Jim Martin

This is quick job that I've been meaning to do for a while. The Farish BYA is a really nice model, which has grown on me quite a lot since it was released. It has a couple of faults: the unpainted red plastic used for some of the end details isn't very beautiful; and Farish's take on EWS red is too muddy for my tastes. On the whole, though, it's an excellent effort. As a piece of rolling stock, however, it suffers from the fact that it runs like a dog. I have nine of them and every one of them is the same: it barely rolls at all; and when it does, it often makes a marked screeching noise. This is not good. The problem isn't the running gear itself. The BYA uses the same US-style swing motion bogies as the HTA and MBA. Farish produce all three types in N and the other two run perfectly well. The problem lies elsewhere. Specifically, the problem lies in the moulded underframe detail on the BYA. I have mixed feelings about underframe detail in N gauge. I don't mind it on wagons with exposed underframes, when it can be seen from the side: Farish's MBA, for example, is beautifully done. On wagons where it's never going to be seen, though, I really don't care that much: for instance, the Dapol KIA coil wagon has no detail at all underneath and is none the worse for it. The BYA has a central sill and various cross-members moulded onto the underside. None of this is visible when the wagon is on the track. It's these cross-members that are the problem: the wheels rub against those closest to the bogie pivots, which act as highly effective brakes. The solution is straightforward, if a little drastic: the ribs have to go. This photo shows what the Farish underframe looks like once the bogies have been removed: The ribs closest to the bogie pivot are the ones you need to remove. I used a burr mounted in a mini-drill, which was easy enough, but a little wearing. I did two wagons tonight and I wouldn't do more than that in a session. You don't want to damage the bogie pivot; you really don't want to damage the curved bits around the pivot (which give the wagon some stability); and you really, really don't want to accidentally grind away any of the underframe side member. The finished article looks like this: Pop the bogies back on and you're good to go. Better yet, the wagon actually will go. The effect on its running is dramatic. All of my BYAs will be going under the knife (well, drill) for this modification over the next week or so.

I've never heard that, but B-36 crews had the saying "six turning and four burning" to describe their six pusher props and four jet booster engines. Jim

John Try here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/34454-wagon-tarpaulins/ Jim

Thanks to everyone for their replies. It's not really my period, but it looked like an interesting carriage. The Modern Railways article that I was reading is actually referenced in one of the replies to the thread that Mark linked to: what's very striking is just how broad in the beam it looks compared to the next coach: number M3038, which I take to be a Mk.1. Jim

I was reading a 1963 copy of Modern Railways recently and found a brief article on "Silver Princess", a 1947-built coach manufactured by Budd as a demonstrator for UK service. According to the article, it was later named "Ulster Lounge" (for use in the Ulster Express) and by 1963 was running in the Shamrock. Can anyone tell me more about the career of this coach? In particular, there's a photo of it in US-style stainless steel finish, complete with what look like fluted lower body sides and roof. The name is painted on large letter boards on the fluted sides. Did it ever run in this form in the UK? Thanks Jim

Good job! I was a bit unsure about the extra length, but it really doesn't show on the finished model. I guess that shows that you've captured the character of the thing. Jim

Mark Firstly: top layout! I've always liked the idea of a "suburban deco" model, and this is very much the sort of thing that I'd have fancied. It's beautifully realised too. I especially like the houses set on the hill - just right. Secondly: last October you were asking about very small sizes of styrene strip. I think that someone mentioned that Evergreen do 10x20 thou strip, which you can generally get from any retailer that has one of the Evergreen display stands (the product code is "100"). You CAN get smaller though: Plastruct do square rod which they describe as 0.3mm (about 13 thou) square. The product code is MS10P. This isn't part of the well-known Plastruct black / orange display unit, but any retailer that stocks the range should be able to get it as a special order from the wholesalers. Failing that, you can try the UK distributors, who seem to sell direct. The current price is £2.44 for a pack of 10x10-inch lengths, plus postage. It's very small and fragile, and visually almost indistinguishable from round rod; but it "sits" differently when you lay it onto a surface. Hope this helps Keep it up Jim

That's an interesting idea. I'd like to see how that came out. I very much doubt that my printer (a cheap Hewlett-Packard) would do more than print the sheet in a red-oxidey shade with some bits left white as an impression of lettering, but that would probably be sufficient.

