Guy Rixon

I now have an acrylic match for my preferred purple lake. It's shown on the square test-panel in the top right of the photo. This picture also shows that in non-optimal lighting a lot of distinct mixes become indistinguishable; but in good light, I think I've got as close as possible. The recipe, using Vallejo acrylics is as follows. 5 parts Hull Red 3 parts Flame Red 2 parts Dark Blue 2 parts thinners 2 parts flow improver I don't know if the thinners and flow improver are changing the perceived shade, but they drastically improve the finish. The vanish does affect the perceived colour, in that matt finishes of this paint look systematically browner. I'm now in position to paint an entire train, once I get the old paint stripped off.

Alan Gibson Workshop sell an underframe kit for this length and wheelbase. It's etched, with lost-wax castings. "They are designed for wagons having a steel channel solebar but can be adapted for wooden solebar variants", which seems to mean that you would have to build the wooden solebars from scratch. A PO mineral wagon would be 16'6" over headstocks, so not really suitable.

Loctite 603 retainer would do it. Other retainers in the 6xx series may be stronger, fill greater gaps, or have better oil tolerance, but I doubt that these special features are needed for an outside crank. All the retainer resins depend on having enough resin in the joint to expand into a firm seal. They're not likely to work in an interference fit. A sliding fit and relying on the resin to centre the shaft in the hole is better. If using retainer, you might consider filing a slight flat on the axle such that the retainer fillet stops the crank from rotating. The setting retainer might pull the crank slightly off-centre, but there's a good chance that all the cranks will be pulled off by the same amount so the rods won't mind. Disclaimer: I have not tried this approach.

I've had this problem too. I find that the varnish won't be glossy if it's in a thin coat over a matt surface; presumably the surface structure of the matt paint pokes through the varnish. Applying a thicker coat, by making sure that the newly-sprayed varnish looks wet on the surface, seems to work. I'd be scared to spray this heavily with a rattle can but it seems OK with an airbrush.

The Golding drawing also has vent hoods for the doors that are squarer than the ex-SER style. It's a little like what would happen if ex-LCDR coaches were converted to EMUs. Was that ever done?

The SECR specification --- I have access to a specification for a PBV c. 1900 --- is similar, but calls the top coat purple lake rather than crimson. It also identifies the undercoat as a lake colour, and requires two coats of top vanish over the purple. Since lake pigments are precipitated dyes, a wider range of colours is feasible than with mineral pigments. My guess is that crimson lake and purple lake really were different colours. At this stage, I'm happy with the colour I achieve with enamels. It's synoptic with the Gospel according to Bachmann and the Acts of the Preservationists. It's a nice colour, both lined and unlined. Nobody still living has seen the original colour (discontinued c.1912), so plausible guesses are fine. I just want to remake that colour in paint that's more cooperative and less inclined to eat my liver.

Not entirely trusting the paint splodges as a reference, I sprayed a test-strip. Tamiya Hull Red on the left, Vallejo Hull Red on the right, Precision mix in the middle. Primer is Halfords red. Sprayed over primer, the acrylic colours actually look a poorer match for the enamel shade. The Vallejo colour is the better match, but that's because it is darker; it's still too brown. This is what I'm after; the van body shown a week ago, but now lettered and varnished. If I can do this in acrylics I shall be very happy, but I'm not there yet. I have quite a lot of coaches to paint soon. I shall probably just use up my enamel stock, but I might also buy some blue shade from Vallejo and try for a better mix. The Hull Red looks as I imagine the base coat for the purple lake of the full-sized coaches. It might do well for the SECR's later brown livery.

New paint arrived today. The Tamiya "Hull Red" is a very close match to my enamel mix. Looking at the paint splodges directly, I can't see a difference, but the photo reveals the acrylic to be very slightly browner (c.f. the Vallejo Hull Red, above, which is redder). Since it would be sprayed as a light coat over red primer, I expect the final result with the Tamiya colour to be about right. And Tamiya paint is easier to spray than Vallejo, for me at least.

I took some measurements on a later wagon in Bewdley. I'll post them when I can dig out my notes.

