NCB

I made the frames narrower than the prototype to allow for sideplay; each axle has washers to control the amount of sideplay I want for that axle. So the second axle has almost no sideplay, being the driven one. The first axle has a moderate amount, as much as the distance between the inside faces of the splashers will allow, the third quite a lot, and the final axle even more. I intended to have minimum 32" radius on my layout, but due to a miscalculation there's one point where it drops to 29". With the chassis set up as described but with no motor, I could finger-push it around a 26" test curve, so reckoned it should be OK for my purposes, even though set up with motor and coupling rods it might be more comfortable with more. The "wiggle" on the final axle (the slot is a bit wider than it need be) is intended to allow radial movement. I find left to itself the axle tries the keep at right angles to the rail, due to pressure on the flanges. This seems to work.

History - part 2 Fast forward to a year ago, and still the 56XX chassis hadn't appeared. In truth, I'd realised that it probably wouldn't some time ago. However, in the meantime I had got stuck into etching, and had just successfully produced my own Dukedog chassis, not the easiest of prototypes. So, I set to work to produce an M chassis. There was space for 3 chasses on the etch I sent to PPD, so I included a Rhymney R Class and GWR 56XX, as well as the M, for possible future use. By the way, I'm using 14.2mm finescale track. Here's it is: The chassis is built up from a single fold-up etch, my favourite sort of chassis; assembles in no time at all, and produces a strong, rigid structure. The brakes are separate etches and are hung from 0.6mm nickel silver wire. I'm a fan of compensation, and in particular twin beam compensation where appropriate. I find it often results in better balance than classic Sharman, and also allows you to stick the drive on the compensated central axle in an 0-6-0. It's also an excellent way of approaching 4-4-0s (like the Dukedog) and other 4-coupled chasses. So here there are two beams on the front two axles. The rear driving axle and trailing truck use a single beam, which also has a number of advantages. In this case the mounting point for a pony truck would be uncomfortably close to the rear axle. Bringing the pony axle in to the compensation system gets around this. It also means all wheels are carrying the weight of the locomotive body, which should improve running. The pony axle is allowed a fair amount of sideplay, and is also allowed to wiggle slightly; in my mind this allows it it move in much the same way as the axle on the prototype's radial truck. Where axles have up-and-down movement I don't bother with hornblocks, to me an unnecessary complication, simply an etched slot in the chassis. In theory the distances between the crankpins on the second and third axle vary a bit, but not enough that a slight bit of slack in the coupling rod holes won't accommodate. Here's the chassis with a test lash-up of a High Level gearbox and Mashima 1015 motor: and here it is with the body on top, to see if it fits (the body will eventually sit slightly further back than shown here): This gave me a better idea what would fit. The gearbox shown is a Compact+ with a Drivestretcher replacing the second stage; I hoped that this would give enough room to squeeze in a Mashima 1024 or 1224. It wouldn't, and the motor was a bit high. I was probably better off with a 1020 or 1220 and a standard Compact+, but I wasn't sure about this; it depended on how much space there was under the firebox front. I decided I would have to build more of the body. I'd originally intend to build the whole thing using traditional techniques, but I'd been bitten by the etching bug, so I drew up the remaining body parts in Turbocad, and off it went to PPD, at which point I took a breather.

This started about 6 years ago when I was browsing the new Rhymney Railways Drawings book from the WRRC. I'd been thinking of a 3mm scale scratch- building project, and the M Class caught my eye. I liked the nice clean lines, and also I knew another 3mm Society member had been thinking of etching a 56XX chassis, which would do. So I set to. The M is now not too far off completion; the first few posts will be historical ones, of the stages involved to the present time, before I move on to current work. The Rhymney M? In the early 1900s South Wales railways were still using a variety of Victorian engines, many including outside frames and saddle tanks. In 1904 the Rhymney broke with this by ordering 6 modern, powerful, rugged 0-6-2T engines from Stephensons, designated M Class. Nearly all subsequent Rhymney engines were of this arrangement, and other railways followed suit. As first of a new breed, the M went through a number of mods, but by the grouping had stabilised into its final form, with Belpaire firebox and revised boiler. One was fitted with a Swindon No. 2 boiler late in life; the last M disappeared in 1951. My model will be in GWR condition. History - part 1 First job was to cut out the footplate from nickel silver, my preferred material. Then followed the tank sides, as seen below. I'd also added the beading to the tank tops, from 5 amp fuse wire, at this stage. Next thing was to add the tank tops, and fret out the bits for cab and bunker: Finally, I slung all this lot together: At this point I reckoned I needed the chassis, to work out what motor/gearbox combinations would fit; I had a general idea, but needed something better before I tackled the firebox and boiler. However, looked like it was going to be a long wait for the chassis, so put the work aside and got on with other things. Incidentally, a long while later I found out I'd misread the drawing; the tanks should extend slightly beyond the footplate. Doh!

