Compound2632

In post #1 I wrote "For an Edwardian period Midland layout, I reckon every fourth wagon I build should be one of these!" - I'd happily rise to that challenge if folk would be so kind as to send me their unbuilt Slater's kits... But you all need them too - any Edwardian goods yard, anywhere, there will be one ...

Thanks! I do have a pile of break van kits to work through but the challenge is really at the front end... My LNWR wagon binge is motivated by having a Bachmann Coal Tank on pre-order. Somehow I feel the need to work my skills up gradually to the point where I can make a proper go of a Midland 0-6-0 in fully-lined crimson lake livery! Also I need many more D299 5-plank opens... It's like mince pies and walking at Christmas - I've overindulged in the wagons of the lesser lines and need to work it off with a mass build of MR wagons.

I knew there must be a better way! I wasn't keen on bending the whitemetal too much too many times though I did end up doing so accidentally while getting the position of the brass bearings right - they had to go well in to avoid the axleguards being splayed out. I used waisted bearings to avoid having to drill too far into the whitemetal axleboxes. Those dates don't tie up with the book - 1880, 90, 91 too early, 1916 too late! But Noel does say "the Diagram Book suggests that there were survivors awaiting breaking-up from 1951" so must have been aware of the other notes. Anyway, I'm going for c.1903-ish which means the "unpainted" livery - which unfortunately doesn't mean unpainted whitemetal. Solebars and framing were usually oak and body planks deal - so I expect these would weather to different shades of brown/grey even if initially varnished. Any suggestions out there?

All the liveries worn by Tornado are fictitious as it's a locomotive that never actually existed...

Midland D299 - essential! I hope you've worked out how to mass-produce these...

Today I made a great leap forward: I have at last successfully soldered together a whitemetal kit – after about 25 years of abortive attempts at approximately five-yearly intervals. I attribute my success to the following factors coming together: The right iron: Antex 50 W low-temperature controlled (65°C - 195°C) The right solder (Carr’s 100°C Sn/Pb/Bi – C1044) The right flux (Carr’s Red Label) Careful study of RMWeb threads such as this recent one Scrupulous cleaning of parts Courage to use the iron at the top end of its temperature range The test piece is a David Geen kit for a Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway 3-plank dropside wagon to Diagram 15. According to Lancashire & Yorkshire Wagons Vol. 1 by Noel Coates (Wild Swan, 1990), 1722 of these were built between 1893 and 1901. They are described as Fruit Wagons which I take to be a L&Y code name rather than their intended traffic! Back in the summer, I had tried assembly with UHU but rapidly became unstuck. What I did discover was that the wagon was about 2 mm too wide. The kit instructions reproduce the same drawing, Drg. 3403, as the book; the plan view shows a width of 7’6½” which I read as the outside width though it could be mistake for the inside dimension. The end view is very poorly reproduced but does show what appears to be an overall width dimension possibly marked 8’1”. Other drawings in the book, e.g. the Pitch Wagon, Drg. 3434, clearly show the overall width on both plan and end view as 7’6½”. So I set to with my knives and files and shaved 0.5 mm off each side of the end castings, put rebate 0.5 mm deep on the inside of each end of the sides to thin the visible end down to 1mm, and also cutting 1 mm off each end of the headstocks. Sides and ends were carefully matched and labelled (apologies for the less than sharp photo): That was as far as I’d got. I had thought of replacing the whitemetal axleguard/axlebox units but couldn’t find a supplier of etched W-irons of the L&Y pattern with curved keeper plate. Today the Christmas kitchen chaos had subsided sufficiently for me to move the Christmas cake and set up my soldering iron in its place. I started with the iron at about its mid-setting, nominally 130°C, and managed to solder the axleguard units on to the back of the solebar on one side, though it took a good few minutes and the solder never really flowed in the satisfying way I’m used to in my occasional forays into etched brass. However, trying to solder ends to sides was a failure – I just ended up with encrusted lumps of solder. After a pause for thought, cup of tea, and helping my younger son with a 500 piece jigsaw of Turner’s The Fighting Temeraire – all swirling greys and browns but at least we put all the edge pieces in – I returned to the fray, boldly turned the iron up to its maximum temperature, and bingo! the solder flowed, I managed to get everything square-ish, and if anyone tells me the L&Y use split spoke wheels I shall be annoyed: Unlike plastic or etched brass wagons, there’s no springing the wheels in and out - they have to go in as the second side is soldered to the ends. (I’d put brass bearings in the axleboxes of course.) A little bit of precision twisting was needed to cure some wobble. It weighs in at 40 g compared to 7 g for the LNWR timber wagon! When cleaning the parts before soldering, I used Fairy Liquid and an old electric toothbrush, rinsing in warm water. I’ve read that Fairy Liquid isn’t the ideal de-greasing agent – lighter fluid being preferred – but evidently I’ve not experienced a problem. To be continued…