Three revelations today concerning the painting. Firstly, the airbrush was spattering because its nozzle had split at the tip. I replaced it; they can be had urgently on Amazon Prime if one doesn't mind the price hike. Second, the old, split nozzle was still crusted with enamel paint, even after cleaning. The only way I could shift it was to poke in something sharp ... which is a good way to chip the nozzle tip. A pox on all enamels and their NTC thinners. If only I had a good alternative to my enamel mix for purple lake. I ordered some Tamiya colours to try some mixes. Third, the replacement paint was already on hand, unappreciated. I tested the new nozzle using Vallejo model-air "Hull Red". I'd originally bought this as an approach to purple lake, but abandoned it because it seemed too bright a red. It turns out that the paint changes colour with the depth of coat. A thin test-spray on white paper is very red, almost crimson. As the depth increases, the effective hue becomes darker, bluer and browner. After three lightish coats, it's almost indistinguishable (in daylight) from the enamel mix. I think it might be, quite literally, a purple lake! If it stays the same colour when dried, I shall bin the enamels. I just need to find spraying parameters that atomise the Vallejo paint well.

Using the PQ9 thinners is supposed to make the paint dry more quickly. My tactic for de-splattering Precision enamels is to thin them a bit more than 60/40, then spray at at about 25 PSI (c.f. 15-20 PSI for acrylics) and at a greater distance. The higher pressure is supposed to improve the atomisation; I think it works. The quicker drying deters the over-thinned paint from sagging and running. The greater distance reduces the chance of flooding the model. All that worked fine until two days ago when it didn't and a model got ruined by spatter; much cursing. On inspection, the nozzle was firstly bunged up with traces of the enamel paint that hadn't been cleaned out properly --- my cleaning regime is tuned for acrylics --- and secondly had split at the tip. Nothing will work reliably when the nozzle is FUBAR, so I replaced it.

Small drill-bits are available on-line, without shipping charge. (Other brands available, but some of them are utter rubbish.) I bought some of these a few weeks ago. They are certainly OK for drilling plastic, maybe not up to heavy work in metal. Or you could buy on-line from Eileen's Emporium, paying more per drill bit, and paying shipping, but almost certainly getting better quality.

While I have the 1921 document open, more on fish traffic across London. (If a thing's worth doing it's worth doing to excess.) There was a flow from the GWR, noted as from "Milford Haven, Swansea, Penance, Fishguard etc.", to Folkestone Harbour via Reading, Redhill and Ashford. This was broken up at Reading by the SECR into cuts of one or two vans and distributed across a series or morning trains going east. The final destination of Folkestone Harbour is interesting. Was this fish for export, or was it just that the Folkestone fish-market was down in the harbour? This flow ran 7 days a week, with different loading restrictions on Sundays. One fish flow that was explicit for export came from Plymouth (LSWR) via Clapham to Cannon Street and Holborn and then went on Folkestone Harbour for Boulogne. Fish traffic from the Lowestoft and Yarmouth on the GER came under the river via the East London line to Hither Green sidings. Some of the vans were transferred to the LSWR and the rest worked up to Cannon Street, presumably for eventual forwarding on passenger trains. This was a new routing, due to come into operation slightly after the issue of the 1921 notice. The empty vans were worked from Southwark Street depot (between Charing Cross and Cannon Street) to Hither Green before the GER fetched them. The detail of the notice makes clear that the vans were empty on arrival at Southwark Street and were simply parked there until they could get to Hither Green. This is interesting, as Southwark Street was a minute depot with almost no standage. One presume that it otherwise stood empty during the middle of the day. Finally, fish was moved from Whitstable Bay to London. This was internal the SECR, but it gets a special not in the Parcels instructions because some vans were transferred from the South Eastern to the Chatham section.

More on the LNWR working I mentioned above. In the 1921 working, it's down as Through working of fish traffic --- Fleetwood (Wyre Dock) (LNWR) to SECR and LBSCR, operates Mondays to Fridays "when there is sufficient traffic to justify the through working" and uses the "9.30pm transfer train from Willesden to Holborn and Cannon Street", so is almost certainly traffic off the WCML. This working includes vans for many SECR stations; it's not all, or even mostly, fish for central London. Destinations listed are as close as Woolwich Arsenal and as far as Dover. There's a note about small consignments to stations that don't get their own van. These are loaded in the "Holborn and Cannon Street mixed vans" which go to Holborn Viaduct. Then, "after unloading their own traffic, [Holborn] to send vans to Cannon Street on 12.15am fish train from Ludgate Hill". This latter train is the GCR traffic forwarded by the GNR that I mentioned in an earlier post. Note that fish is taken off the train at Holborn Viaduct as well as Cannon Street. Perhaps those boxes go to Smithfield Market instead of Billingsgate?

