Brian Kirby

Eh? BTW, last time I looked on any blogs or other model railway fora, I saw tumbleweed blowing across my screen, then I fell asleep. BK

Hi Clive, Yes, there certainly are similarities, and control functions would also be similar. However, regarding Class 501 units, as well as the four conductor shoes on the power cars, they also a pair of pick-ups on the leading Driving Trailer bogie, so there must have been a line voltage power cable between all three cars? If so, you'd expect any connections to be in the middle of the vehicles, well away from any passenger fingers. As you will already know, when Classes 306 and 307 were rebuilt to AC, with the new pantograph and rectifier-transformer now located on the next car along from the motor coach, again there must have been a DC power jumper between the two vehicles. BK

Besides ballasting, has anyone (cosmetically) rusted one up yet? We're talking rusty rail sides, even rustier check rails, a few weeds sticking up around the crossing timbers/sleepers? Rusting rails seems to be a science in itself, on new or well used rails the rusty sides appear golden brown, lack of use changes the colour to orangey-brown (classic rust in your paint pot), then raspberry red and eventually even black. I believe it's all to do with the flexing of the metal when driven over, rust particles flake off and wash away, before developing into thicker flakes? BK

Thanks Cheesysmith and Titan, That's certainly the regular AC emu inner end arrangement, however i'm modelling what later became Class AM7 and 307, but in original DC condition. They may differ, or they may still be the same, I don't know for certain? The outer/cab end arrangement was changed on rebuilding in 1960/1. A friend of mine suggested the cables and sockets may have been similar to Class 501, also DC and also built at SR Eastleigh around the same time? This photo link shows a 501 inner end, to the left of the loco. BK https://www.flickr.com/photos/21602076@N05/5091047302

Yes, I agree, I should have made it clearer, i've now gone back and amended the post. BK

We know the Unifrog points are live in all directions, hence the deliberations about using them on crossovers. The bit about the dodgy practice of using point blades to switch on/off sidings, applies to conventional points (DIY handmade or the rest of the Peco Streamline range, etc.). BK

With two of these Unifrog points mated together to make a crossover (frog-to-frog) without central insulation, would make both parallel tracks all common. That's fine for DCC, but DC needs to be able to reverse polarity on either line, unless you're running "one-engine-in-steam" or you just like all your trains running in the same direction? BK

I completely agree about dividing even a pure DCC into sections/running lines, if only as you say to simplify fault finding? Using older conventional pre-Unifrog point blades to switch sidings on/off is dodgy, especially when locos are being parked. Has anyone ever experienced the situation, where with one loco on each of two parallel sidings running from the same conventional point, and the point stuck midway or not making contact, with power applied, both locos will run in series. Not good. BK

You're right, I stand corrected, the "Unifrog" makes the difference, i'm still thinking of continuous frogs and rails in one piece. With this independent frog section, all other rails can be continuously live DCC and the Unifrogs can be switchably live or dead, but for analogue DC you'd still need to insulate the middle of a crossover, as you also would for DCC using live points without independent frogs. BK

I'm pleased to see PMP back from the wilderness, otherwise known as Blogland (or other fora). I bought a pair of these new bullhead points to try, at the South-West London show on Saturday, they look very good, lovely point blades, however the skewed sleepers at the frog end could have been avoided. Fine for turn of the century layouts, and any sidings then or now, but a bit odd for any post-Grouping (1923 onwards) main line junctions, where the point timbers would normally be at 90 degrees to the straight route stock rail, although i'm sure you'll find odd exceptions here and there. The Peco timbers are moulded solid and fixed on hard, so cannot be altered without a major rebuild, which would be a nonsense, might as well build the whole thing if it bothers you. For finescale modellers, the common-or-garden 3-bolt chairs that Peco have sensibly chosen, are not correct for any GWR-BR/WR layouts, which would need 2-bolt chairs, so Larry Coach will have to only look at the single-bolt side of each chair, if he uses them on Carrog. But then again, who cares, who stares at chair bolts(?), these new points are a major step forward. I wonder how many EM or P4 modellers will secretly sneak back to modelling OO, i've got a foot in both camps, or should that be all three? Cheers, Brian.