LNWR D12 timber wagon completed apart from bolster: I’ve spent several happy hours spent applying squares of Microstrip with solvent – using similar techniques to that I’d used for the D2, i.e. welding the end of a strip in place and once cured cutting off the strip to leave a square piece. Although Earlestown seem to have been partial to square-headed bolts, unfortunately most of these square-ish bits of Microstrip actually represent round-headed carriage bolts… The dumb buffers are built up using the block that supports the double brake molding – with all the scotch-braked wagons I’ve built there are plenty of these going spare and they’re the same height as the solebars. End pillars are 60 thou square Microstrip and corner plates from 10 thou Plastikard, with embossed rivets – as for the D2 open wagon. I felt the sides were a little shallow so added a representation of the ⅜” metal capping strip – of course a scale ¾” thick. The bolster support is 40 thou Plastickard – on the real wagon this was a massive piece of timber 10” deep resting on the solebars – it took the whole weight of the load. The curved runners are built up from thinner material, curved around a 10-pence piece per Guy Rixon. I thought I’d have a go at making my own grease axleboxes by adapting the spring and oil box base unit from the kit – rounding off the bottom. The axlebox fronts are from 40 thou Plastikard; the LNW boxes have a very distinctive raised circle; I’ve tried to represent this by pressing the blunt end of a 2 mm drill bit firmly onto the Plastikard while softening it with Mek-Pak – the box nearest the camera is the most successful! A square of 10 thou Plastikard represents the sloping lid of the box. The brakes on these wagons didn’t have push-rods but were of a type LNWR Wagons describes as “iron block, flap and links” – a step up from the simple scotch or “flap” brake; the brake block dangles from an iron link and is pushed on by a lever arm directly connected to the brake lever. I’ve tried to represent this by cutting up the kit brake gear; the brake lever is shorter than standard so has been cut-and-shut from the one in the kit. I’m leaving off the bolster until I’ve built a D13 pair of timber wagons to go with this – LNWR Wagons reproduces some loading instructions this wagon might be a runner rather than bearing the load and in this case it seems the bolster would be removed.

TWO American Organs? In Bicester?

I think whatever the load you'll only get the boxing effect if you convert her to live steam...

Apologies for my faux pas - altogether classier origins. The splashers and cab profile do look very like those of a MR 2-4-0. However if those are 6'7" drivers (per Wikipedia) I suspect the coupled wheelbase is less than 8'6". A very hansom-looking engine anyway - glad my comment winkled out all these other examples folk are building!

I don't recall seeing the 3232 Class 2-4-0 in the bottom right picture before - a remarkably conventional-looking late 19th century locomotive by Great Western standards with, I rather suspect, a good deal of Ratio MR 1400 Class 2-4-0 about her?

I'm sceptical of the early 30s date ascribed to this photo - what little road traffic there is, is horse drawn and the carriages of the trains on the down fast and relief lines are all-over one shade of dark, suggesting the claret livery - so early 20s?

But this photo (which has been discussed before) simply oozes atmosphere... Who could resist? Or how about the tunnel under the GWR main line...

Guilty as charged - though in my defence that's a mash-up of the warehouse and factory kits rather than the brewery.

