original ‘Princess Elizabeth’ train-set and enjoyed the ‘play value’ that these items added.  My favourite item was the R227 utility van, which featured opening doors, through which I could load and unload various stores.  I also liked the barred windows, which made the vehicle look rather ‘important’.
     

     
     
    It is a testament to the original design that these models provided ‘play value’ for many years and survived intact.  It gave me great pleasure to set up the whole railway, a few days ago, in the well-remembered format, on the carpet as of old.
     

     

    The coal wagon, like the utility van, had opening side doors, which allowed ‘coal’ to be loaded and unloaded, while the level crossing provided the interface between the railway and my much-loved collection of Dinky Toys.
     
    The coaches, from the original ‘Princess Elizabeth’ set, vividly show the problem of warped roofs, endemic in these early Triang models.  I intend to see whether hot water treatment on a suitable former is able to correct the distortion. 
     
    Of course, the model ‘Princess’ bears very little resemblance to the prototype locomotive but that never seemed to matter much to an 8-year old – the important thing was that it represented a main-line express locomotive, like the ones I could see at the head of the ‘Royal Scot’, rushing through Preston Station. What’s more, it could hurtle round those 15” radius curves with no tendency to leave the track.
     

     
     
    I know that these thoughts are extremely heretical to all those P4 modellers but the fact remains that my interest in model railways was kindled by playing with these models, which fulfilled the ‘play’ needs of a young child.
     
    Nowadays, what will be available for my grand-children when they reach the appropriate age?
  9. MikeOxon

    Christmas Break

    By MikeOxon,


    general
    With the holiday period now upon us, many of North Leigh’s locomotives are now ‘on shed’. In the following photo can be seen my first ‘scratch build’ - a GWR ‘Queen’ class, with a ‘Stella’ 2-4-0 next in line. Disappearing out of view, the back of ‘Lord of the Isles’ can just be glimpsed, while on the front track is a Dean Goods, together with an early PBV.  (The 'back scene' is by Photoshop)
     

    Locomotives ‘On Shed’
     
    Looking back into Broad Gauge days, I remember a comment by Mikkel on my construction method in which I added 3D-printed cladding to a metal boiler – he wrote “Boiler then cladding, like watching a real loco being built”. After some searching, I found an old engraving of the Swindon Boiler Shop, with the boiler of my Gooch Goods being readied for the addition of the cladding

    In the Boiler Shop
     
    In many ways 2020 is a year best forgotten but the lock-down gave me plenty of time to practise using my 3D printer, to make a wide variety of models (both 'Standard' and Broad Gauge). True to form, my Armstrong Standard Goods still needs a number of finishing touches but I think it has captured the ‘look’ of the prototype quite well.
     

    Armstrong Goods
     
    I can only hope that 2021 will see the present restrictions being relaxed, although it will take some time. I also hope to have some more ideas for creating new types of models.  Perhaps I shall also find a few more Amy Wilcote paintings.
     
    My best wishes to those who have followed my posts over the year and for the encouragement you have provided, which is much appreciated
     
    Mike
  10. MikeOxon

    Vulcan – first in steam

    By MikeOxon,


    General
    I hadn’t intended to make another model so soon after my previous post but, having read about ‘Vulcan’ being the first engine in steam on the GWR, on 28th December 1837, I felt I should add it to my collection.
     
    Since 'Vulcan' was a sister engine to 'Aeolus', which I have already modelled, I could re-use many of the parts I had already designed, so this was a fairly quick re-build.
     
    My model of 'Aeolus' was based on the 1843 rebuild of the prototype, after the original version proved to be a poor performer with a loaded train. The rebuild involved new cylinders and smaller driving wheels. With these modifications, 'Aeolus' proved to be a useful branch-line engine, surviving until near the end of the broad gauge era.
     
    'Vulcan' was also re-built, in this case as a tank engine, with the tank adding much-needed adhesion weight. In this form it even featured in an early photograph, as shown below:
     

    Vulcan re-built as a tank engine
     
    Fortunately, we also have a sketch by that most valuable source, E.T. Lane, of this engine in its original form:
     

     
    This sketch shows that the appearance was little changed by the addition of the back-tank and bunker. I’m not sure why Lane showed such a ‘stunted’ chimney, since I feel the original would have been of similar height to other engines of the period – perhaps it was something very simple, such as having reached the edge of the page in his notebook?.
     
    One point of interest is that comparative measurement between the wheelbase and driving wheel diameter, in both the photograph and Lane’s sketch, indicate a driving-wheel diameter of 7 feet. Many sources state that the diameter was 8 feet, when the engine was delivered, but it may have been altered quite early in its life, as were many others out of that initial batch of engines.
     
    I overlaid the sketches of 'Vulcan' and 'Aeolus' to check how many parts I would need to modify from those made for 'Aeolus', Luckily, the answer was “not very many”
     

     
    The boiler fittings on 'Vulcan' were different, with two domes, but it appears that the same frames were retained and simply lowered, when smaller wheels were fitted to 'Aeolus'. As a result, I found that I could re-use the boiler, smokebox, firebox, and frames from my previous model. I needed new driving wheels and splashers, and a new selection of boiler fittings.
     
    As an aside, it appears that, when G.F. Bird made his much later drawings for ‘The Engineer’, he copied the safety valve and Salter spring from the original version and added them onto the 'Aeolus' re-build – thus providing duplicate Salter springs. Lane’s contemporary drawings do not show this duplication and I believe are more likely to be correct. A reminder to use contemporary sources whenever possible!
     
    I created the new parts by using the methods I have already described in previous posts, and then brought my original and new parts together, to create a 3D model of 'Vulcan' in Fusion 360, as shown below:
     

    My 3D-model of 'Vulcan', based on sketch by E.T. Lane
     
    Because the modifications were minor, I was able to complete the amendments in ‘Fusion 360’ within an afternoon’s modelling.
     
    Printing
     
    Drawing on experience gained from earlier models I combined some of the smaller parts with larger ones, to reduce the amount of fiddly assembly-work needed after printing. Thus, the springs are combined with frames and the curved supports are integral with smokebox and firebox.
     
    The printed ‘kit of parts’ is shown below:
     

    3D-printed components of my Vulcan model
     
    Following my usual method, the boiler, smokebox and firebox were assembled by sliding them over a brass tube to form a reasonably weighty rigid component.  For the chassis I first set up the inside frames, linked by the buffer beam at the front and the footplate at the rear, The wheels, set on pin-point axles were slotted into the horn-guides and the outside frames were added in alignment with the axles. There is sufficient ‘flex’ in the outside frames to allow the driving axle to be inserted into the horn-guides above the frames.
     
    This structure is adequate for a static model but the chassis is rather too flexible for a working model, since I made many of the frame sections rather too thin, in order to keep the slender appearance of the prototype. To make this into a working model, I would have to add brass inner frames, as on my earlier model of ‘Fire Fly’.
     
    Painting
     
    I painted the various components separately, so minimising the need for masking between differently coloured parts. One advantages from having the central tube through boiler, smokebox and firebox is that it provides a useful finger-hold during painting!
     

    Finger hold and ‘Pringles’ palette
     
    I usually use artists’ acrylic paints, wetting the surfaces first, with an alcohol(IPA)/water mix, and then adding pigment to achieve the depth of colour I require. I mix colours such as vermilion for the buffer beam on a ‘Pringles’-lid palette!
     
    Comparisons
     
    One of my objectives in modelling these early locomotives was to gain a better understanding of locomotive development during the so-called ‘primitive’ period.
     
    Gooch, in his ‘diaries’ recalled, of the engines he had in 1838, that “The North Star and the six from the Vulcan Foundry Company were the only ones I could at all depend upon. The result was I had to begin in a measure to rebuild one half of the stock I had to work with. For many weeks my nights were spent in a carriage in the engine-house at Paddington, as repairs had to be done to the engines at night to get them to do their work next day.” Yet, by 1840, Gooch could write “I was much more comfortable with regard to our engines; the new engines ordered to my drawings were being delivered. The Firefly, started on March 1840, was the first, and they all gave every one general satisfaction. We could now calculate with some certainty, not only upon the speed they could run, but also upon their not breaking down upon the journey.” My models trace the progress in those few years.
     
    Here is ‘Vulcan’, fresh from the paint shop:
     

    My 3D-printed model of Vulcan
     
    There are various rods and pipes still to be added to the basic 3D-printed model.
     
    Seen in isolation, this looks like a well-balanced purposeful engine and, indeed, after conversion to a tank engine, it remained in service for branch-line use until 1868. It’s problem was that it was very lightly built, with a small boiler, in an attempt to meet Brunel’s stringent weight limits (which, in fact, it greatly exceeded).
     
    It’s when we look at it against Gooch’s own ‘Fire Fly’ class of just a couple of years later that we see the enormous progress that was made in that short interval. The ‘Fire Fly’ class had the boiler capacity and firebox to cope with express traffic on the newly opened line to Reading and soon afterwards, on 30th June 1841, on the completed length of the GWR between London and Bristol.
     
    The difference is very clear when I place my model of ‘Argus’ (Fire Fly class) next to my model of ‘Vulcan’:
     

    My models of ‘Vulcan’ and ‘Argus’ head-to-head
     
    This has been a journey of exploration for me into the earliest days of the GWR. I hope my readers will enjoy reading about it as much as I have enjoyed making the models
     
    Mike
  11. MikeOxon

    Photographing the Layout

    By MikeOxon,


    general
    I know that this is a model railways website but I also have no doubt that many people visit because they enjoy looking at the photos of other people's layouts. Thus, it is inevitable that photography plays an important part in communicating what we are doing. There are lots of excellent photos on this website but I thought that it might be of some interest to show some of the techniques I use when photographing my small layout.
     
