Right Away

It would seem the Std 5's were well thought of in Scotland and certainly on the WHL were apparently preferred to the Stanier version.

The BR Fives generally gave a good account of themselves on the Southern as well, often utilised on fasts but their riding could be "lively" towards the end; the trailing trucks of the Pacifics being kinder to their crews in this respect.

Does any member have knowledge of (roughly) when the Smiths speedometers began to be fitted to steam locomotives in BR days on the various regions. I appreciate that not all classes and not all members of a particular class were so fitted.

 

I was looking through my books and where photographs are dated, trying to get an approximate answer when I thought "ask the Web, maybe a member was involved in this "

Final update:

Bit more running in today and she is definitely quieter although could be better; the running qualities are still as smooth as ever, so I'm content with that.

 

Upside of all this was that with the body off I could knock back the lustre of the paintwork with the airbrush whilst the chassis was happily doing circles on the test track; my earlier effort to render the engine as "almost ex-works" had not been quite enough.

 

Thanks again all for your help.

I've now run-in the engine as advised above (forwards and backwards, clockwise and anti-clockwise on a circle of track.

She's a little quieter but not much.

I notice there is some fore and aft play in the motor shaft (0.5mm approx) and wondered if this could account for the noise.

Thanks very much for this info; extremely helpful.

Seems as though the 76 is going to win out on this one.

Have 3 Std 4 2-6-0s, 2 fitted with Lenz Standards, and the other with a Bachmann 36-553 so not that tight on space. Also have Lenz Standards in a pair of Std 4 2-6-4Ts and a post 2007 Std 4 4-6-0, while a Std 5 4-6-0 has a direct fit decoder (ZTC 4007) in it so that one may be pretty tight in space

I have dearly wanted a Std 5 and a Std 4 Mogul but have so far steered clear mainly by a review some while back saying that the removal and replacement of the bodies on these models are far from straightforward and fraught with damage potential.

 

As you have quite a collection of Mr Riddles' locomotives may I ask if this is indeed the case.

Thank you for that.

 

There was a some gunk - er grease on the pinions which I've managed to remove and replace with a minute drop of Fleischmann oil. No change.

 

I'm with you on the intensive running-in which I'll have to arrange. Probably buy a few lengths of used track to form a continuous loop. Indeed it's always recommended but so far I've got away without doing do - had to happen sooner or later.

My Bachmann BR Std 4 Tank No 80092 (32-882) which is just over a year old has never been the quietest of engines.

 

Fitted with a Lenz Silver decoder, its performance is exemplary from ultra slow running to getting into speed in both directions. But it sounds as if it's struggling (which it isn't) with a graunchy grinding noise.

It's Fairburn stablemate, fitted with the same decoder and having the same CV values is nowhere near as noisy.

 

I would have thought it would have been run-in by now albeit on an end to end railway.

 

Any thoughts, before the tools come out.

I would be interested to know what was the procedure during BR days for making/destroying the vacuum to prove the continuity of the brake where the last vehicle(s) had no guard's position.

This situation obviously can occur on the heritage railways today and it is assumed their procedure is the same as those of the past.

 

Also, when lengthy ECS were being propelled into carriage sidings or terminal platforms, were the loco crew guided by a shunter/guard riding in the leading vehicle and was that person responsible for applying the brake?

Again, if that leading vehicle had no guard's brake valve what would be involved?

 

A location of point is London Victoria (Eastern), where the empties of some Kent Coast workings were propelled up Grosvenor bank and into the carriage sheds by the incoming train engine.

A quick perusal of "Working Steam - Collett Granges & Manors" showing BR Western Region trains in the 1950's - 60's reveal that headlamps were placed in either position - left or right, relative to the lamp irons.

 

I am not certain if there was a former GWR directive (pre 1948) with regards to this.

The fishplate idea is viable.

 

However, to represent expansion gaps with any accuracy in 4mm scale would require such a fine scoring of the rail head, would they not be better left to the imagination.

 

I speak as one whose eyesight in advancing years would struggle to define such tiny details. I do appreciate the efforts of others that do successfully strive for the finite results.

 

Good luck.

Hi.

 

I painted this model some years ago using acrylic paints (wife doesn't approve of the fragrance of enamels and thinners). I built up the "neglected" effect in varying layers of steel and rust tones.

 

Better to work from photographs if the prototype if available.

Thanks Vespa.

 

I am certain that as "Exeter" was one of the earlier candidates for rebuilding (Nov'57) and that the directive to implement AWS was after this date, she never carried the equipment in original form.

This MUST have been covered previously, but I'm danged if I can find the info I require.

 

Is it possible to remove the AWS battery box incorrectly depicted by Hornby on their representation of pre-rebuilt No 34001, in one piece, ie without resorting to surgery?

 

It is appreciated that the centre headlamp and lamp iron will require refixing afterwards on the sloping front.

 

Ever since it's purchase this erroneous fitment has slightly niggled but as I was intending on renumbering and renaming the engine (something that was never done), I let it ride and grew to accept it.

 

Nevertheless, it would be interesting to know if this mod has been attempted with success and without drama.

 

Thank you in anticipation.

Thank you all for your suggestions.

