Chas Levin

Wonderful work and a fascinating prototype , thank you for sharing this.

And here it is with some more detail added, mainly taps'n'straps: I found myself wishing midway through that I'd done the strapping in brass as it would have looked better, been easier to put in place and been stronger for future handling purposes. Ah, what we'd do differently with hindsight. Never mind - a lesson learned for the future and I should be able to get away with it here. Judicious strengthening in out of sight places tomorrow should help. Then, just the end pipework to do I think . Meanwhile on the non-soldering front, the next project has been unboxed: Very interested to see how this resin is to work with and to see how it finishes - I've read various others' threads and see pictures but never seen or handled one in person, let alone built one. Clearly one of the first jobs is going to be the painting of that wonderful looking interior, so a little research on primer types is in order. I've been using TrainTech auto lighting strips for a while now and in order to avoid having to dismantle the coach to change batteries I've (fairly) discreetly added a coin cell holder, riding horizontally, underneath several Hornby Gresleys. The relatively sparse underframe detail and the 61'-plus length of these makes it quite practical. When faced with the D&S 46' ECJS Luggage Brake, I still managed it by changing the mounting plane of the cell holder from horizontal to vertical, where the nearly windowless brake carriage hid the holder, protruding up into the interior. Here, however, I'm not sure that either solution will work... unless I could mount it vertically, going up into the (windowless) guard's compartment, or perhaps up into the pair of toilets, where there are windows but they'll be frosted...? Hm....

So, this is where the basic kit gets you: Last stage will be to add the pipework to the tank ends, plus what appear from photographs to be taps beneath the tanks, another pair of short horizontal bars between the outer and inner support beams each side, and whatever else I can see... The joints between the brass tank bodies and their whitemetal ends (especially the righthand end of the lefthand one) look rather bumpy in these pictures, but they're pretty smooth in reality - photos are a great way to see these details in an ongoing project...

Ah - thanks Graham; does the kit include the bogies?

Well, my plan to keep the tanks as a separately mounted unit for painting purposes foundered as soon as I took a closer look at the various pipes and other gubbins they need to have connected to them and realised that they'll need to be fixed in place as per the instructions: There's quite an old thread headed "A.P.O.C. tank wagon" here on RMWeb which had some interesting details, plus a link to some excellent detailed photos from Paul Bartlett's enormously helpful site (thans Paul, should you happen to read this!). The photos make clear what happens with piping, taps etc. It's only approximated by the kit as supplied and I'd wondered how the tanks were filled or emptied...

Both builds look excellent! May I ask about the clerestory coach? I've edited this post as I've just seen further up the answer that the prototype's an ECJS Dia.19, but is it a kit (if so whose?) or is it from different sources?

The Dapol (Airfix) Brake Van is finished; I know it's not the most prototypical Toad but I think it looks very nice as a 'layout' vehicle and it didn't take too long, even with the LED lamp: The guard by the way is a Modelu figure and the wagon plate is from NBR 4mm Developments. Next up I think for a non-metal project, a Bill Bedford resin kit of a GNR D.129 Composite...

And there we are - didn't take long: I spent a fruitless half hour trying to straighten an interesting multi-plane twist in the main underframe piece, before realising that provided the whole thing was assembled on plate glass and soldered with all wheels touching, it wouldn't be a problem - or even visible, which turned out to the case. I know it has chunky brake gear, less than finely shaped buffers and so forth, but I think it's cute, and it runs very nicely!

The Dapol brake is nearing completion - transfers on (from Old Time Workshop, intended for the Parkside kit) and some tidying up inside, with the DCC Concepts LED lamp mounted, though its wires still need to be hidden (and the roof is just perched): The SEF APOC tank wagon has had all the small soldering done and is ready for the final assembly: One end is on each tank, which can be done from the inside once the rim has been tinned with 145, and then a thin seam of 70 added around the outside of the joint to fill it, filing and cleaning up afterwards. Not possible with the other end of course, but as they'll be joined in the middle I'm assuming I can get away with just the seaming the outer edge...

Lovely photo Tony, beautiful scene; and the rigidity of the V2 is duly noted

The bearing soldering method worked a treat, after also filing down the raised rims of the holes in the solebar a little: And we're on the way: The brake van has the first side of transfers drying over night, photos to follow. I know it may seem over cautious, but I always do one side's transfers and then leave the vehicle on its side overnight (or held in some way horizontally, if I don't want it to rest on its side), so that the transfers can fully dry and bed down under gravity, before doing the other side and giving that 24 hours horizontally too, and then varnishing. It probably doesn't make much difference and it does mean the doing transfers becomes a three day process, but if I didn't use a belt and braces, how would my trousers stay up?