    The word 'photography' is derived from two Greek words which mean 'drawing with light', so getting good lighting onto the subject is very important. Ordinary room lighting is rarely adequate for good photography, although modern digital cameras are much more sensitive in low light levels than earlier cameras were. If the light is poor, the resulting photos are likely to show poor colour, grainy images, and they may be unsharp, as a result of camera shake and/or very little depth of field (i.e. the zone that is in sharp focus).
     
    I find that, in practice, compact cameras with small sensors are often better for layout photography than larger types, such as DSLRs. The ultimate picture quality from a compact may not be as high but they do have important advantages in this application. The most obvious is that they are smaller and can, therefore, be placed in realistic locations, close to the models themselves. I like to take line-side shots and find this is much easier when using a small camera. Another big advantage is that small cameras provide better depth of field than larger cameras, when used for model photography. The technical reasons for this are explained on the website at http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm.
     
    If I use my Nikon DSLR camera with a 90mm macro lens to photograph my models, I might choose an aperture setting of f/16, to achieve a reasonable depth of field. The calculator on the above website shows that a compact camera (with a 1/2.3" sensor) would provide the same depth of field when set to an aperture of f/2.8, which allows 32 times more light to reach the sensor and so makes it much easier to light the model effectively.
     


    Photo taken with Lumix FZ200 - 1/100s@f/2.8 ISO400, focal length=12mm
     
    My preferred light source is electronic flash but this tends to be very harsh if directed straight at the model, leading to a 'soot and whitewash' result! I find that the best way is to 'bounce' the light from the flash off a reflector or off the ceiling (if this is white). This requires a fairly powerful flashgun that must be triggered by the camera and not all small cameras have the necessary connector. So-called 'bridge' cameras combine the advantages of a small sensor with the connectivity of more sophisticated cameras. The photo below shows how I use my Panasonic Lumix FZ200 camera with my old but powerful Vivitar 283 flashgun for layout photography:
     

     
     
    The camera is actually sitting on the baseboard and I use the flip-out viewing screen to monitor the view from the camera. I also set the 2-second delay timer, to remove any shake caused by my pressing the shutter button. The image taken by the Lumix from this location is shown below:
     

    Lumix FZ200 - 1/60s@f/5.6 ISO160, focal length=7mm
     
    If a camera will not work with a separate flashgun, then one of the cheapest ways of providing extra light is to use a halogen floodlight of the type sold for outdoor security and garden lighting. I have a couple of these lights that I have mounted onto very cheap tripods, so that they can be aimed at the areas of the model that I wish to photograph. In the following example, I show a small compact camera actually placed on the layout, to take a photo of the saw mill, lit by one of these floodlights.
     

     
     
    and the image from this camera is shown below:
     

     
    Leica C-Lux2 - 1/160s@f/5.6 ISO400, focal length=5mm
     
    Sometimes, in the evening, as I am sitting watching the trains roll by, I like to look for viewpoints that I think will make interesting photos. Near the back of the layout, in a corner, is a Faller kit-built water mill (Faller 130225) that dates from the first phase of my modelling. With a re-paint and some weathering, it makes quite an attractive feature of the landscape, especially when viewed along the stream bed that runs across the layout. I like to think that it is the sort of location where Amy Wilcote might set up her easel and, occasionally, I feel that I can see her there:
     

     
    Lumix FZ200 - 1/60s@f/8 ISO160, focal length=84mm
     
    That reminds me that I must get on and provide the Wilcote family with some dresses
     
    Mike
     
    NOTE: if you use an older flashgun with a modern camera, make sure that the flashgun has low-voltage contacts. Some old guns had trigger voltages of 100v or more, which could damage an electronic camera.
  12. MikeOxon

    Whole Plate or Compact Camera

    By MikeOxon,


    general
    I've been reading the thread started recently by Robin2 on "Why have moving trains on layouts?" - ( http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/78169-why-have-moving-trains-on-layouts/ )
     
    There've been lots of interesting and thoughtful replies and it has made me think. On the one hand, I couldn't build an engine without wanting to make it work satisfactorily and, on the other, I don't run trains very much but do enjoy setting up various static scenes for photography. I do find it relaxing, however, to run trains round and round a bit, after a hard evening's modelling, though the relaxation can be spoiled if some sort of fault appears
     
    Here's an example of one of my static scenes:
     

     
    I've added a bit of smoke and steam with Photoshop but, looking at it now, it desperately needs some people to give it a bit of 'life' and it's only when I looked at the photo that I noticed that the pigs had fallen over!. There's no doubt that taking photos is a great way to see all the mistakes and the unrealistic bits, so it can be a stimulus to improvement.
     
    I find that a small compact camera is often better for 'realistic' scenes than, for example, a more sophisticated DSLR, for a number of reasons.
     
    The compact is, of course, smaller and can be put into those places that a DSLR cannot reach. A more technical reason is that both the lens and sensor in the compact are much smaller, which results in a greater depth of field (more in focus) at equivalent camera settings. The compact can be thought of as, in effect, a 'scale model' of the sort of camera that might have been used during my chosen pre-Grouping period. Out of interest, I did a few calculations:
     
    The sensor in a typical compact measures about 6.2 x 4.6mm, whereas a 'whole plate' camera, as might have been used in the 19th century, had a sensitive area of 8½" x 6½" (216 x 165mm). From these figures, the compact represents a 1/35 scale model - not too far removed from 0-gauge! So, you can expect to get similar perspective and depth-of-field when using a compact to photograph an 0-gauge layout from 'realistic' locations.
     
    I took the photo of my GWR 'Siphon' that appeared in a recent post with a DSLR camera and it is obvious that only a small part of the image is in focus. I've repeated the shot below, using a compact camera, to show how much more of the scene can easily be kept in focus (the background sky is by Photoshop)
     

     
     
    Mike
  13. MikeOxon
    Following my recent post about research into the ‘Fire Fly’ class engines, @Mikkel remarked “I was wondering when and why Gooch abandoned the Haycock firebox for his own round topped version, e.g. on the Pyracmon class.”

    my model of ‘Tantalus’
     
    It reminded me that, when I was preparing my model of ‘Tantalus’, one of Gooch’s ‘Standard Goods’ engines, I had collected together a number of drawings by G F Bird of various engines from this class and its immediate predecessors.
     
    Taken together, they serve to illustrate the line of development from the very first engine to emerge from the new Swindon Works in February 1846. The boiler of this 0-6-0 engine ‘Premier’ was supplied from outside, so it was not entirely ‘home grown’ – that honour went to the remarkable ‘Great Western’ 2-2-2, completed in April of the same year.
     
    Premier was the first of a batch of 12 similar engines built throughout the following year and, as with most ‘hand built’ products of the period, there were differences in detail between the various individuals. These engines all retained the early features of wooden strips lagging the boilers and the ‘haycock’ style cover over the inner-firebox, to provide a steam collecting space. The driving wheels were 5’ 0” diameter, which was to remain the same throughout GWR history, although thicker tyres were used much later. The average weight of this lot was 26¾ tons.

    Premier (built Feb. 1846)
     
     
    The next batch of six engines, headed by ‘Pyracmon’ in November 1847 (the name means ‘fire anvil’ and comes from Virgil’s Aeneid) started what was to become a steady process of enlargement and, most significantly, saw the abandonment of the ‘haycock’ firebox, substituting the ‘round topped’ firebox that characterised all Gooch’s later designs and was to re-appear, in Dean’s time, in the famous 4-2-2 ‘Singles’. The weight was now 28 tons 3 cwt.

    Pyracmon (built Nov.1847)
     
    The enlargement continued in the eight engines of the ‘Caesar' group, beginning in June 1851.  The weight of these engines was now 32 tons 9½ cwt. These engines were generally very similar to the later engines that became known as the ‘Standard Goods’.  The cylinder stroke was lengthened by 1” to 17 inches. The wooden boiler cladding was now replaced (or supplemented) by a painted iron cladding.  In the book ‘Railway Machinery’ by D.K. Clark (published in 1855), there are the following notes on Cleading [sic]: "The boiler should be completely enveloped, at all approachable points, in a non-conducting garment, consisting of several plies of felt, covered with ¾ inch pine battens grooved and tongued, and finished with sheet iron, No. 17 wire gauge, strapped well down.”

    Hero (built Dec.1851)
     
    Someone once remarked that the nice thing about ‘standards’ is that there are so many to choose from. This was true of the various batches of ‘standard’ goods, which continued to follow a pattern of ‘continuous improvement. The need for more goods engines was clearly expanding rapidly, as 102 of these engines were built in seven lots, the first batch being known formally as the 4th lot goods (following the ‘Caesar’ group, which were the 3rd lot). The first of these engines was completed in May 1852 and subsequent lots were produced until March 1863, so they covered the whole of the remaining ‘Gooch’ period of the GWR.


    Cato (built Mar.1853)
     
    Successive lots still showed detail improvements, such as re-arrangement of the equalising beams between the springs of the suspension, as shown in the following drawing, which is based on one of the illustrations in Gooch’s notebook. By the time of the 7th lot, welded plate frames had been introduced.
     

    7th lot Goods (from Aug.1857)
     
    Of all these engines, only ‘Europa’ (5th lot) was rebuilt*, in 1869, and survived until the end of the Broad Gauge, when it had the distinction of being the last Broad Gauge engine to leave Plymouth for Swindon on 31st May 1892.
     