Thanks guys, for your kind words! To be honest, I was thinking of doing the underframes of the next batch - they're pretty easy to do - and then taking a break from IHAs and doing something else for a bit! One thing that I forgot to put in the original post was that I haven't fitted the low-level lettering placards. I just couldn't see a way of adding them which would allow the wagon to get round any sort of curve. Even those ferry cleats are pushing it a bit, although it should handle about a 12" radius all right. I also forgot to mention that the brake wheels are from the same TPM ferry wagon etch as the cleats etc. Because of the way I did the hood, I had to cut away part of the wheel and butt it up to the bottom of the filler. Jim

In my first post on this blog I wrote: "I'm just a very slow worker... I'm kind of hoping that writing this might encourage me to get on a bit more". Well, just over a year to construct one wagon wasn't precisely what I had in mind but the IHA is, nevertheless, as finished as it's going to be for the foreseeable future. It isn't truly finished. I still need to add the eight hooks that hold the hood closed: I'll be getting these etched in due course. I need enough for four wagons so I'll need to do some research into whether that will be an entire etched sheet on its own, or if I could fit some other bits in, or what. The wagon also needs painting, of course, and it's sans couplers until I decide what type to fit. Still, right now it's sitting on its little length of Peco set-track, looking pretty much done. It isn't perfect: it's a tad too tall, the ends aren't quite square, there are a couple of other things that I'll iron out when I make the rest of my planned fleet. I would be lying, though, if I said I was anything other than extremely happy with how it looks. Off the top of my head, I can't remember feeling this pleased with a wagon that I've built from scratch. The Credits: Wheels and bogies - ATM Models Ferry cleats, lashing rings and end platforms - TPM (ref. 1809) Buffers - TPM (ref. 1806A) Finished wagon between two Farish BYAs for comparison: Platform end: Non-platform end (don't know what went awry with the colour balance here, I'm afraid): Getting this done has given me quite a fillip, so I'm hoping to make some more progress on a couple of other projects in the next couple of days. More on that as things develop. Jim

There are three shots of DB981000 (3/4 roster shot, interior shot, door springs/bogie detail shot) and a 3/4 shot of DB981001 in British Railway Air Braked Stock, vol 2 by Tom Smith. Both were photographed at Mossend on different dates in 2001. Jim

Thanks. Latterly, the sidings at Allerton were full of container wagons - including several wheel-less KFAs loaded onto other KFAs. Regards Jim

Do you know what the DBS train is? I wasn't aware of them running intermodal trains to Liverpool and the Allerton wagons for repair (which often did bring container flats to Liverpool) doesn't run any more. Jim

I didn't go to the MRJ exhibition (I can't remember why: I was only living in Watford at the time and I was a religious reader of the magazine / adherent to the finescale creed), but as I remember the choice of venue was a deliberately sentimental one, designed to recall the spirit of the Easter shows of earlier years. I remember a lot of complaints about its inadequacy in the letters to the magazine afterwards (although I think it's to the credit of whoever was editing MRJ at the time that he published them alongside the ones hymning him with praise). Jim