Thanks for this! The results seem to be as liable to interpretation and the influence of many factors as lots of other information, but at least we know, rather than wondering. Very interesting photo too... And the title - "The strange tale of the Flying Scotsman and the Gay Crusader" - is worth the price of admission on its own!

Thanks Lloyd, I saw your post just as I'd copied this line from a previous reply of Andrew's and it's very relevant: "The 0-6-0 that you mention, lacks the overhang of the 4-6-0 running as an 0-6-0, thus not an applicable example." There is something here I don't fully understand: I know that on a full-size loco the bogie plays a part in supporting the body (for instance in the case of a 4-6-0), yet we frequently build models (not to mention RTR examples) where that's not the case, where the bogie is largely (in the case of a trailing pony truck perhaps entirely) cosmetic. So two questions occur to me: First, I too cannot see how a 4-6-0 model running bogie-less can behave exactly the same way as an 0-6-0 in terms of weight distribution and therefore running, yet it seems to be a widespread assumption that they are effectively the same. Is this simply because the differences in behaviour between the two are considered so small they can safely be ignored? Secondly, even though we're dealing with sizes, weights and forces that are so much smaller than full size that they may well not follow many of the same behavioural trends (e.g. when negotiating curves) I can't help thinking that abandoning bogie support altogether is - or might be - a very significant sacrifice and that it must be worth a try... Anyway, I don't mean to prolong this debate to excess and take up Tony W's 'bandwidth': thank you to all those who have contributed, as it's given me a great deal of food for thought

Good morning Tony, like you, Andrew picked me up on assuming that side-control was a panacea rather than something to be selectively applied; and I realised you weren't rejecting side-control full stop. Your Bulleid Pacific experiences are an interesting addition to the data and I have to say that the entire body of your experiences with no side-control and rigid chassis and (mainly, I think?) rigid rods is very persuasive for me, in large part because you have the number of years and the number of builds to make the data surely representative. Roy Jackson's non-identical A3 twins might well furnish some very interesting data too... As I just wrote in another reply however, my imagination has been caught by the idea of working suspension systems in a 4mm loco, so I think I'm going to have to give them a try, even if the work-vs-improvement ratio is poor (). At least I'll be able to stand back and say 'Look, I built that sprung / compensated / side-controlled loco', even if I have to add that in all honesty, I probably won't be building another like it!

Thanks Frank, also very interesting. All aspects of loco suspension do seem to cause excitement, but perhaps your comment here is a nice point of compromise: "When it comes to side control it is not incorrect for Tony to say that it is un-necessary but I cannot agree that it offers no benefit." I just posted a reply to Andrew where I explained that part of my layout is old vintage track (and highly demanding of modern stock) and part of it (currently under construction) is modern track, so I either have the best of both worlds, or the worst, depending on your point of view! I say this with particular regard to your comments below: "Not all layouts are suitable for models built with side control. I anticipate that it is only suitable for, and you will get benefits with, models that are built to run on fine scale track, if you are using Peco points then the incremental benefit will be lost. If your layout has curves tighter than 3ft here again I think you are expecting too much for a model with side control to work. Whilst I always ensure that the models I build will go round 2ft 6in radius I never run them in anger around anything under 3ft." I think the long and short of it for me is that my curiosity about side-control, springing and compensation has become so great that I'm going to have to have a go at building locos using these systems, just for the fun of it and if they run less well than rigid ones with floppy bogies on some parts of my layout, I shall still love them!