    The overall layout continued with little change in the later series of ‘Standard Goods’ produced by Joseph Armstrong as the ‘388’ class.  By now (1866) the Gifford injector had replaced mechanical pumps for the water feed to the boiler and modern innovations such as cabs and domed boilers were being applied.  Although these engines were built for the standard gauge, 20 were converted to Broad Gauge in 1884-1888, to head goods traffic between Plymouth and London during the final years of the Broad Gauge, as shown below:
     

    These illustrations show that there was a continuous line of development of GWR 0-6-0 engines, from ‘Premier’ of 1846 through to the Armstrong and Dean versions and, with a few more ‘modern’ innovations, to the Collett Goods of the 1930s.
     
    *  @Annie has posted a good photo of the rebuilt 'Europa', showing the sloping front to the smokebox.
     
    Mike
  14. MikeOxon

    Adding Cladding

    By MikeOxon,


    General
    In commenting on an earlier post, Michael Edge pointed out that the visible diameter of a locomotive boiler is greater than the diameter of the metal boiler itself and he suggested that I should have bought a larger diameter tube for my model of 'Tantalus'.
     
    I had already been thinking about how to add the visible boiler rings and then had the idea “why not 3D-print the boiler cladding?” After all, the prototype boiler was metal, whereas the cladding was initially of wooden planks, then with an iron covering over the wood, and later, a range of different materials, such as asbestos, were used.  In all cases, the cladding was an insulator and, therefore, non-metallic.  So, I would only be following prototypical practice if I added a PLA cladding as the insulation on my own model boiler.
     

     
    A few years ago, I measured the cladding thickness on one of the boilers at Didcot Railway Centre, using my ever-ready measuring stick. (Sadly, they wouldn’t let me strip some cladding off ‘Iron Duke’, to measure that one). Two inches thickness translates into 0.67 mm in 4mm-scale. All I needed to do was to print a cylindrical sleeve of 0.67mm thickness and add the visible bands in the appropriate places. This last requirement gave me some food for thought but I eventually came up with a very simple method.
     
    The Gooch Boiler had three intermediate bands, dividing the length of the boiler into four equal segments, with an additional band at each end, adjacent to firebox and smokebox respectively. My easy solution was to design one section, with a band at one end and then copy the additional segments and join them all together, to create the complete cladding. That left one additional ring to be added at the final end. I illustrate the steps, when using ‘Fusion 360’ below:
     

     
    After extruding the first segment, with its ring, I copied it to make 2 rings and copied again to make 4. For the final ring, I split the ‘body’ 0.5mm from the end and extruded the top part to make the final ring. When printed, the cladding sleeve looks as shown below (taken on the printer bed):
     

     
    The printed tube slid smoothly but firmly over the brass-tube boiler:
     

     
    The difference in diameter is not that obvious but another advantage of this method was that I could include the boiler bands in the 3D print, so solving a secondary problem in completing the model.
     
    My model of 'Tantalus' now looks as shown below, the measured outside diameter of the clad boiler being 19.3mm. There is, of course, quite a lot of work still to be done on my model, in terms of ‘fixtures and fittings’
     

     
     
     
    Mike
  15. MikeOxon

    Modelling the Broad Gauge ‘Eagle’

    By MikeOxon,


    General
    Over the summer, I had little time for modelling, although I did continue with my reading, especially about the early engines of the GWR. Although these have been widely dismissed as ‘freaks’, this term only really applied to a very few examples and most were simply too small, because the manufacturers were attempting to meet Brunel's weight specifications, which were virtually impossible.
     
    At that time in the late 1830s, locomotive design was still in its infancy but a few manufacturers were working hard to raise standards of construction. One that stood out during my reading was Sharp, Roberts & Co. and especially the efforts made by their co-founder, Richard Roberts.
     
    Although little known in the locomotive field, Roberts was a prolific inventor in the field of textile machinery, which was the back-bone of the industrial revolution. He had an excellent grounding in engineering from his time at Henry Maudslay’s works, which was at the forefront of contemporary engineering practice.
     
    One of Roberts’ many innovations was the use of piston valves, which he applied to three engines supplied to the GWR – named ‘Lion’, ‘Atlas’, and ‘Eagle’. Unfortunately, these were not a success, possibly because of differential expansion between the valve components, which led to excessive steam leakage but, otherwise, these were very sound engines and performed well, once new cylinders had been fitted. Two of these engines survived in branch-line use until 1872, by which time the broad-gauge was in full retreat, with only the West Country main line lingering on until 1892.
    .
    I was interested to note that, like ‘Aeolus’, which I modelled earlier this year, ‘Eagle’ also worked on the Abingdon branch, which happens to be my home town. I thought, therefore, that ‘Eagle’ made a good candidate for my next early broad-gauge model.
     
    The spare part for my Geeetech printer arrived from China more rapidly than I had expected, so I was ready to go but, first, there is the task of creating the 3D model in ‘Fusion 360’
     
    My Modelling Work-flow
     
    It’s a while since I have created a new model, apart from re-furbishing a carriage, as described on my pre-grouping blog. During the interval, I seem to have almost subliminally developed a fairly rapid design work-flow.
     
    As I mentioned in an earlier post, ‘Fusion 360’ is designed around the concept of starting from an overall design and then breaking it down into components - a ‘top down’ approach. In my earlier attempts, I used to create the individual parts separately and only bring them together after printing.
     
    Now, especially with these early engines, where prototype information is limited, I start from an existing drawing and then extrude each component in turn from the drawing, before bringing them all together within a single overall project file in ‘Fusion 360’.
     
    What I have found is that working in this way doesn’t need much computer modelling expertise, beyond what is needed to create a two-dimensional (2D) drawing.  This is because most engine components can be created either by linear extrusion from a 2D drawing or by rotating a profile from a 2D drawing. There is rarely any need to consider more complex shapes involving double-curvature.
     
    This method also means that I do not need to make any of my own measurements but simply to rely on the drawing being accurate and traceable by means of the ‘line’, ‘circle’, and ‘arc’ drawing tools in ‘Fusion 360’
     
    With this simple concept in mind, I find it surprisingly easy to put together the main elements of a new locomotive in a remarkably short period of time – and it can all be done while sitting in an armchair 🙂
     
    My Modelling Method, Step-by-Step.
     
    This post describes the steps I have taken in order to create a 3D model of ‘Eagle’ in ‘Fusion 360’, although the methods I shall describe have general application.
     
    In the case of ‘Eagle’, all that I had to work from, apart from some references to cylinder and wheel sizes, was the very good side-elevation drawing by E.T. Lane, the young apprentice who provided us with most of our knowledge of early GWR engines.
     

    Sharp, Roberts & Co. ‘Eagle’, drawing by E.T. Lane, 1849
     
    My first step was to import this illustration into ‘Fusion 360’ as a ‘canvas’. This canvas represents the ‘top level’ concept of my model, which I then break out into individual components.
     

    Fusion 360 – Top-Down Assembly
     
    I could now start to create ‘components’ by using the ‘Fusion 360’drawing tools to trace over elements of the drawing by Lane.
     
    I started with the frames, which are of an interesting design, as used in many of Sharp, Roberts & Co. ‘standard’ 2-2-2 engines. The sloping frames appear to have been used to avoid the need for excessively long supports for the small carrying wheels.
     
    My own first drawing of one of these frames in ‘Fusion 360’, produced by copying over the ‘canvas’, looked like this:
     

    Drawing the Frame over the ‘canvas’
     
    Working on the imported ‘canvas’, I selected the ‘draw’ mode in ‘Fusion 360’and drew a line from the marked start point to the first curved section. Then, I changed to the ‘3-point arc’ tool for the next segment, then back to the ‘line’ tool, and so on, until I had completed the circuit of the frame. With practice, this can be quite a rapid process, as each segment follows the end of the previous one.
     
    Once a ‘closed’ outline has been created, it is only necessary to click on the enclosed area and select the ‘push-pull’ tool (shortcut key ‘Q’), to extrude the frame into a solid 3D ‘component’.
     
    I moved this first component off to one side, then created a duplicate for the opposite side of the engine. Correct positioning of the two frames can follow later.
     
    Next, I created the boiler.  Information from the RCTS booklet on broad gauge engines told me that the diameter should be equivalent to 3’ 6” (i.e. 14 mm in 4 mm scale), so I used the drawing tools to create a 14 mm diameter circle. The cladding lies outside this diameter, so I used the ‘offset’ tool to create another circle 0.75 mm (or 2.5” on the prototype) outside the first. Then I clicked ‘Q’ to extrude the enclosed space between the circles to the length of the boiler – in this case 8 feet (32 mm in 4m mm scale). Then, I used the ‘move’ tool to align the boiler between the frames previously created.
     
    Next came the smokebox, which has a larger diameter than the boiler. I took account of the difference by using the ‘canvas’ and created another circle. I added a couple of tangential vertical lines each side of the circle, to create an enclosed space corresponding to the front profile of the smokebox and extruded this to the length of the smokebox. By working over the ‘canvas’, there is no need to make measurements – simply extrude until it corresponds with the ‘canvas’, as shown below:
     

    Extruded 3D Components
     
    All the coloured items are ‘solid’ (3D) bodies, with their dimensions determined by extruding over the ‘canvas’ – no measurements needed apart from the diameter of the boiler inside the cladding.
     
    The firebox was created in exactly the same way as the smokebox and so, after a remarkably short time, I had created all the major components by repeated copying from the ‘canvas’. As mentioned above, I found it easier to move each completed component to one side before starting the next one.
     
