Caley Jim

Given present circumstances that may be some time! Jim

Not sure about bets, but will you be passing the West Coast train over to CR No. 90 for the run to Perth, followed by No. 17 for the victorious run on to Aberdeen on 22nd/23rd August 1895? Jim

Thanks, Scott. And welcome to the Association ( I maintain the membership database, so I know who you are! ) I'm not really wanting to get involved in commissions. I offered to help with the Dunallander project and am happy to do so in memory of Neil. While I enjoy the challenge of designing and building etches I have plenty on my plate as it is. Jim

Could you overfill the hole with filler and generously coat the area around it and then press the metal into place over that allowing the excess filler to squeeze out and fill the gap between the brass and the sill? Jim (who knows nothing about these things)

No worries on that score for me as I have it on subscription. Interestingly the small newsagent here in Biggar has it on his shelf, along with other model railway magazines. Must ask him who buys it. Jim

I mentioned that there were subtle difference between the island platform canopies and those on the up platform, as can be seen from this photo: and this plan: 1) The width of each bay is slightly smaller. 2) Each end has six glazed panels with 5 astrigals against the 8 panels and 7 astrigals of the island platform 3) The bays do not fit the footprint of the building. 4) As can be seen from the photo, the pillars supporting the longitudinal beam were not arranged as per the drawing, but were nearer the platform edge and are: i) only every second cross beam ii) of cast iron iii) have a square section connecting them to the longitudinal beam My interpretation is that these pillars supported the canopy of the original Scottish Central Railway station, which was lower, and this was replaced, designed to use the same pillars, when the island platform was installed on the down side to accommodate the Dunblane, Doune and Callander branch ( which became the C & O). Whatever the reason for the differences I have had to prepare a different drawing for them: The speckled areas are flat infill sections. The artwork for them will go on the same sheet as the remaining bays of the island platform. I've also dipped my toe into the world of 3D CAD and managed to produce a drawing for one of the cast pillars: Someone is doing a trial print of them on a home printer. The square spigot on top will fit into a short length of 1.5mm square tubing soldered to the longitudinal beam. That exercise was a steep learning curve!! Not likely to be any updates on here for some time now while I get all that artwork prepared and off to PPD for etching, though I will have plenty of time for that being essentially confined to barracks as both my wife and I are (chronologically) in an 'at risk' group. Jim

My latest involvement with the Dunallander project concerns the canopies for both the main building and the island platform both of which can be seen in this photo. I decided to start with the island platform ones, working from this drawing: As can be seen, the canopies are supported on transverse beams which rest on two longitudinal beams, they in turn being supported by columns at each transverse beam. these columns appear to be 'H' section, but with the channel infilled, presumably with timber. The exceptions to this, at least in the period modelled, but possibly earlier, being the outer faces of the end pillars which are not infilled. The pillars are incorporated into the building with the longitudinal beams forming the top of the walls. It would then have a flat roof with the glazing on the canopies going right across. I prepared a working drawing of the southernmost three bays to establish how all this was going to be modelled. The longitudinal beams and the inner pillars will be 1.5mm square brass tube, with the end pillars 1.5 x 1.5 'H' section brass. everything else will be etched, the transverse beams being inverted 'U' section with a top attached, the latter having location slots for the glazing bar pieces, lugs to support the glazing and tabs on the ends to which to attach the valence. A gap will be left above the valence to accommodate my usual style of gutter, made by scrawking a half-round groove in the edge of a strip of 20thou. styrene. By the period being modelled the valences had been reduced in height, losing their saw-toothed edging. Mike has already made the building, the walls including the pillars and longitudinal beam, so the latter will on run between either end of the building and the ends of the canopy. Artwork for a trial etch of these three bays was drawn up from this, including a jig to help assemble the parts consistently. The resultant etches have now been successfully assembled. The tabs for attaching the valence are not bent down as this would preclude my fitting the assembly back on the jig to work my way along assembling a bay at a time. I soldered a length of .25mm copper wire along the top of each ridge to both simulate the 'roll' which was there and also disguise the joints between the panels. Somewhere along the line I managed to lose track of one of the end panels. The last thing I did one evening was to trial fit it and I found that a little adjustment was needed to one of the side panels. the next evening I made the adjustment and then found that the panel had gone AWOL! I will put a spare one on the sheet with the etches for the remaining bays, but no doubt after I have done that the little gremlin who 'borrowed' it will return it, as always seems to be the way!! Only some minor tweaks are needed to the artwork to slightly simplify assembly before I prepare a sheet for etching the remainder of the bays. Some of these require to be modified to accommodate the chimneys and the two northern most bays have a curve to their western ends to align with the platform. Next up I'll describe the subtle differences between this canopy and the ones on the up platform. Jim