Yes, good point: you're right that I was leaping on it as a one-size-fits-all solution. And also a nice point that this is how full size locos work. I didn't meant to start a hoo-hah of course, it's just that the wider subject of chassis suspension systems in all their forms does interest me. I fully realise that I say that as someone who hasn't yet built a loco with any kind of suspension (or even one with a bogie for that matter) and that once I find out how much extra work is involved to balance against how much improvement in running on my particular layout, I too may come around to feeling that simple is better in this case. Part of the reason it interests me is the challenge of successfully building the more complicated chassis, and the anticipated pleasure of seeing a more intricate and complex machine working well and smoothly (hey - aim at the stars and you might hit a chimney pot, as my old French teacher used to say!). With respect though (the last thing I'd want to do here is offend anyone - we're here for enjoyment, but we're also quite passionate at times!) I feel the word 'Luddite' is a little harsh in this context. A Luddite is one who rejects all modern technologies on principle, whereas here I think there is surely more thought behind the choices... If we assume that the object - below the footplate anyway - is to produce something that runs well, and if I build an entirely rigid loco that runs well on my layout (taking into account my particular competency levels in both loco and layout) then I think I would simply be using one of a number of currently available technologies to achieve the same aim as others do. As it happens however, this is not (yet) the case! My current small layout was originally built by my father in the 1970s. When I inherited it, I wanted to preserve as much as possible (for obvious nostalgic reasons) and build on what was there (in terms of scenics, electrics, signalling etc, none of which were much of a feature). I am also in the process of building an extension to it using contemporary permanent way materials which will (I hope) offer very smooth running, but this does mean that anything I build has to negotiate something of an obstacle course! I have a test track in my workshop using modern track (otherwise despair would take over!) but once they hit the layout as it exists currently, it's a tough world . I quite like the additional challenge of building to cope with these conditions, and while I'm also in the process of improving the trackwork with extra shims, guide rails etc, I'll probably leave the basic way in place. My first loco was a DJH J9/10, built entirely rigid and it runs very nicely round the layout... but at the cost of very un-prototypical driver side-play, extra weight and Romford wheels, plus some additional time spent 'honing' one or two layout curves and points! None of which is a problem for me, because the fun and satisfaction I get from seeing it on the move is more than ample compensation (no pun intended!). But it does make me curious about whether other systems might deal better with what I'm asking them to do...

Re. Bogie side control: thank you Andrew for posting notes on this question, and thank you both Tonys for your comments and further thoughts. With due note that I'm a very inexperienced loco builder, but with some experience of wider engineering work, I think it's an interesting conundrum. Andrew's theory seems very solid and very appealing as it offers reliability and repeatability and it makes sense to me (particularly the parent-child image!), but the practical findings concerning the un-side-controlled models that run beautifully and the side-controlled ones that don't would seem to offer a contrary point of view that must surely have an explanation which I struggle to understand. This seems to echo aspects of the debate about rigid versus suspension chassis (in whichever form - sprung, compensated) and as has been pointed out by Tony above and is often pointed it in that debate too, there are so many variables that affect the running (amongst the most notable being the design and build quality of both model and track) that it appears difficult to arrive at a conclusive answer. Short of building four of exactly the same kit, one rigid and with no bogie side control, one rigid and with bogie side control, one with suspension in whichever way and with bogie side control, one with similar suspension but without bogie side control and then testing them exhaustively on the same layout (and with the condition that both track and locos all be built to a suitably high standard of construction), I'm not sure how we can get closer to some definitive findings. Has anyone ever run such tests? I know there are people on here who have built multiple examples of the same kit (Tony W being an example of course) but do those who've built such multiples also experiment between rigid and suspension chassis, side-control and no side-control?

Hello Andrew, just catching up after a few busy days... Please could you point me at where you've given details about your ideas concerning bogies / curves etc? If it's earlier in this thread I would have read it but many months ago, and it wouldn't have been so relevant to what I was then doing, but I'm about to start building a C12 and would like to read up on this question...

The brake van is nearing completion, most painting done, glazed too - transfers tomorrow, all being well: The circular moulding marks on the inner veranda walls don't look quite so prominent in reality... Meanwhile, the joints between solebars and buffer beams on the APOC tank wagon have an arrangement whereby a small tubular moulding slides into a short round cavity: The slight over sizing of both parts means some careful removal of material is needed and both male and female parts are awkward to work on, with the added danger that removing too much material would render the joints too loose; getting there though: One advantage of this system is that the four part frame can be erected and dismantled prior to soldering, so that wheelsets and bearings can be test fitted. You'll see from the photo that the holes for bearings are somewhat oversized; I'm contemplating the best way to centre the bearings (top hat seem best as they have the largest volume), and wondering about tinning the bearings with 145, putting a small amount of 70 into the holes, popping a bearing in and lightly touching with the iron, so that the 70 solder melts underneath the bearing and fills the gap around it, centering it at the same time. One concern though is that the holes into the axleboxes are quite deep so the bottom of the hole - which is the inside of the axlebox face - is very thin and possibly liable to melt too. The need to do the job with the axlebox face down (so that the molten 70 solder spreads evenly) means I wouldn't be able to see what was happening to it on the outside... though that might also make it possible to position some sort of heatsink arrangement in contact with the outer face...