    After moving them all to one side, the 3D model in ‘Fusion 360’ looked like this:
     
     

    Major Components brought together in ‘Fusion 360’
     
    Creation of the boiler mountings needs a different tool – the ‘revolve’ tool - but the method is much the same. For the chimney, dome, and safety valve cover, I drew lines and arcs over half of the profile, as shown below:
     

    Creating the Chimney
     
    A touch of the ‘revolve’ tool and I had a ‘solid’ chimney, complete with flared top and bands between the sections of the prototype. The dome and safety valve followed by exactly the same process, so that my model in ‘Fusion 360’ now looked like this:
     
    .
    Assembled body in ‘Fusion 360’
     
    So far, the ‘bones’ of the engine had come together very rapidly but, as always. The ‘devil is in the detail’. Fortunately, ‘Fusion 360’ provide several tools that automate repetitive adding details.
     
    One example of this automation is provided by the spoked wheels. I started by drawing circles over the boss and rim of the driving wheel shown on the ‘canvas’. I then used the line tool to trace over the profile of one of the spokes, as shown below:.
     

    Drawing a Wheel – First Spoke – in ‘Fusion 360’
     
    Completing the wheel is then simply a matter of using the ‘pattern on path’ tool in ‘Fusion 360’, to make the required number of spokes, all following the circular path of the rim. This automated process ensures a pattern of identical spokes, evenly distributed around the wheel – all at the click of a mouse!
     
    One carrying wheel followed, by the same process, and I then copied the required number of wheels and moved them into their correct locations around the other completed components.
     
    I used the same automated process to create the planked wooden cladding around the boiler and firebox. I simply had to create a single plank and then use the ‘pattern on path’ tool to produce a complete array of planks all around the boiler and around the top and sides of the firebox. The model was now looking like this in ‘Fusion 360’:
     

    Wheeled Model in ‘Fusion 360’
     
    Apart from detailing, the model is now almost complete except for one glaring omission – splashers!
     
    These peculiar bicycle-like splashers, as used on many broad-gauge engines can be a nightmare for modellers because of their complex shapes and close tolerances around the wheels.
     
    Again, I think the difficulty is actually less when using 3D-modelling than when using brass or card but it still needs careful thought. I have, however, created splashers of this type before, on my models of a Gooch Standard Goods and of ‘Aeolus’, so I shall finish this post here and continue with the detailing next time.
     
    Mike
     
     
     
     
     
     
  16. MikeOxon

    Building 'Tantalus' - Part Three

    By MikeOxon,


    General
    At the end of the previous Part, I wrote that I intended to turn my attention to the chassis. Before that, I had broken off from work on the chassis, to give some thought to the problems posed by the curved splashers over the driving wheels.
     
    Now that I have proven the technique of ‘hybrid’ construction, combining traditional etched brass model-making with 3D-printing, I’ve decided to pursue similar methods for the chassis. For wheels, I recovered a spare set from a ‘Mainline’ Dean Goods that I converted into a 2-4-0 ‘Stella’ a few years ago. My conversion was described in the April 2013 issue of ‘Railway Modeller’, These wheels have larger flanges than are desirable, so I shall probably replace them at a later stage but they are useful for setting the clearances for the splashers.
     
    Rather than relying on measurements, I prefer to base my models on ‘templates’ that are derived from the actual components that I am using. In this case, I laid the chassis, with wheels attached, in my flat-bed scanner and made a scale image as the basis for my drawings
     

    Scanned image of mainframe and wheels
     
    I then ‘pasted’ this image as a background layer in my drawing program and drew the splasher outlines to fit around these wheels. I transferred my 2D drawing into ‘Fusion 360’, where I used the ‘push/pull’ tools to extrude the tops of the splashers so that they would ‘frame’ the wheels.
     
    The resulting 3D model only took a few minutes to print, so it was easy to run off a test-print and check the fit before proceeding any further. This proved worth while, since my first print was a little too shallow to leave clearance for the valance to fit in front of the wheels.
     
    While considering potential refinements to my initial print, I realised that some other features could be added to the footplate, including the tops of the springs, which appear from behind the splashers, and the sand-boxes, which are placed alongside the smoke-box. After adding these additional features, my 3D model appeared as shown below.
     

    3D model of splashers with springs and sand-box
     
    I extended the backplane of the print slightly below the top of the chassis, to provide a ‘tab’, so that the splasher assembly could easily be glued to the back of the mainframe.
     
    One very welcome feature of 3D printing is that, in order to produce the splashers for the opposite side of the engine, it is only necessary to click on the ‘mirror’ command and the appropriate part is created automatically.
     
    Once both sides had been printed, I glued them to the sandwich mainframes and inserted the boiler assembly between the frames, as shown below:
     

    Hybrid brass / 3D-printed model of ‘Tantalus’
     
    It was now time to turn back to brass construction and I cut out the etched valances provided in the BGS kit and glued them to the outer edges of the splashers to give the result shown below:
     

    ‘Tantalus’ after adding etched-brass valance
     
    There are still many details to be added but I think my model has reached the stage where it allows the rather ‘gawky’ appearance of these early Broad Gauge engines to be appreciated.  This might seem to be a short post but most of the work was in the planning - the actual printing and assembly only took a few minutes
     
  17. MikeOxon

    A Tender for 'Rob Roy' - 1

    By MikeOxon,


    General
    It’s been some time since I last tackled an etched brass kit, after spending most of my time recently in learning about 3D printing and, before that, Silhouette cutting. I had to refresh my memory on ‘the rules of the game’!
     
    I bought the Broad Gauge Society kit (FL07) for a 6-wheel tender some time ago and have only just got around to its assembly. I was pleased to see that the instructions start with the reminder that “… some parts are a little over scale due to limitations of the design and etching process. You will need to trim some parts to fit.” I’ve fallen foul of this in past and had to open up some holes after folding parts, which was awkward to do. Of course, the ‘experts’ know all about these things but it’s still good to be reminded.
     

    Fig 1 Broad Gauge Tender Side
     
    Unfortunately, though, the instructions seem to contain more information about what not to do than actually providing instructions on the order of the build. I feel that one of the main reasons for buying a kit is to know that someone else has done the hard work of determining exactly how to assemble the parts in a rational order and will lead you through, step by step.
     
    This kit also appears to have been photo-reduced from a 7mm scale kit, as the embossed rivet detail is too small to press through the relatively thick brass sheet. I decided to ‘cheat’ and use the floor upside-down so that the fine embossed detail shows on the upper side. It’ll be hidden under the coal anyway and is virtually invisible in 4mm scale.
     
    So, to begin at the beginning… “Fold the tank sub-assembly (47) and offer to the floor. Check that all is square. Do not solder the sides to the floor at this stage” I assumed that it was OK to solder the other tabs to the floor because this was the only way to hold the box shape but, later, I began to wonder if this is what was actually meant.
     

    Fig 2 Water Tank Construction
     
    Then, we hit one of those deceptively simple-seeming instructions: “roll up the tank filler (20)”. Well, I’ve rolled several boilers and found it easier than predicted but, in this case, the tank filler is a tiny rectangle of brass, about 15mm x 4mm and not easy to handle, even under my illuminated magnifier. After some thought, I wrapped it around a 5mm drill shank and then teased it, with difficulty into the hole in the tank top. How to fix it? Well, there are no tabs or lugs and my tank was now a closed box with no internal access.
     

    Fig 3 Tank Filler
     
    Now the instructions start to lose their way. It inspires no confidence to read “The filler lid probably should have been one piece, the hinge being under the lip rather than as depicted. Solder the overlay to the top of the tank with the filler as a location aid.”
     
    The overlay is a large, nicely detailed sheet with no lugs or other alignment aids. The hole does have to align with the filler but how should it be soldered? There are no suggestions and, at this point, the notes seem to cease being instructions at all. The next paragraph starts “The tender, like most, has a flare.” It continues “There are thus three difficulties ...” Not very encouraging! There are then suggestions to “Back the corner on the inside with some paper-thin shim and fill it with solder.” There’s no mention of any part numbers or what is meant by ‘paper-thin shim’ and then at the end of the paragraph, we read “Some careful fitting will be required as these parts are over size.”
     
    Time to stop and think!
     
    Perhaps, the overlays could have been soldered, if the main tank component had not been folded in the first place but, instead, put on a hotplate, tinned overall, and the overlays slid into place (how?), then allowed to cool. The tank filler could then have been soldered from the back and so on …
     
    My own solution, however, was to abandon soldering at this point and to use glue to attach the overlays onto the already-formed tank assembly. This allowed the edges to be aligned carefully, using fingers
     

    Fig 4 Top overlay glued in place
     
    The folded overlay to form the coal space has no indications of where to make the folds, so trial and error was needed, to achieve a close fit into the curved recess. Fortunately, the brass is thin and flexible, so fingers were sufficient to make the shaping. I assembled an ad hoc collection of clamps to hold this overlay in place while the glue hardened.
     
    Back to the instructions “Next fit the rear plate (51), ensuring it is centred before soldering but do not solder the wrap-around ends to the sides as the side plates need to be tucked under the ends. Next form the front pieces so that the handrail holes are just on the flat sides. Finally add the side pieces, two parts to each (61), (62), (64), (65). These will need trimming so that they are equal in length when fitted.”
     
    I chose to glue the rear plate in position, using the notches in the curved top to set the centre of the curves to the sides. In order to make the flare along the top, I again used drill shanks as mandrels, using different diameters to hand-work the top edge to the required shape.
     

    Fig 5 Making the Top Flare
     
    I again used clamps to hold the overlay in place until the glue hardened. The ‘front pieces’, which are described as “(52,53) Tank, front plating” on the parts list, looked as though they would be very tricky, since they curve round the forward spurs from the tank and have very little area on which to be fixed to the outside. There is also the warning that “these parts are oversize”. Since there are two further pieces to complete the overlays along the sides, I could see that matching up all these separate sections was not going to be easy.
     