Folk will be wanting suitable rolling stock to go with the Huntley & Palmers Peckett. In my earlier post I pointed out that the Bachmann version of H&P wagon No. 21 was inauthentic, the model being an RCH standard 7-plank wagon whereas the real No. 21 was a Gloucester 10T 6-plank wagon of 1908. The former Slaters kit 4035 is spot on for this if you can get hold of it and POWsides do the transfers (#349) though the kit they offer is for a 7-plank wagon. Presumably No. 21 was one of a batch of several. There is a splendid photo on the Reading Museum Huntley & Palmers Collection website showing a train in H&P’s sidings behind engines A & B. Behind the engines we have: H&P wagons Nos. 10, 2? (obscured by shunter’s pole!), 1, and 6; MR 3-plank dropside wagon (pre-D305); W. H. Bowater Coal & Coke Merchant, Birmingham (?) 5-plank wagon No. 33 or 35?; another MR pre-D305 3-plank dropside wagon; MR 5-plank wagon (D299 – there’s one in every photo…); Stephenson Clarke 6-plank wagon No. 2168, Stephenson Clarke 7-plank wagon No. 24?? with dumb buffers, almost certainly a third Stephenson Clarke wagon also with dumb buffers; two more H&P wagons with single-digit numbers; an open wagon with curved ends and metal channel solebars – could be GW? – and a rather early-looking 4-wheel GW brake van. All the H&P wagons have 4 planks. No. 1 and the two wagons near the end of the train are dumb-buffered with straight ends. There’s a 5 and 9 models kit (are these still available?) that could be adapted by straightening the curved end top plank. The other three H&P wagons have sprung buffers, curved ends and iron or steel channel solebars and headstocks. Cambrian kit C53 might be a starting point for this, with a steel underframe. (The underframe in the kit is Cambrian’s standard Gloucester underframe anyway.) All these wagons have single-side brakes. The load appears to be rather large lumps of coal neatly stacked - although this has been disputed! The website gives the photo a date of around 1920 but I feel this must be wrong – the presence of dumb-buffered wagons and the double-armed slotted-post signal on the GWR main line in the background point to a much earlier date – perhaps it was taken to show off H&P locos A and B when they were new? 1890s?

The timely arrival of the H&P Peckett was an unexpected birthday present. Rather more anticipated was Vol. 1 of LNWR Wagons. This, of course, has distracted me from finishing the wagons already started… I had mentioned on Guy Rixon's LNWR wagon thread the temptation posed by spare Ratio solebars. Having solved the problem of not enough grease axleboxes (using the Coast Line Models 3D printed ones), the limiting factor to how many wagons I can squeeze out of the Ratio kits would appear to be the number of headstocks and buffer heads. What possible use are solebars without headstocks and buffers? Cue the D12 timber wagon. These were built with dumb buffers at least as late as 1897 – the date of the GA drawing in LNWR Wagons – and not fitted with sprung self-contained buffers until 1914 if the note dated January 1914 on the drawing is any guide. There’s a photo in the book showing a freshly repainted example – with LNWR between diamonds – dated August 1909. So these wagons were certainly in traffic with dumb buffers in the first decade of the 20th century. They were 12’0” long over headstocks and 14’7” over the dumb buffers, with 7’6” wheelbase. The sketch shows the key dimensions compared to a typical 16’0” or 15’6” long wagon per the Ratio kit: The 7’6” wheelbase can be got by cutting 6 mm out of the middle but the Ratio solebar ends aren’t quite long enough to make the dumb buffers. However, on the D12 wagon, the wooden solebars had a strengthening plate of 3/8” thick iron or steel that did not extend all the way to the end of the buffers – it extends about 7½” beyond the end of the body, having a total length of 13’3”. If you add 18” to this to allow for the difference between the 7’6” and 9’0” wheelbase, this gives 14’9” which is the length of the solebar of at 15’6” wagon (headstocks being 4½” thick). The end of the iron plate is very distinct in photographs, so I can use the Ratio solebar with a slightly thinner extension plus backing piece to build up the dumb buffer: I chose to use the ‘long’ solebar (for 16’0” wagons) from the Ratio kit and cut 1 mm from each end as well as 6 mmm from the middle, in order to get squarer ends – the mouldings are slightly rounded: The Ratio parts for the D48 twin rail wagons can be adapted – the sides are cut down to 48 mm long, the floor to 46 mm, and the plain ends without buffer housings are modified to fit over the solebars, with end pillars added: Progress so far – from sketches to the parts in the photos – took less time than writing up these notes. I should note my indebtedness to Guy Rixon’s work on a sprung-buffered D13 timber truck pair – if this single wagon works out I might be tempted into buying another Ratio kit 575 and making a dumb-buffered pair – after all a solitary short timber truck is no good for carrying a load. Mousa (Bill Bedford) is promising a resin kit – again for the sprung-buffered version – his website says D12 but the picture is the diagram for the D13 pair. The GA drawing of D13 in LNWR Wagons shows that the wagon bodies are asymmetrical – the bolster is on the centre-line of the wheelbase but the length of body from this centre-line to the conventional headstock at the fixed coupling is 9”greater than the length to the dumb-buffered end. Also at the back of my mind are the equivalent Midland timber trucks – short (7’ wheelbase) to D388 and long (9’ wheelbase) to D389.