Re the craftsmanship /clever on the above post. Not my idea. It's how it was done by everyone back in the days before we had crankpin washers. Jim

Coil some fine copper wire round a No 73 drill (0.64mm dia) and cut off slices of the coil for crankpin washers. That's how all mine are made, though using a finer drill. Jim

Is this a model railway forum, or have I inadvertently stumbled into a literary appreciation forum? Discuss. Jim

Our Probus Club outing this year includes a visit to Moat Brae House. (Virus permitting) Jim

I shudder to think what he was going to do with them! Jim

The Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway found that members of all social classes were happy to travel in the cheaper second class carriages, which, although they had roofs, had wooden seats with no upholstery and no glass in the windows. It was even said that Magistrates were happy to travel in the seat-less 'stand-up' fourth class! Jim

Would these be custard tarts or fruit tarts? Jim

Presumably signed by both parents! The Duke of Sutherland went one (or perhaps two) better. He not only had his own saloon carriage, but also his own locomotive and his own station for Dunrobin Castle. I suppose since he largely financed that section of the Further North Line he was perfectly entitled to provide himself with the latter! Jim

We're in our own little world, but it's OK, they know us there! I have a screw at one end, ususaly the smokebox end, and a couple of little pieces of styrene glued under the footplate at the other end to align the chassis with the body. Jim

I recall someone, many years ago (it may have been Stewart Hine), counselling against using two screws to attach the body to the chassis as there was a very high chance that in tightening them you would distort the chassis. As a consequence, I always only use one. Jim

I do it by inserting the blade of a small watchmaker's screwdriver between the spokes and gently turning it. Jim

A brief post script. I mentioned in the last post that there were issues with the balance of the loco. Unfortunately the way the torque is applied to the centre axle by the gear train results, whichever direction it is going, in the leading wheels being lifted slightly off the track as the loco pivots about the centre drivers. I tried jamming the action of the rear beams with some slivers of scrap etch and this seemed to improve things going forwards, however the problem was still there to some extent in reverse as the loco was still able to 'sit down' on the front wheels. I decided to bite the bullet and have effectively disabled the compensation by spot soldering the beams to the frames, making sure that all six wheels were resting on a flat surface while doing that. Happily track holding is much improved while the stay-alive maintains slow speed running (I timed it taking over 2 minutes to cover 1ft). In future I'm tempted to abandon compensation (it's main purpose was to improve current collection) and fit stay-alive if at all possible. Jim

Stop the chassis where it binds and try and find out which rod is tight. Then try gently reaming out the crankpin holes, just a tiny fraction each time, re-trying in between. It's surprising how much 'slop' you can have and it still runs smoothly. It sounds to me as though one pair of crankpin holes are slightly too close and the rods are slipping outwards to compensate for this when they are not held tight against the wheels. Worth looking to see how close to the wheels they are in that situation. Jim

I have a Digitrax Zephyr and also one of their hand held units. I find it very easy and intuitive to use. Most locos are fitted with CTElectronik chips, except my latest which has a Zimo, CT ones being hard to come by now. I agree that it takes the control of 2FS locos to another level. Jim

So, it was an issue with the loco and not your track! Not being familiar with models of motorised biscuit tins, I'm afraid i can't help with what exactly might have failed. Jim

Stop beating yourself about the head, Mike. That is d****d good!! Jim

When only one vehicle or loco is having issues, when every other item of rolling stock is quite happy there, then the problem is usually down to something on that vehicle/loco. It's puzzling that it happens with the loco both ways round. I have no experience with diseasals, but I wonder if there is some issue with the way the weight is distributed on the wheels and the drive causing a degree of torque which lifts the leading wheels slightly? This coupled with some very minor issue with the track (such as the knuckle not being absolutely dead in line with the crossing) might be the cause??? Jim

It's important to find out the exact cause of the problem, rather than just scrap and start again. Otherwise you are likely to find it recurring. You can't cure a problem without diagnosing what's causing it in the first place. Is there a grain of ballast in the wing or check rail clearance which the wagons are riding over, but is derailing the loco? Is there an issue with the back-to-back on the loco? Are the check/wing rail clearances too tight/wide? is the knuckle of the wing rail well aligned with the nose of the crossing? Watch closely as the loco passes over the trouble spot and try and observe exactly what is going on to derail it. Sometimes it just needs a tiny adjustment to cure things. Jim