    I decided to turn back to soldering for these parts and, having measured the correct overall length, I laid the parts out along the sticky strip of a ‘Post-It’ note, to hold them in position while I applied a very thin skim of solder along each joint from the back side. This gave me a single component that I could glue into position and subsequently fold to fit around the front end. Rather to my surprise, the first attempt worked quite well.
     

    Fig 6 Soldering the Side Overlays from the back
     
    This method of construction produced a robust overlay that withstood the folding that is necessary around the front end of the tank.
     
    After completing the first side, the second went together much more easily and quickly and, hence, the main upper body of the tender is now completed.
     

     
    I now feel in need of a break and a glass of wine. The next post will be about the chassis, so we shall soon find out how well that fits together – there seem to be rather a lot of very small parts
     
    Mike
     
     
     
     
     
     
  18. MikeOxon

    Old Model Updated

    By MikeOxon,


    general
    Introduction
     
    The last few months have been busy ones for my household, with little time to think about model-making. The spells of hot weather have not been conducive to spending time in my workroom either and, on top of all those things, I have had another failure of the feeder mechanism in my 'Geeetech' printer.
     

    Broken Filament Feeder
     
    I think the root cause of the problem was a faulty temperature sensor in the print head, which caused the feed tube to jam and over-stressed the feeder mechanism. It has happened before and I obtained a replacement from China but that is a process which takes a few weeks.
     
    In the meantime, I have made a temporary repair with the help of superglue and some reinforcing strips across the crack. I suspect, however, that my printer is beginning to feel its age, so I have started to thing about a replacement. I shall stay with an FDP machine, since I appreciate its simplicity and the absence of toxic and somewhat messy materials. I realise that resin machines provide a superior finish but, for my purposes, the extruded filament method is adequate in realising my modelling ambitions.
     
    Re-Visiting 6-Wheel Carriages
     
    I read quite recently that Didcot Railway Centre has taken delivery of  GWR Coach No. 820 on 7th May 2022.. This coach had previously been held at the NRM's depot in Shildon. More information and photos at: https://didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/article.php/509/news
     
    It’s of particular interest to me, since one of my first scratch-built models was a coach of this type, built to Diagram U29. My model goes back to the end of the first year of this blog (Dec.2013) when I acquired a Silhouette Cutter and started looking around for something to model.
     
    In January 2014, I wrote “The first step was to select a suitable prototype….. I made a shortlist of potential subjects - all 6-wheel composite coaches - and chose diagram U29 as a particularly attractive subject.” I set about creating drawings of the coach side for my Silhouette Cutter and soon came to the conclusion that “Diagram U29 is somewhat 'the design from hell', since every panel seems to be unique! It certainly gave me plenty of practice in using the drawing tools.”
     
    Eventually, I put together a passable model with laminated, printed sides on a folded brass underframe. The clerestory roof posed several construction problems and I was never wholly satisfied with my attempts at folding brass sheet into an appropriate profile. For some reason, I do not seem to have shown a photo of the finished model at the time but pressed on with other coaches to form a complete 19th century train. I have found, however, a photo of my model in service at North Leigh:
     

    my model of Diagram U29 with ink-jet printed sides
     
    A few years later, in August 2019, while I was exploring the possibilities of 3D-printing, I revisited some of my earlier models and created new 3D-printed bodies for them. My main aim was to create a better clerestory roof, since my folded brass construction could never be persuaded to fit very well.  At that time, I had gained little experience with the 3D modelling software and made rather heavy weather of the design. I also used some rather laborious techniques in printing the components of the model. In fact, my attention was being distracted by the call of Broad Gauge modelling and I never completed my re-design of the 6-wheel standard gauge carriages, although I did create a model of the Family Saloon, diagram G13, with sides printed on ink-jet printable vinyl, applied to the 3D printed body.
     
    Another Re-Build
     
    I decided to return again to Diagram U29 after reading about he arrival of one of the prototypes at Didcot, using some of the additional ‘lessons learned’ in my exploration of 3D printing, mainly with Broad Gauge models.
     
    The first improvement was to add the oil lamp tops to the roof of my model, since I now know how to do this by creating cylindrical bodies with the ‘Revolve’ tool in 'Fusion 360'. I then added the ventilation holes around the sides of the lamp housing by using a combination of the ‘Hole’ tool and the ‘Pattern on Path’ tool, to create an array of openings around the sides of the housings. I then ‘sank’ the housings into the roof and used the ‘Combine’ tool to create a single body comprising both the roof and array of lamps.
     
    The second modification was to remove the raised mouldings from the sides of the carriage by using the ‘Split’ tool. I kept the raised mouldings as separate bodies and left the carriage sides flat, so that I could apply 3D-printed vinyl ‘decoration’ to represent the livery and lining. The revised model in 'Fusion 360' is shown below:

     

    Re-design of U29 Tri-composite carriage

    When it came to printing, I decided not to use the option within the ‘Cura’ slicing software to create support structures inside the clerestory. After my first print in 2019, I found that the infill was tedious to remove. Now that I have a much better feel for the overhangs that my printer can accommodate, I simply incorporated compartment partitions within the clerestory and then added some extra partitions between the windows, where there was a long gap. The arrangement I used is shown below. The compartment partitions can remain but the others can easily be removed.
     

    Underside of Clerestory Roof as printed.
     
    Having become used to very short print times with my early Broad Gauge models, it seemed unusual to experience a printing time of over 2 hours for this roof. This model had to placed diagonally on the printer bed, to fit within the 130mm x 130mm size limit. I was relieved to find that my temporary repair to the feed mechanism held together throughout this time!
     
    The Oil Lamp Tops also printed well, although the ultra-close view unsurprisingly shows the ‘banding’. This is not noticeable in practice and the plinths hold the lamps vertically, above the sloping roof.

     

    3D Printed Lamp Top integral with Roof

     
    Ink-Jet Printed Sides
     
    I used my 'Silhouette Portrait' Cutter to prepare the printed vinyl sides, using the methods I described back in 2014. The only difference is that I now print onto self-adhesive vinyl rather than photo paper.
     
    I hadn’t used my cutter for a considerable time but it started up immediately. The original cutting mat was badly worn and I found that I could buy a pack of three replacement mats for less than the price of a single 'Silhouette'-branded mat. Described as ‘standard hold’, he new mat had quite a strong hold but the cut parts peeled off cleanly.
     
    The detail achieved by my 'HP6980' ink-jet printer is remarkably clear with clear text at the small (4mm) scale of my models, as shown below:
     

    Ink-jet Printed Carriage Side - detail
     
    The new 3D printed body with its clerestory roof is shown below. This body will fit onto the same 6-wheel ‘Cleminson’ chassis that I used for my original ‘fabricated’ model. I painted the roof with a fairly thick mix of zinc white acrylic, which has filled the bands between the print layers successfully. In earlier models I have used a white vinyl covering but this was not necessary here.
     

    My 3D-printed Carriage with ink-jet printed Vinyl Sides
     
    The overall structure is far more robust than my original fabricated model and the roof, in particular, is a far better fit to the rest of the model. The interior detail includes partitions and seats, which all contribute to the overall rigidity of the structure. I feel that this model could be handled by my young grand-children with a good chance of surviving intact. That would not be true of its predecessor!

     
    Mike
  19. MikeOxon

    On the Victorian Cat-Walk

    By MikeOxon,


    general
    Having built a Victorian train, I now have to think about providing some passengers. Since I know far less about 19th-century styles of dress than I did about 19th-century railways, when I started, I decided it was time for some reading.
     
    As I pointed out in a previous post, I have found the Internet Archive ( http://archive.org/ ) to be a very useful resource. Old 'out of copyright' books can either be read on-line or downloaded in formats such as PDF. In my current search, I found 'Godey's Lady's Book' for 1880 and 'Dame Fashion- Paris-London (1786-1912)' by Julius M.Price. Both books have copious illustrations so, with the help of these, I am well on the way to becoming an 'instant expert'.
     
     
     
     
     

    Dame Fashion 1889
     
    It has become clear that the late-Victorian period saw great changes in social behaviour. Whereas, to our eyes, it seems to have been as stuffily formal as before, they saw things rather differently. The view from the 1890s was that "The type of the woman of fashion has altered beyond recognition during the past twenty-four years. She has emancipated herself from all the silly narrow mindedness which was the life burden of her grandmother when a girl. Class prejudice still exists, but it is becoming yearly less noticeable."
     
    Two factors are worth mentioning:
     
    1.Before 1887 London fashionable life was the life one led at home but the opening of the Savoy Hotel in 1887 may be said to have commenced a new era when ladies could now go out and mix in wider company.
     
    2. The rage for bicycling, which was the feature of the London season of 1896 and included all the ladies of smart society in England, was epoch-making in the history of feminine fashion.
     
    There was no place for the crinoline of the 1860s in this new world and even the bustle had to give way to practicality.
     

    Dame Fashion 1892-1893
     
    I have some Langley "Vic/Edw. Upper Class figures". As my photo shows, these will need a fair bit of cleaning up but I shall now have to start practising with a small paint-brush. The porter with the trolley seems to have suffered some head injury but not enough to keep him off work 🙂
     

    Langley Vic/Edw 00-scale Figures
     
    Mike
  20. MikeOxon

    Figure Painting - First Steps

    By MikeOxon,


    general
    Last Saturday I visited my local model railway exhibition - AbRail 2015. I was looking for ideas on scenery and there was a good number of interesting layouts. Several featured canals and water and, of these, I particularly enjoyed the 'Aldford Brewery' (Wimbledon MRC) and the canal-side inn at 'Mulldale' (Letchworth MRC).
     