I found, in the SECR's 1921 arrangements for parcels handling, another fish train to the South. I can't remember if I've transcribed this before on another thread, but it's interesting enough to raise again here. Titled Through working of fish traffic --- GCR to SECR, LSWR and LBSCR its entry begins "The GNR will run a special train..." The train goes by the Widened Lines and emerges at Ludgate Hill at midnight. It then explodes into portions for different destinations: some for LCDR stations go to Holborn Viaduct; some for SER stations (and one van for the London traffic) go to Cannon Street; LSWR bits go to Clapham; LBCSR vans go initially to Cannon Street and later to London bridge. Note that this is the GCR's premium traffic, but its passed to the Sarf on a GNR train. I don't know how far it's travelled on the GNR; the SECR notes don't say.

Seasonal trains for fleets following the herring migration: yes. At some parts of the year, there were apparently trains from the west to Grimsby. Fish trains from Grimsby to the west via GCR and Banbury: yes, I think almost all the west-of-England traffic went that way, but not all the London traffic. The GNR also served Grimsby and some of the fish traffic. It's worth bearing in mind that not all fish went by dedicated trains. Smaller ports could sent individual vans by passenger train. At some point in the distribution, fish was presumably travelling as parcels on passenger trains.

Certainly, and H-N's practice for photography contrasts with Ashford, who seem to have used the service livery for official photographs.

The LYR and LNWR had a joint line to Fleetwood, a major fishing port on the Irish sea. A LNWR fish-train used to arrive in London in the late evening, passing over the Metropolitan Widened Lines to Cannon Street, that station being a hub for perishable traffic and handy for Billingsgate. The LNWR had open fish trucks and later some fish vans, all painted in their lined, NPCS livery. The LYR had some elegant, louvred fish-vans that were at one time painted a light green and later in a white livery. There were WCJS fish-vans, suggesting that some Scottish fish came down the WCML. If the only source of fish traffic for the WCML was Fleetwood, then the LNWR's wholly-owned vans would have been used. Possibly the WCML was a shorter journey for fish from the west coast of Scotland.

The darker grey is about what comes out of a tin of Precision "SECR Grey", so that's a vote in favour. It's certainly better for the Maunsell livery than the Wainwright. I agree with Invicta that your lighter grey looks a little too light; possibly also a little too blue. If you oil-wash it black it will darken to something a bit closer. I now use Tamiya "dark sea grey" for Wainwright light grey. It's also a little too light, but varnish and oil-washing bring it to a shade that pleases me. The black-painted ironwork is probably not accurate for either livery. I've only seen it on trade-built wagons painted by the builders (Hurst Nelson, mainly, who painted as they saw fit and no mere customer was going to tell them different). I presume that even then the ironwork would be painted over grey when the SECR next painted the wagon. In particular, I've never seen a picture of a Maunsell-livery wagon with the ironwork black. Further, the blacking of the ironwork makes the light grey look even lighter.

I'm considering to do the hand-brake wheel, bevel gears and associated crank as an accessory pack in my Shapeways shop. I suspect that they were standard parts in the full-sized railway and one model will do for most goods brakes, PBVs and brake coaches of the SER/SECR; but I need some drawings to check this. I want these bits for some coaches I'm building. Branchlines had a casting for the gears, vertical shaft and crank in some of their kits. This might be available separately.

Rumney models kits are held to be rather good; e.g. 4-wheel steel-carrying wagons. A kit that is well-designed but complex may be easier than one that is simple but of lesser quality. A kit for a 4-wheeled item of NPCS might actually be easier than a wagon as it's less likely to have soldered overlays.

OK, then I'd like two, please, in due course. If you have any more with broken buffers I'll take those off your hands as I have sprung buffers to fit.

Which kind of brake is this: passenger or goods? It looks a bit like an 1860's passenger brake. Either way, I'd like one please, if you get to selling the prints.

It looks like a modern railing, made of tubes, rather than a traditional one, made of narrow, solid rods. Assuming that the thinest parts are 2" across or more, they could be printed.

The common view is that P4 needs springing or compensation but EM is OK with rigid underframes. IMHO, this is oversimplified to the point of being wrong. There are examples of long-wheelbase wagons with rigid underframes in P4 where long trains can be propelled safely. Conversely, I've seen EM layouts where the stock falls off all the time. It all comes down to track laying and curvature. If you can maintain track twist less than about three quarters of your flange depth over the wheelbase of the longest vehicle (the 0.010" criterion in the 2mm Association Handbook), then rigid stock stays on very well when hauled. In addition, if your curves are gentle, and gently negotiated, that stock will stay on when propelled. If you have really wavy track, or try to propel at speed round tramway curves, then no flange depth or fancy suspension will save matters.