My money's on London Midland grey/green and Silverlink/Central grey/blue Jim

I've noticed a number of posts about motivation on RMWeb recently (here and here, for instance). I've been experiencing a distinct lack of "get up and go" myself where completing the IHA is concerned: since my last blog post I've added the four lettering boards to the sides of the hood, and that's it. I'm one of those who believes that the problem is that all the jobs at the very end of a project like this don't add that much to the finished model, but their absence would nag at me. The other day I sat down with a photo of the prototype and worked out how many pieces still needed adding to the IHA for it to be complete to a degree that would be acceptable to me: 4x hood operating lever assembly (4 pieces each - 16 in all) 2x upper hook operating bar assembly (5 pieces each - 10 in all) 2 buffer base extensions (for the platform end) 4 buffers 2 ferry tie-down cleat mounting pads 2 ferry tie-down cleats 8 ferry lashing rings 2 brakewheel mounting rods 2 brakewheels 2 raised panels for the underframe sides (to mount the brake valve control levers) 4 brake valve control levers 2x low-level lettering placard assembly (5 pieces each - 10 in all) end platform 2 end platform supports 2 bogie pivots 2 bogie retainers 2 bogies That's a total of 73 things to add to get to the point where I think it'll look right (not including the couplers, which I'm still mulling over, and the hooks that hold the hood shut, which I still don't know how to make), and at the end of it all it won't look much more like an IHA than it would if I added just the end platform, the buffers and the bogies. Some of these pieces (17, I think, plus the bogies) are ready made, either etched or moulded; but the majority are very small indeed and will have to be tickled together out of tiny shards of styrene, which probably isn't going to be much fun. Tonight I'm going to steel myself (appropriately enough) and try to push on as far as possible with getting things fitted. Jim

Oh my God, they killed Clarabel!

Have you thought of PM-ing Paul Bartlett (hmrspaul on RMWeb) and asking him? I posted a similar request concerning some Associated Octel tanks some time ago and he was very helpful. Jim

Well, despite not having updated this blog for months, I have been working on the IHA in fits and starts. This where we are now: hood completed, end platform (from TPM's lovely ferry fittings etch) in position (temporarily, for the photo), still just balanced on its bogies for now but generally looking quite like the real thing. This was the only decent shot I got before the batteries in my camera packed in, so it'll have to do for now. There are some wierd perspective effects in this photo which I think are linked to the macro setting on the camera. The model is actually pretty square. More on this over the weekend, I hope. Lettering boards to be added to hood sides and underframe, brakewheels and ferry tie-downs to be fitted, buffers (and the buffer beam at the platform end) to go on, a couple of minor end details to complete and that'll leave just the hood securing hooks, which I still don't have much idea about how to tackle. Jim

Didn't he say that he liked the idea of the 57, although ironically EWS never had any? Jim

That's just human nature though, isn't it? These days the IC125s are treasured as a magnificent triumph of industrial design and engineering, but I'm sure many people recall the kicking they took when they displaced the Deltics on the ECML. "Turbocharged bacon slicer" is a direct quote from an article in what was then Rail Enthusiast describing the interlopers, as opposed to "a REAL locomotive". Funny thing is, I'd bet my house that the Deltics were treated with the same contempt when they ousted the Gresley pacifics. Twenty years from now, a new generation (and possibly old ###### like I'll be, too) will be casting contemptuous looks at the Class 75, or whatever, and sneering "yes, but it's not a Shed, is it? Now there's a proper locomotive"... Jim

That is, indeed, a pretty small train. Not too hard to model, either. Hornby 60, Bachmann double-deck IPA, not sure about the single decker, though. There was an article on building one in Model Rail a while back, I think. Jim

You wrote: "The last couple of years have been a complete sham with the run down of 56's, 58's and 60's." and "This is what happens when accountants run businesses. FARCICAL" If you mean that those changes make the railway a bit less interesting to look at, then fine. I agree with you. But I don't think that is what you mean (or at least, that's not all that you mean, or why describe it as "farcical"?) and they're happening, I would suggest, because people at DBS who actually know how much it costs to maintain a 60 as opposed to a 66; and actually know how much the cost of double-heading 66s stacks up against their superior availability and the cost of maintaining a small and geographically-dispersed fleet of 60s for a limited number of trains; and have access to historical information that will tell them exactly how reliable you could make a fleet of 60s and how much it would cost to do so, have concluded that they're going to be better off without the tugs. So the question isn't irrelevant, because my argument is that while I haven't done those costings, I believe that somebody at DBS has and this is the result; and your argument is that while you haven't done the costings either, you don't like the outcome so they can't possibly be true. Jim