     
     
     
    I also thought that there were some impressive trees alongside 'The Abingdon Branch'. Initially I thought 'Highclere' (Julia Adams) looked rather sparse but then I came to realise how superbly 'realistic' this model is. The highly-compressed layouts, of which mine is an example, might pack in some interesting 'vignettes' but, overall, they are far from realistic.
     
    I took the opportunity for a chat with Julia and she deftly re-assembled her 'City of Truro' from its components, as I watched. The seemingly effortless way in which it all fitted together made me think how coarse my own efforts are, and the quality of the engineering that makes such precision possible at 2mm scale! I mentioned my own trepidation at starting painting the figures for my own layout and she pointed out that the important thing is to make a start and then 'practise, practise, practise'.
     
    So, with that encouragement, I have taken the plunge and applied a paintbrush to the first of my 'Edwardian/Victorian' figures. I chose to practise on some 'Langley' figures, in the hope that I can develop enough skill to do reasonable justice to the Andrew Stadden figures that I bought last year.
     
    I initially sprayed the figures with grey primer and then decided to use artists' acrylic paints for the actual colouring. I have a good set of sable brushes and, for this task, chose to use a Size 00 brush from the Winsor & Newton 3A series. These brushes have good 'body' to hold a reasonable amount of paint whilst maintaining an extremely fine tip.
     
    I decided to hold the model for painting in a 'Model Craft' universal work holder. This tool has a nice wooden handle, which gives a firm grip, while allowing the model to be turned around easily during painting. I secured the base of each figure with a small lump of 'Blu Tack', pressed into the mounting ring.
     
    I read somewhere that it is a good idea to start by painting the faces, so the first step was to mix a suitable flesh colour from mainly White, plus a little Azo Yellow and a very small 'touch' of Alizarin Crimson. I thinned the mix a little with water and a drop of iso-propyl alcohol, to improve the flow.
     
     

    My Painting Set-up
     
    The other essential tool (for my eyesight, at least) is an illuminated magnifier. The fine tip achieved by the sable brush really makes it quite easy to put the paint in the right places!
     
     

    (photo by R. Flemming)
     
    I used the flesh colour to paint the faces and hands of all the figures in my Langley set and then concentrated on completing the figure that I chose to represent Blanche Wilcote. I looked at illustrations in 'Dame Fashion- Paris-London (1786-1912)' by Julius M.Price, referred to in a previous post in my blog, and mixed what I felt were appropriate colours for the period. After applying the main colours, I then picked out some details in the dress and hat, to produce the result shown below:
     
     

    Blanche Wilcote (1st attempt)
     
    I'm really quite pleased with this first attempt, though I need to work on providing more realistic details in the face. Having 'broken the ice', I can now settle down into working up my technique on the other 'Langley' figures and then I may feel ready for the Stadden set. At least, I can keep Blanche's petulant pleas for new dresses at bay for a little while
     
    Mike
  21. MikeOxon

    Open-top Cattle Wagon

    By MikeOxon,


    General
    Whoo-hoo  – I seem to be getting the hang of 3D modelling, at least for simple shapes like carriages and wagons.  Whereas I had some infuriating moments when designing my first cattle wagon model, its open-top cousin has proceeded with scarcely a hitch.
     
    I decided to follow exactly the same procedure that I used for my first wagon : floor and ends as one ‘body’ and individual sides as two separate ‘bodies’. After printing these separately, I used a soldering iron, set to 200°C, to ‘weld’ the parts together. In the current case, I had no roof to consider and the chassis has the same wheelbase as the closed wagon, so I could re-use the same design.
     
    I found that reducing the printer nozzle temperate to 190°C from my previous 200°C resulted in a considerable improvement in print quality, with crisper details and no stringing of filament between window apertures, for example. It also prevented excessive adhesion to the work-bed, which is unheated on my printer.
     
    I’m sure that there are many other ‘tweaks’ that I could make, to improve print quality further., but for the moment I am happy with the results I am getting. I find it quite remarkable how much easier the whole process seems, now that I’m past the teething problems that I recorded in earlier posts.
     
    Open-Top Cattle Wagon
     
    After building a model of a ‘closed’ wagon, described in previous posts, I now turn my attention to the ‘open’ type. One of these appears near the foreground of one of the photos taken at the Swindon dump, around 1892. (my colouring added) :
     

     
    Open Cattle Wagon at Swindon dump
     
    This photo shows the end-profile very clearly, while the sides can be seen to be similar in appearance to the ‘open’ type. The ‘hoops’, which are presumably intended to carry a tarpaulin in wet weather, rose somewhat higher than the end walls, well above the bracing timber that runs along the length of the wagon. The lime-washed interior also shows clearly. The tops of the door-posts appear to be rounded, which I have reproduced in my model.
     
    In another photo of the Swindon dump, there is a very distant view of two similar wagons between a closed cattle wagon and a tilt wagon. Although blurred, this is useful in showing the relative heights of the side apertures on these different types. There is no sign of a lengthwise bracing rail on these distant photos. They also appear to be somewhat narrower than the adjacent tilt wagon (which is not lime-washed). Since an early drawing of a GWR Tilt Wagon (National Railway Museum no.4832) indicates an overall width of around 9’ 6” for this type, the photo evidence is compatible with a width of 8’ 6” for the cattle wagons, as I have used already for my closed wagon.
     

     
    Line of Cattle Wagons at Swindon dump
     
    I based my design on a sketch in the Broad Gauge Society magazine ‘Broadsheet’ v. 52, which states that it is ‘not to scale’. I checked this sketch against the Swindon dump photos and made some minor adjustments. The sketch shows only 10 bars across each window opening, compared to 11 on the closed wagons, while the overall proportions of the sketch suggest a length of about 15’ 9”, against 16’ 6” for the closed form. This is largely conjectural on my part but helps to provide some variety in my proposed train.
     
    As before, I prepared my own drawings to these dimensions, using ‘Autosketch’ software, as shown below:
     

     
    My ‘Autosketch’ drawings of Open Wagon
     
    I imported the end profile, as a DXF file, into ‘Fusion 360’ and extruded this to the required length of 63 mm, to form a solid wagon body. As before, I drew a rectangle at the top of the body and extruded this downwards to within 1mm of the bottom, which left me with a floor and two ends. I added end detail by using the ‘push-pull’ tool on relevant parts of the DXF drawing. This formed a complete body, which I exported to my ‘Cura’ software as an STL file.
     
    Similarly, I imported the wagon side as a separate DXF file and added details to represent the framing, planking, bolt-heads, etc., by using the ‘push-pull tools’, as described previously for my closed wagon.
     
    After exporting all these ‘bodies’ to ‘Cura’, I used this slicing software to prepared the ‘gcode’ files for my E180 printer. One advantage of printing the sides separately is that, by laying them flat on the bed, they print relatively rapidly – only around 18 minutes for each side (at an estimated filament cost of 3p)
     
    It proved very simple to shorten my existing chassis from 66 mm to 63 mm length, without affecting other features, such as the wheelbase.. The new version of the chassis was re-printed, exactly as described in previous posts.
     
    The printed components looked as shown in the following photo. These are exactly as they came from the printer, with no ‘clean-up’ of any excess material being needed – an advantage of the reduced temperature.
     

     
    Open Cattle Wagon - Components
     
    After printing the parts, it was a simple matter to assemble the complete wagon, using my soldering iron to make the joints, as described in a previous post.
     
    As ‘extras’, I 3D-printed the two hoops, mainly as an experiment but they turned out to be remarkable tough and they hold their shape well. Again, I used the low-temperature soldering iron to fix them in place.  I also included a notch (0.5mm wide) at the top of each end in the 3D drawing.  I cut a length of 20 thou plasticard, which slotted neatly into the notches and formed the longitudinal bracing spar. The final appearance (re-coloured to brown in Photoshop) without any ‘fettling’ after printing is shown below:
     

     
    Side view of my Open Model
     

     
     
    End view of my model, intended to mimic the Swindon dump photo
     
    As I gain confidence with the software, I feel it is possible to add finer details.  There’s a lot still needs to be added to these models but, perhaps, my next attempt will include more fittings.
     
    Mike
  22. MikeOxon

    3D-Printed Cattle Wagon - 3

    By MikeOxon,


    General
    Building the Chassis
     
    This is an addendum to my previous post about building a Broad Gauge cattle wagon body. Although I built a chassis at that stage, I found the construction was too light and would not support wheel-sets adequately. I should have remembered that I had the same problem with the first design I did for a carriage chassis, so this post is an aide memoire to help me avoid the same mistakes again.
     
    My chassis is basically a rectangle to fit under the body, with axle-boxes and springs added in the appropriate places. Building the rectangular plate in ‘Fusion 360’ is straightforward but adding the axle-box details proved more tricky.
     
    My staring point was to make a 2D-drawing of one side of the chassis, showing the locations and sizes of the various components that make up the under-gear. For this, I used ‘Autosketch’ to produce the drawing shown below:
     

     
     
    Next, I produced the base rectangular plate in ‘Fusion 360’. I started by drawing a rectangle 66mm x 34mm and extruded this, using the push-pull tool, to make a plate 3mm thick. I drew additional rectangles on the surface of the plate and recessed these by 2mm (push-pull again) to form a basic chassis with sole bars around the edges and some internal support at the centre.
     
    Next, I imported the 'Autosketch' drawing (saved in DXF format) and extruded the various elements of the drawing to form the running-gear components along the side of the chassis. This was quite complex, since I first extruded inwards to make a firm attachment to the sole-bars and then outwards to form the outer faces of the axle-boxes and springs. These Steps are illustrated below:
     

     
                   Step 1: the 3D chassis;                                                                    Step 2: adding the side drawing
                   Step 3: extruding over solebar;                                                     Step 4: extruding outside faces
     
    Once I had completed the axle-boxes along one side, I realised that the various parts all appeared as separate ‘bodies’, so I used the ‘Combine’ command on the ‘Modify’ menu to make the whole assembly into a single ‘body’.  This is important because only a single ‘body’ can be exported to ‘Cura’ for 3D printing.
     