The late Jim Russell did a load of tests and came to the conclusion that these worked best when there was decent clearance between worm and gear, i.e. they only just meshed. This contrary to the habit of the time of bottoming out the worm in the gear and relying on running in to get the thing to loosen up. I'd suggest if the edge of the worm reaches about half-way down the depth of a gear tooth you can't go far wrong. So, for the gear and worm to just touch they would be 10.2mm apart. Subtract from that half the depth of a tooth. 9.53mm could be a little tight, at a guess. Think the 60:1 gear teeth are probably shallower so I'd work on that. Nigel

Basically, if you were shunting cattle trucks for loading/unloading then the other stuff had to wait. Cattle traffic was very intermittent, usually market day.

With things like Plastic Weld and Mekpak I give each surface a distant coat to prime them and then quickly another coat before whacking them together. The stuff evaporates so fast I don't find flooding a problem. I reckon if I've put so much on then it doesn't rapidly disappear then that would be too much, but that doesn't seem to happen. By the way, I just use old modelling brushes, like Humbrol or whatever.

One further thought in favour of leaving the cattle dock where it is. It helps fill the gap at the front of the layout between the sidings on the left and those on the right. You could even add further holding pens and a general livestock reception area if you think of it as a significant livestock shipment area. If you shift the dock elsewhere you'll need to come up with something to fill that area, although admittedly you could put further holding pens there.

Would agree with the above. Would love to be able to use the loft space of my (modern) bungalow but for a load or reasons it's just not on. When you say "separated" garage, do you mean it's on a distinct bit of ground from the house itself? In that case I can see why you might not want to use it. Have you thought of a house extension? Doesn't necessarily cost a huge amount, if you've the space. I'm thinking of something like an insulated conservatory without all the glass. If you don't want the cost at this stage could concentrate on a short portable layout and other modelling until you can manage it.

I'd go for option 1 (mostly), for the following reasons. 1) The kickback siding is only slightly harder to shunt than the other options, and if anything adds to the interest of shunting. 2) The cattle-dock is fine. They were quite often placed away from the buffers as it allows a string of cattle wagons to be moved past it and filled; ones next to the buffers tended to be used where there wasn't much cattle traffic. Yes it clogs up access to other sidings while loading/unloading is going on, but that's what happened on market day. Half-a-dozen or more cattle wagons would make a nice market-day special.

What's the track? Think I can see some Peco points there.

Gem TT KG V: Introduced 1963 with a cast white-metal chassis, and designed to take the K's tender drive. Retooled in 1966 to take a K's Mk 2 motor in the locomotive body. The masters have been through various hands since about 2000, most of whom have promised to issue an upgraded kit "in the near future". As is unfortunately common in this scale, nothing has materialised. I approached the then owner of 3SMR about 2002 to see if they could be introduced (he'd just taken on the TT kits from GEM) and was told they'd be the core of his new Heritage TT range, which never appeared.

The Piko Taurus chassis has been used for Class 24s. Can't remember how much work was involved though; think the bogies are the correct wheelbase, but the chassis (a very solid metal casting) needs shortening. The loco was selling for under £50 about 4 years ago; I bought one out of interest and it runs superbly. Think the chassis was less that £40 on its own. More like £70 and £60 now. 3SMR sell them: http://www.3smr.co.uk/readytorun.html

Have found the Machynleth pic of Corris slate being transhipped; it's in vol 1 of Green's Cambrian Coast Lines. Large slabs of slate, untypical of roofing slate. On the Corris railway they used trestle wagons to transport them. They're being leant against the sides of the standard gauge wagon, but it's not clear if that was just temporary during the loading process. Have found the odd pic of 4 plank wagons with roofing slate in them, but the wagon is far enough away and the slates deep down so that you can't actually see them.