 

This can be a quite frustrating problem in so far as the cause is so visible but a successful cure doesn't seem possible without the inevitable dismantling. Dropping a steam loco's drivers just in order to allow manipulation of the pick-ups is a sobering thought and one that my pensioner's fingers would struggle with.

 

We are to be grateful that many of today's models have multiple pick-ups on both engine and tender - I'd been even more grateful if they all functioned!

 

Where a brand new model is concerned there is always the dilemma of whether to return it or fix the problem oneself.

I am not averse to sorting minor issues but is ours the only hobby where we prefer to effect repairs on new items, which cost a packet, rather than return them to the retailer?

Would any member know of a straightforward method of slightly increasing the tension of wheel pick-up wipers?

 

They can loose their ability to maintain contact with the wheels after time; indeed I have experienced new items where contact to the wheel is lost alternately on one side and then the other due to axle side play.

 

What I am seeking is a way to keep all the wipers in contact but in such a fashion that they can be further retensioned should it become necessary at a later date and therefore would preclude the use of spacers fitted by the use of adhesives.

 

I'm thinking along the lines of using thin plastic shims but fixing them could pose a problem.

 

I would relish the input of others who have faced this scenario.

Not certain if this has been broached before, but here goes.

 

When considering the outstanding detail of British outline rolling stock achieved by manufactures today, I have pondered as to why there appears to have been no attempt to render at least some carriage windows in an open/semi open position.

 

Fleischman have produced some compartment coaches with these features which were particularly attractive.

 

British r-t-r 4mm and 2mm stock might well benefit from having some compartment windows in an open position thus relieving the uniform monotony of having a train looking as though it has just been through the washer or operating during the "train heating season".

 

Likewise, main line stock with some open top lights or an end door with the window down would add visual variety.

 

I cannot bring it upon my wallet (or my expensive models) to wield a scalpel in an attempt to achieve these kind of alterations. It is particularly pleasing to give close scrutiny of my stock and so from a personal viewpoint, the eye would be easily drawn to any half hearted surgical attempt.

 

Might it be possible to hope that Messrs H or B would take up the challenge?

Not ever having attempted this myself on a diesel, may I suggest the following process for consideration.

 

Mask the loco, leaving the areas front and rear requiring the stripes.

Spray these areas with the yellow paint; whilst this is drying, trim lengths of masking tape to the required width of the stripes and apply in position over the now dry yellow.

Spray the black colour.

Remove excess pigments with airbrush cleaner and cocktail stick.

Whichever ballast you settle on, ensure point blade/stock rail contact areas are covered with a thin strip of tape to prevent the ingress of ballast adhesive. Be also wary of adhesive running beneath the tie bar which may not be evident at the time. If it does, soak up as much as possible with kitchen roll and/or flood it out with clean water from a dropper bottle.

 

For your first attempt, work on a spare piece of track to get a "feel" of the process.

 

Persevere, do not rush and take your time; ballasting can get laborious and you will be tempted to finish it as soon as possible - don't!

 

When admiring your work years afterwards, you will know the extra time taken was worthwhile.

What about soldering rail joiners ?

It might be OK for DCC on shorter lines but would negate the raison d'être of installing a low resistance under-board supply which virtually guarantees perfect data transfer as well as conductivity.

Similar to that of RAFHAAA96, but utilised 4.0mm stranded on a linear 10 metre run.

It was the only sized cable I had spare at the time of installation, but it has proved faultless over the years.

As also mentioned, every individual piece of track, regardless of length is fed from the bus,

Anything within the frame which can distort the viewer's perspective and detracts from the overall subject can be considered game for digital enhancement/removal, provided the manipulation does not in iself create further visual inaccuracies.

 

The luxury of the perfect camera position is rarely encountered.

Never having attempted this on rolling stock, I might be speaking utter rubbish.

 

Would it not be possible to lightly score the glazing bars with a craft knife? Then apply paint to the whole then wipe off leaving paint in the score lines.

As an aside, I bought a Hornby Merchant Navy with TTS sound, and decided it really didn't sound much like a 3-cylinder beat, nor did it have the rather soft chuffing of a Bulleid in original form, leaving me unconvinced as to its realism, so I swapped the decoder and speaker into a Standard class 4MT. I think it sounds far more appropriate in there, although I do need to drill some holes in the tender to allow more of the sound out.

The decoder's produced sound must be VERY unrealistic if it is deemed to be more suited to a Standard 4.

Both single and double chimney versions were somewhat vociferous beasts when pulling hard. The sound of the Lemaître fitted SR Pacifics was/is so distinctive that an accurate reproduction could not with realism be utilised on alternative classes.

 

Long live the Peter Handford recordings in lieu of our receeding memories.

IIRC, the ruling specific to the GWR and it's regional successor stipulated the train engine driver must assume responsibility, necessitating the time consuming arrangement of placing the pilot behind.

 

How long after Nationalisation this performance persisted for I am not certain, possibly to the end of steam.

It could also have been subject to local regulations; our Western experts could advise on this.

 

A sister publication "From the Footplate - Devonian", relates to larger 'Prairies' being permitted in front of all train engines other than 'Kings' when assisting from Taunton to Whitehall. The reason for the exception in the case of a King is not mentioned - another one for the GWR aficionados!