    The next stage proved tricky since I fell foul of one of Fusion 360’s quirks.
     
    My aim was to split the chassis lengthwise and then make a mirror image of the side with the axle-boxes and use it to complete the opposite side.  My first step was to create an offset plane along the mid-line of the chassis, using the 'offset plane' command in the ‘Construct’ menu. I could then use the ‘split body’ command in the ‘Modify’ menu to create two ‘bodies’, one for each side of the chassis.  When I tried to delete the unwanted side, however, I received error messages :
     

     
    If one is foolish enough to continue, then large parts of the model disappear! Clearly, this is not the right approach.
     
    Eventually, I succeeded after several attempts, during which I learned to understand the difference between ‘Delete’ and ‘Remove’, when applied to ‘bodies’. Everything worked fine, providing I used ‘Remove’ from the drop-down menu that appears when right-clicking on the relevant ‘body’. Another step on the learning curve   I have summarised the steps needed to complete the model in the following diagram:
     

     
     
    In step 5, I set up an offset plane half-way across the chassis, then selected ‘split body’, to cut the chassis into two halves. In Step 6, I selected ‘Remove’ from the drop-down menu associated with this body.
     
    In Step 7, I used the ‘Move/Copy’ command to copy, rotate and move a copy of the original body (complete with axle-boxes) to lie alongside the original. It is important to check the rather insignificant box near the bottom of the menu to ensure that the original is copied and not simply moved!
     
    After aligning the two parts, I used the ‘Combine’ command to join all the parts into a single ‘body’, which, in Step 8, I could export to my 'Cura' 3-D printing software.
     
    One additional action was to mark and extrude rectangles behind each axle-box, to allow the wheels to protrude through the chassis floor. After all this, I could send the model to my 3D-printer to produce a chassis for my planned fleet of 9’ 9” wheelbase cattle wagons. Phew!!!
     

     
     
    Learning curves are strange things.  I now do with aplomb, things which seemed almost impossible a few months ago but I can still come to a grinding halt when faced with how to remove an unwanted body.
     
    Similarly, the adhesion problems I had initially, when printing, seem to have disappeared. In fact, the adhesion has recently seemed too strong and I also noted that the filament was tending to form blobs at times. Reducing the print temperature from 200°C to 190°C appears to have solved both these difficulties.
     
    My second print head has, however, just failed. Since this is a special clip-in component, no longer readily available in UK, this may bring my time with the Geeetech E180 to a sudden halt, as I now have only one spare remaining. They do not seem to last very long!
     
    I can now show my first cattle wagon body standing on its wheels – Broad Gauge, of course
     

     
    Still a lot of work on fittings and painting.
     
    Mike
     
    EDIT:  I made some minor adjustments to the 'push-pull' features on the axle-boxes / springs, which have made a significant improvement to their appearance - photos updated.
     
     
  23. MikeOxon

    3D-Printed Cattle Wagon - 2

    By MikeOxon,


    General
    Following my previous post, where I showed how I made a cattle truck side, I have followed a rather convoluted route to arrive at a model of the complete body.
     
    I could have printed a flat floor and some ends and then pieced all the parts together but I got caught up in the idea of trying to print the whole body in one go. I soon abandoned this idea, when I realised it was going to involve a lot of support structures for the various horizontal openings, but I did get as far as forming a body shell by the same method I have used previously for carriages.
     
    Then, I had the idea of making the floor and ends as one ‘component’ and the roof as another, onto which I could fasten my already-printed sides. The selection of the various parts proceeded as shown in the following screen shots from my ‘Fusion 360’ software:
     

     
    Step 1 shows how I extruded the body from a drawing of one end of the cattle wagon – the overall length is 66mm, corresponding to 16’ 6” in the prototype. In Step 2, I set a reference plane, offset by 25mm above the origin, and used the ‘split body’ tool to separate the roof. In Step 3, I drew a rectangle on the top of the main body and used ‘press-pull’ to open out the interior leaving just the floor and ends. Step 4 shows one of the body sides, which I described in the previous post.
     
    I exported each of these separate body parts (floor + ends, sides, and roof) to my ‘Cura’ slicing software and used this to create the gcode print files, used by my E180 printer.
     
    One advantage of making the components individually is that they print relatively quickly, since there is very little ‘depth’ in each component. Typical printing times were around 45 minutes for each component, so it was not too long to wait before I had all the parts for the body of my cattle wagon.
     
    The next consideration was what glue should I use to assemble the model? The answer, as I discovered in a previous post was ‘none’. I set my temperature-controlled soldering iron to 200°C and used the tip to ‘weld’ the sides to the ends of the body. This is a very easy process because the plastic of the body has low thermal conductivity, so there is no danger of melting more than I intended. Also, it’s easy to hold the pieces in register while applying the soldering-iron tip, with no danger of burnt fingers. The bond is formed almost instantly and seemed very robust after a few moments of cooling.
     

     
    First of all, I carefully aligned one of the side panels to one of the end walls, then used heat from the iron to weld the outer corner. Once this was secure, I ran the iron along the seam, to make a firm ‘welded’ joint. I fixed the other end of the side in the same manner and then continued by fixing the second side panel.
     
    Of course, I could not fix the roof in the same way, as I have no access to the interior of the wagon once the roof is in place.  I intend to use a hard-plastic adhesive but, as yet, the roof remains unfixed until I complete the painting.
     
    After completing the body, I turned my attention to the chassis. I used a similar method of construction to that used earlier for Broad Gauge carriages. I printed the floor ‘upside down, with the axle boxes and springs built up by printing upwards from the floor. The design as developed in ‘Fusion 360’ and then 3D-printed from ‘Cura’, is shown below:
     

     
    The next question was what livery to use. According to the Broad Gauge Society journal ‘Broadsheet no.6’ (1982), the earliest livery, as applied to an iron goods brake van in1852 was: "The whole of the van including the wheels, axles, axleboxes, side springs and every part … brown colour and figures as might be directed,". Similar specifications apply to other early wagons, so I assume from these specifications that ‘waggons’ and break vans were all-over brown in the 1850s.
     
    The following photo shows the model in its current state, although I have altered the colour in Photoshop as I have not done any painting yet. During the 19th century, it was standard practice to lime-wash the interiors of cattle wagons, which led to extensive white stains on the outside as well, so I shall include these when painting the model.
     

     
    My initial simple chassis design is insufficiently robust, so more work is needed.  I only realised at a late stage that the cattle wagon is narrower (at 8' 6" wide) than the carriages I have built before and this left insufficient room for strong axleboxes. I need to investigate alternatives, which may need white metal boxes to achieve adequate strength.  Once I have a suitable chassis design, I shall continue to the 'open-top' style of cattle wagon, to add some variety to my planned cattle train.
     
    Mike
     
  24. MikeOxon

    3D-Printed Cattle Wagon - 1

    By MikeOxon,


    General
    As I wrote in the previous post, I found plenty of inspiration from my research into Broad Gauge cattle wagons. It gave me the impetus to move straight on with the design of a 3D-printed model.
     
    Whereas I created my 3D printed carriages by extruding the carriage from one end, I felt that the sides of these wagons might be better printed while lying flat on the printer bed. This would mean assembling the wagon from separate parts for the sides and ends, mounted on a rectangular base, rather like assembling a plastic kit. The reasons for taking this approach are that there are several different layers, representing frames, planks and strapping, plus several large apertures, both horizontal and vertical, which would need a lot of additional support if printed vertically.
     
    The first step in building a model is to prepare a suitable drawing. In this case, there wasn’t a lot of written information or specifications but a line of wagons appears in the background of a locomotive photo. This photo shows a little more than half of one side of a cattle wagon, although many details are obscured by the foreground. There is more detail of the central section of another wagon, which shows details of hinges, door fastenings, and strapping. I have annotated two sections of the photos below to show various features:
     
     

    These sections were the sources for the ‘composite’ image that I created by photo-editing these fragments.
     
    I decided to accept the key dimensions of 16’ 6” length and 7’ height for the body, plus a 9’ 9” wheelbase, as described in the Broad Gauge Society magazine ‘Broadsheet’ No.52. Taking these proportions, I set about ‘matching’ the sketches of the closed wagon, shown in the same article, to the partial views in the photograph. For this, I imported the composite image into ‘Autosketch’ and traced over the main outlines to obtain a proportionate sketch.
     
     

    ‘Autosketch’ screen, showing lines traced over the photograph.
     
    I then scaled the ‘not to scale’ drawings in the ‘Broadsheet’ article, to see how well the locations of the various features were in agreement between the two drawings. Apart from the wider door posts in the photograph, the two drawings match up well, in terms of the main features, so I felt confident to go ahead with preparing a 3D-print from my own drawing.
     
     

    My sketch overlaid on the ‘Broadsheet’ sketch (re-scaled)
     
    For some reason, I have been having difficulty with transferring my recent DXF-format drawings into ‘Fusion 360’, whereas older drawings (of standard-gauge carriages) went well**. Fortunately, the current drawings were relatively simple and I was able to work through the various ‘open ends’, where lines should have met, and match the ‘nodes’ by hand.
     