Thanks for that, Marc. I'm sure I have a pic somewhere in one of my books but can't locate it. Have done a trawl of the web but although there's loads of narrow gauge wagons can't find a standard gauge wagon. One pic I do rememer seeing, think it was in a C.C. Green book, was of slates being loaded into a 4 plank wagon at Machynlleth. Probably the exception which proves the rule; output from the quarries up the Corris Railway was mainly of large slate slabs intended for things other than roofing, so a 4 plank wagon could have been useful. Nigel

Thanks, Alan. What prompted the thought was seeing Modulu offering slate loads for Dinorwic wagons in 7mm, and wondering whether something similar would be useful for Cambrian 2-plank wagons and the like. On the other hand, maybe they wouldn't be too hard to make from scratch, and maybe a lot cheaper. Nigel

Been thinking about how to load 2-plank wagons (e.g. Cambrian) with slates. Any idea how these were done? My guess would be that they were leant sloping against either end, maybe with a space in the middle for the stackers to work from, but this is purely a guess. Nigel

I tend to use two moderate coats, the first to act as a sort of primer as Andy says. The first coat never seems to do enough to stick things on its own. Usually Slaters Metpak or Plastic Weld. Typically when sticking embossed plasticard walling onto thicker plasticard. Nigel

Chris Apologies, a bit out of date! Seems yesterday when I thought I was on this page I was actually on page 3 of the thread! Hence my comments on rolling roofs. Doh! Cheers Nigel

I find plasticard can be rolled, just like metal. I've some rolling bars which work quite well, A round bar and a camping mat can also give decent results. The Cambrian flushed-sided brake in the following pic has a rolled plasticard roof: This ex-Cambrian brake/third has a rolled nickel silver roof: Unfortunately this only works for single-arc roofs. Dean coach roofs are a pain. Nigel

There's a pic of 8700 in the Pannier Papers vol. 4 in 1958 with the top feed. Most of the 87XX engines in that book seem to have had it fitted by 1956, but not all. 8723 is shown at Cardiff General in 1956 without one, 8793 on withdrawal at Swindon in 1963 also without one.

O.S.Nock in The Great Western Railway in the 20th Century, page 27, quotes from the Proceedings of the Institution of Locomotive Engineers of March 1950, where K.J.Cook read his paper on Churchwards Locomotive Development on the G.W.R, and Stanier made the following contribution: "Churchward had built that engine with his tongue in his cheek. He knew the front-end was too powerful for the wheelbase. This engine was built for the Shrewsbury and Hereford line, which was a joint line with the LNWR, and the LNWR objected to the Saint class working over it. He was not going to be told by Webb! Therefore Churchward built the County, which had plenty of power to run the service." Nock notes that by the time the Counties appeared Webb was actually dead, however reckons it was because of LNWR objections when the Saints were originally mooted that the Counties appeared in Churchward's diagram of 1901. So there's a reasonably authoritative base for the notion that the North to West line was at the root of it.

Can't be true in general; the LNWR had plenty of 4-6-0s. The oft-repeated story is that the LNWR objected to 4-6-0s specifically on the North to West, Shrewsbury to Newport line, and the Counties were Churchward's reaction, to get around the restriction. Jim Russell in vol ii Churchward, Collett and Hawkesworth locomotives is one reference to the story. The North to West line was quite important to the GWR, as it provided access from the north to Bristol as well as to South Wales. Russell also states that it was the large reciprocating masses which caused the rough riding of the Counties and County tanks.

Chris Have just sent you a PM Nigel

Slater's do 1.6mm pin-point bearings for the 3mm Society. They are a bit shallower than most 2mm bearings, so it depends a bit as to whether the gap between the W irons is OK for them. I can dig out the depth if interested. It's possible that Slater's may sell them direct.

As far as I can tell neither Heljan or Kernow seems to be offering a genuine pre-WWII livery for the 1361; 1363 in both camps is obviously one of the preserved liveries (i.e. polished brass safety valve and smoke box door rim and hinges picked in white). Any thoughts as to why this is the case, and whether the omission might be rectified?