Many years ago I worked at the Observatoire de Paris, which hosted meetings of the International Earth Rotation Service. I did enquire, if they were meeting, who kept the Earth turning? I was told it was only the directors who were meeting, the workers were still hard at it.

Of course the Peckett isn't going to appear in a 7-year-old's train set - so yes a different market. But how many Pecketts are being sold to folk who started out with Nellie? Mine runs very sweetly - as I said above, on a circle of track on the dining-room table with a dozen kit-built wagons. (What was that about train sets?)

Half a century of progress in industrial 0-4-0 design:

Mine was a pre-order directly from Hornby, I guess those ordered through the shops need a couple of days more. Patience! It's worth the wait! A sweet little runner - pulled a dozen mostly kit-built wagons round a circle of third-radius track on the dining-room table at a nice slow pace without a murmur - Nellie this isn't!

An un-looked-for birthday present: Please excuse the less than perfect lighting conditions. Here's a photo taken c1903 when H&P D was on temporary loan to Bingley, Gardiner & Co's biscuit works near Kympton, Derbyshire - I believe the firm (and the famous Longbourn Tea Biscuit) had just been taken over by Huntley & Palmers: And here's another, evidently taken after 1923 - aren't those 12T RCH wagons enormous? The real H&P wagon No. 21 was a Gloucester 10T 6-plank wagon of 1908...

Sorry I wasn't very helpful in my comment about the bay. I then had a look through my books and found a passenger bay at Gloucester that was arranged as yours - but this could only be used for departures; not only from the layout but also the provision of FPLs and signalling, a passenger train couldn't run into it - only empty stock. I like your latest plan - can you squeeze in the trailing connection for the loading dock that you had before (using the 3-way that also gives access to the goods shed)? And also the lay-by siding on the other side? Then you'd have something completely Midland. Were there any stations in the Aire valley with buildings on the overbridge? Quite a few examples further south - you could always invoke rebuilding c. 1910.

If the bay is for passenger trains, then I think the layout should probably be revised. It would be in-Midlandish for this road to be a passenger line; it's more typically for end-loading of NPCS.

The first plan with the trailing crossover and single slip looked the nearest to being convincingly Midland to my mind. What's also highly characteristic is for the goods shed to be on a loop accessible from both ends, as in ejstubb's posting above. For the modeller, this has the drawback of being rather long - to be convincing, the goods yard loop (this is of course not a running loop) needs to be at least twice the length of the platforms. There was a high degree of uniformity to the layout of smaller Midland through stations, almost to the point of blandness - although of course exceptions can always be found. The attached sketch shows two highly typical versions: For a medium-sized through station, a trailing crossing with single slip leading to a pair of 3-ways, one of which gives a trailing connection into the nearside running line for access to the loading dock sidings next to the main station building (think of attaching or detaching horseboxes or milk vans from a passenger train); this layout also has a trailing connection to a lay-by on the off-side running line (the goods loop could be used as a lay-bye for the nearside running line - but the train setting back would run beyond the far end of the loop to set back - so ideally the visible section of layout wants to be three times the length of the goods or mineral trains you want to run). For a small through station, a double slip takes the place of the pair of 3-ways and there are no lay-by sidings. The 25" maps as found on the National Library of Scotland website are a mine of information - I've found the depiction of the track layouts at stations is pretty accurate, where they can be compared with other sources. In N you ought to be able to do justice to the spaciousness of these layouts.

Thanks yes - I like knobhead's version that you point to (and his 2-2-2 from a Triang Lord of the Isles); I've also just reminded myself that I had seen Wenlock's superb 7mm example.