    I then worked through the various panels, using the ‘push-pull’ tool to recess them behind the main frame components by suitable amounts. As always, I found it tricky to make the various precise ‘incantations’ required for ‘Fusion 360’ carry out my requirements in exactly the right order and format but, after several false attempts, I arranged everything to my satisfaction. I think part of the problem arises because the software works ‘on-line’, so there are often short delays between initiating an action and it being completed. It can be a little like trying to hold a trans-Atlantic phone conversation when there’s a delay on the line.
     
    I started on another learning curve when creating the sloping slats above the window opening. This involved using the ‘chamfer’ tool, for which an edge has to be selected and then two distances along the faces that meet at the edge are specified. Following my usual approach, I applied trial and error until I got the effect that I wanted.
     
    There are 8 slats in all and the first 7 went smoothly enough but no.8 simply refused to work properly! After a lot of head-scratching, I found it was another problem in the drawing, where two edges had failed to ‘fuse’ together correctly and, as a result, the chamfer kept being applied in the wrong place.
     
    Sadly, after all the attempts I had made to understand the problem, something went wrong with the locations of the bars across the window openings and some of them ended up protruding from the back surface of the model, which was supposed to lie flat on the printer bed. I have no idea how this happened but I had to undo several steps to unravel the mystery and then re-do my slats.
     
    I mention this to illustrate some of the mishaps that can so easily occur when creating 3D models. It is definitely not an activity for anyone lacking patience! When frustration sets in too badly, I find it best to stop and come back later, when the mind has cleared and it is easier to assess the causes of a problem. A good feature of ‘Fusion 360’ is that it maintains a ‘time line’ of actions across the bottom of the screen, which makes re-tracing one’s steps fairly easy.
     
     

    My 3D drawing displayed on ‘Fusion 360’ screen.
     
    At this stage, I decided to do a test print and was pleasantly surprised by the result. It’s a pity that some of those details that involve so much effort are almost invisible when produced in 4 mm scale but it’s nice to know they are there.  Encouraged by this success, I decided to add some more details, such as bolt heads on the door straps and lines between the planks (shown above). I was concerned not to over-do the plank edges and ended up with them being barely visible. Again, a reminder that details are easily ‘lost’ in the final print.
     
    The final result looks good, although I have ‘cheated’ a little with the photo to change the garish blue colour of the filament I use to a more ‘sympathetic’ brown. The detail, however, is exactly as it came straight out of the printer.
     

    My 3D-printed side (re-coloured)
     
    Next steps are to print the ends and then to decide how to assemble a complete model.
     
    Mike
     
    *  EDIT -  After another look at my images of the real wagon, I have realised that the support on each side of the doors appear to be angle irons, rather than the broad wooden door-posts I depicted in my model.  I shall make an appropriate modification to my 3D drawings for a re-print.
     
    ** EDIT - I've now realised that I had become lax in setting 'snaps' in Autosketch - hence the small gaps.
  25. MikeOxon

    Broad Gauge Cattle Train

    By MikeOxon,


    General
    Now that I have completed my research into, and constructed models of, the Mail Train that is described in the BoT Accident report of 1868, regarding the collision near Bullo Pill on the South Wales line, I am turning my attention to the Goods Train.
     
     

    my Mail Train models, based on accident report from Bullo Pill 1868
     
    According to the accident report, the goods train was headed by the locomotive ‘Tantalus’ and comprised 20 cattle wagons, plus a third-class carriage at the rear in which 8 drovers and the guard were travelling. At Newport, six more trucks, loaded with general goods, had been taken on, apparently against the judgement of the engine-driver. In the collision, three of the drovers and the guard were killed and the others in the end carriage were seriously injured. About 40 cattle were also killed.
     
    Gooch's Standard Goods class
     
    ‘Tantalus’ was a member of Gooch’s ‘Standard Goods’ class, of which 102 were built at Swindon in seven lots between 1852 and 1863. Their design was a development of three earlier lots of 0-6-0 goods engines, of which ‘Premier’ had been the first engine built at Swindon in 1846. The first lot of 12 engines had 10’ 0” x 4’ 0” boilers and a wheelbase of 7’ 7 ¼ “ + 6’ 10 1/4”.  For the second lot of 6 engines, these dimensions were increased to 10’ 6” x 4’ 3” for the boiler and 7’ 4” + 8’ 1” for the wheelbase.  After a gap of three years, a third lot of 8 engines were built with similar dimensions, known as the ‘Caesar’ class.
     
    The first of the ‘Standard Goods’ class was built only 3 months after the last of the ‘Caesar’ class and saw a further increase in dimensions to 11’ 0” x 4’ 6” for the boilers and 7’ 4” + 8’ 10 ½“ for the wheelbase.  By the standards of the time, these were very large engines, with larger boilers than the later Dean Goods engines.
     
    ‘Tantalus’ was built in November 1862, in the last lot of 12 engines. I have not managed to find any photographs of ‘Tantalus’ itself but there is a photo of ‘Xerxes’, built in January 1863, within the same lot.  It is shown at Westbourne Park in later years, with a cab and Armstrong ‘roll top’ chimney. There is a similar, photo of ‘Liffey’, built in August 1857 in an earlier lot, which shows the engine with a simple weather board and copper-topped chimney. I have used these photos as references for my construction of ‘Tantalus’


    Gooch Standard Goods ‘Xerxes’
     


    Gooch Standard Goods ‘Liffey’
     
    Modelling ‘Tantalus’
     
    I have already made progress in building a model of a Gooch Goods, using the kit supplied by the Broad Gauge Society (kit FL02).
     
    In a previous entry, I described constructing a pair of sandwich frames, using parts from this kit. Unfortunately for me, the GWR followed a policy of ‘continuous improvement’ during the construction of successive lots of these engines and, according to the RCTS Part 2 book on GWR Locomotives, later engines (of which ‘Tantalus’ was one) had welded plate frames. Since the frames are inside, well-hidden behind the exposed driving wheels, I do not intend to undo the work I’ve already done!
     
     

    my model Sandwich Frame (from BGS kit)
     
    I have also constructed the boiler from the BGS kit, as also described in a previous entry.  I have applied this boiler to my ‘Rob Roy’ model, since both the ‘Waverley’ class and the ‘Standard Goods’ used the same type of boiler. With my experience gained from constructing one of these boilers, I hope to avoid some of the difficulties that I encountered during my first build!
     
     

    my model Standard Goods Boiler (from BGS kit)
     
     
    Modelling Cattle Wagons
     
    information about Broad Gauge cattle wagons is rather scanty but there is a useful article in the Broad Gauge Society (BGS) magazine 'Broadsheet', number 52 (2004).  From this, I learned that the GWR had 130 cattle wagons, although there are very few photographs, mostly partly obscured in the background of photos of locomotives, etc. Much of the information in the article concerns wagons originally built for the South Devon Railway and it is stated of GWR wagons that “No dimensions are known, although building dates are around the late 1850’s to mid 1860’s so are possibly a similar design [to the SDR]. Probably some were roofless, with hoops for over-sheeting.”
     
    This doesn’t give much to go on, although the article also notes that “When converted to narrow gauge, GWR cattle trucks were 16ft 6ins long by 7ft 5ins wide and 7ft 1ins high, with 9ft 9ins wheelbase and 4 x 3ft 6in wheels. Narrow gauge numbers 26273 to 26292”.  It seems reasonable to assume that, except in width, these dimensions are representative of the original Broad Gauge vehicles. There are also some sketches to indicate the main features of these wagons:
     
     

    Sketches from BGS 'Broadsheet' no.52
     
    In addition to these wagons, several sources indicate that ‘tilt waggons’ were frequently used as cattle trucks. Alan Prior, in his book '19th Century Railway Drawings', labels a four-wheeled tilt wagon as a ‘general goods & cattle wagon’. His drawing again indicates a 9’ 9” wheelbase.
     
    In search of more information, I next turned to the well-known photos of Broad Gauge stock, assembled in the dump at Swindon in 1892.  Initially, I had assumed that all of the many white-stained wagons were from the china-clay industry but further inspection indicates that several were actually lime-washed for animal traffic.
     
    In one of the rows of wagons, there are several closed trucks, with signs of lime-wash running down the sides, together with open tilt wagons, with heavily lime-washed interiors and hoops for carrying top sheets. Some of these were quite close to the camera and provide plenty of information for modelling purposes.
     
     

    Lime-washed wagons at Swindon dump 1892
     
    In the far distance, there is a side-on view of a closed wagon which, although very blurred, confirms some of the details in the sketch shown above:
     
     

    Cattle wagon at Swindon dump 1892
     
    There is also an image that I have re-constructed from partial background views of what is probably an ex-SDR vehicle which, while not dimensionally accurate, illustrates some useful constructional details:
     
     

    Cattle Wagon, re-constructed from partial views
     
    So, after my initial feeling that there was very little information to be found, my research indicates a considerable variety of wagons that could have made up the goods train involved in the accident.  It is worth remembering that these wagons were built by several different contractors and, in the modern jargon, were ‘individually hand-crafted’.
     
    I now have plenty of inspiration for devising modelling techniques to construct a variety of wagons, by making use of the various tools that I have in my armoury, including 3D printing.  Of course, I have no space to accommodate 26 assorted wagons but I can make models representative of the whole train.
     
    Finally there is the thorny question of colour. The red/grey debate has become familiar but, according to the BGS 'Broadsheet' no.6 (1982), the original GWR wagon livery was all over brown, including the wheels, axles, axleboxes, side springs and every part. It also states that the date when the red livery was introduced is still to be discovered, but the evidence suggests brown from the 1840s until the middle 1860s. For my period, therefore, it appears that brown is the most appropriate colour, which is a pity, in terms of modelling variety, as the Mail-train carriages are also brown!
     
    I shall report on progress as it occurs
     
    Mike
×
×
  • Create New...