The brake van was primed today, and then had the lower parts done in Halfords' trusty matt black - and I'm getting better at refraining from putting it on too thickly: In my keenness to whip out the rattle cans however I forgot about the safety bars; they're something I was previously unaware of - you generally only see them as they are on this model, moulded in place folded down, out of use, against the planking. I recently read on a thread about brake vans however that modelling a running van without them up and in use is very unrealistic and thought I'd add them in. It's not too late, though it would have been much easier earlier on. I also noticed that the roof has an unfortunate twist to it, so I'll have a go at straightening it in hot water before it gets primed...

Some brake rigging added to the Dapol brake van today, just enough to give the appearance as it goes by: And so to the next metal-based project... which was scheduled to be my first etched loco kit, a London Road Models LNER C12. I'm still awaiting one or two bits and pieces however, and I also want to do a little more reading up about adding weight. The first loco I built (shown further up this thread) was a whitemetal one, the DJH LNER J9/10 where - being a WM kit - there's no problem about weight, but clearly an etched kit is an entirely different proposition... So in the meantime, a quick wagon, and an opportunity to sample the wares of another manufacturer for the first time: I saw the original version of this kit - Wills I think - on Ebay one day and looked up the initials APOC, which stand for the Anglo Persian Oil Company, formed in 1908 for purposes that should be obvious from the name. I know there are various historical and political associations and it can be a touchy subject, but I still think there's something very old-fashioned, very nineteenth century about the name - in fact the name Persia conjures up all sorts of far more ancient romantic associations in my mind, and I like having wagons running by that bring different images or memories to mind, so when I found it in South Eastern Finecast's current range it was an immediate purchase. It's also a little unusual looking which is satisfying. The tankers - of which only about half a dozen were built apparently - date from 1927, which fits my core era perfectly well. Impressions so far? Castings seem crisp, some cleaning up to do but that's no problem. Instructions are pretty brief but then there's not much needed. They note the tight clearance between the insides of the solebars, necessitating short axles, so we'll have to see what can be done there, also allowing for brass bearings; some plain white lettering transfers are on the way. The livery is noted as black everywhere, with the tanks in red oxide. I'll want to spray the black using Halfords Matt Black (so easy to use and gives such an excellent finish, though I do need to work on not coating too thickly) so I shall try and construct it so that the tanks are a separate unit for painting purposes, to be fixed in place afterwards.

I actually want to put a figure outside, on the verandah (I think that's the correct term for the roofed-over section of decking, seen on the left in the first picture). I have a couple of HO Swiss railway personnel with 1mm LED lamps in their hands and I want to have a guard standing on the decking shining a lamp which lights from the track current. As to compatibility, it runs on the same gauge rails as OO - in fact, HO is more correctly proportioned for what we call OO rails and OO was originally the compromise. My layout is really UK 1920s-30s LNER 90% of the time, but every so often I swap a few buildings, station name boards and road vehicles and run Swiss and other European stock. It's like taking a weekend break on the Continent... and before lockdown, it felt a bit unnecessary but now, I'm very pleased with the system indeed, as you may imagine .

Love it - fabulous pic of a fabulous rake!

Hello, can anyone tell me please how to open up the Roco SBB 'Sputnik' Goods Brake Van? There are tabs visible underneath, just inboard of the buffer beams, but these only seem to release the thin layer of exterior floor boarding at each end. I'm guessing it might be a case of easing the sides outwards to clear plastic tabs pointing upwards from the floor, but without knowing that's the case I don't want to start anything that might end in damage... It already has pickups which feed an internal light (so I'm assuming it must be openable to change the bulb) but I want to add a guard figure on the verandah with an LED lamp... Any help appreciated, Chas

Hello Tony, below are pictures of the latest two wagons I've completed. The fish van is an old Falcon/Jidenco kit; the OCT is the D&S kit, with the car from Oxford Diecast. Please excuse the slight discrepancy between wagon and car dates - picture the very late 1920s, with one of the very first of this model travelling to its new owner on a very old carriage truck that's long overdue for a visit to the paint shop to be re-liveried for LNER use...): Next up will be an London Road Models LNER C12... though I might give in to the temptation of another quick wagon beforehand. Unlike biscuits and sweets, they never spoil the appetite for the Main Course builds to follow...