But the AM6/306 Shenfield units were even more suburban, and didn't carry suffix letters? I still think Clive's suggestion of "S for Southend" is the best bet so far, it was added to distinguish from what went before. Whilst we're on nomenclature and mystery initials, can anyone say what "AM" (as in AM2/AM10 emus, etc.) definitively stood for? Was it literally "A.c. Multiple unit", as we already know them to be? Probably yes, because "AL" stood for A.c Locomotive. BK

Silly old me, I never realized that Replica made an open suburban seating interior, until I "discovered" them last week! They've obviously made these for modelling the loco-hauled long underframe Second Opens (SO NG), which were actually few in number, they come with the desired 3+2 seating, which is useful for EMU conversions and kitbuilds. So after a couple of days of deliberation, I decided my 2+2 seating cobble-up wasn't good enough and had to be replaced. A quick call was made to Replica headquarters, and they very kindly arranged for me to collect a quantity of mouldings at this weekend's Tolworth show. Now armed with the new parts, I managed to salvage and re-use my triangular luggage rack supports, adding them back on to my rebuilt open and semi-open interiors. Nothing will be wasted, the 2+2 seating without tables can be re-used in a future Hastings or Oxted unit build, some have been retained here, for either side of the toilets, with the central gangway just there, whereas of course the gangway is now offset elsewhere with the 3+2s. Spot the difference: Arrrrgh, that's better! BK .

I've been numbering up the four cars, quite a time consuming process, as far as I know made-up numbers for Class 307s are not available, so I have to either add individual numbers, or in the case of the individual car numbers, cut and splice other sets. Here are the cab fronts detailed up, I wondered if buffer beams should be red, you'd think they would be a BoT requirement, but photos suggest not? Learned colleagues have confirmed they were generally just left black. The "Southend" destination should strictly say "Victoria" in brackets, but I haven't got a transfer for that, so far. Next job for the bodies is varnish, and then add the windows. Does anyone know what the small 's' after the set number signifies? Southend unit? BK

Hi SRman, Two motor bogies might seem extravagant, but they are only ancient and cheap Ringfields removed from Hornby diesels, and after all, two motor bogies are prototypical. Generally, I find two moderately-weighted cars well within the capability of a single power bogie without traction tyres, three cars needs extra weight over the motor, four cars is troublesome and requires even more weight. If you were building a six-car unit, you'd almost certainly put two motor bogies in, so four-car is somewhere in the middle of the equation? Isn't Bachmann's forthcoming three-car Class 117 dmu listed as having two power bogies? What does Ian think? BK

Hi Ian, Your 4LAV is looking good, you are further ahead than me! In the same way, I had a couple of redundant Kirk 2BIL kits, and kept toying with the idea of re-inventing them as a 4LAV. Of the two kits, I obviously used all four roofs, but as you will have found, because of the cab domes, there isn't quite enough, so I did the centre trailer roofs in two halves, and made a start of filling the gaps. I used five out of the eight sides, mostly to make use of the compartment doors, although the fifth can be the one and only corridor side in the loo coach. The driving cars were re-jiggled with the now narrowed cab and van section. The next bit is where we diverge in method, I didn't have any more compartment sections, so I resorted to scratchbuilding three new sides and one spare compartment in plasticard, they all still require additional work, I haven't even built the two centre chassis yet. As Colin P helpfully pointed out, the Hornby 2BIL incorrectly comes with motor bogie frames at both ends, I corrected mine by substituting a Kirk long bogie on the driving trailer, which handily releases the surplus motor sideframe for this project. I've fitted the first to one LAV power car, the other still has a now incorrect Kirk bogie. Being 4-car, I was planning to fit Hornby Ringfields both ends, without traction tyres, but the whole project has been on the back burner for a while, i'll let you finish your's first! Cheers, Brian.

Prompted by Clive's comments, i've added the triangular wooden luggage rack supports to the seating, although i'm still omitting the racks themselves, at least for now (never say, never). You'd only see them by looking up through the windows, with your chin on the track! I have also amended the profile of the pantograph well, it is now gently curved, presumably for water run off. That's the joy of discussing projects on these RMweb threads, I would never have known such details, until somebody pointed it out, so thanks everyone. Bodies are now in basic colours of early m.u. green with grey roofs. Note my long-lost red Triang-Hornby wheel-cleaning brush in the background, amongst the junk, found it the other day in the back of a cupboard. Cheers, Brian.

Is this more accurate for DC operation? I've moved both brake pipes to below the buffer beams, the ones on the cab front hang vertically, but for between cars i've curled them around as if coupled under the buckeye, as viewed from the side, and so that nothing gets tangled up. BK

Thanks Aden and Clive, I can now see at least one air-brake pipe in my photos (with a magnifying glass!), viewed to the left of the buckeye, presumably the other pipe is hidden behind this? When coupled with the buckeye up, would the corresponding pipes be connected diagonally underneath? Looks like I need to reposition my inner air pipes to the bottom of each bufferbeam, although of course they would normally be seen coupled. I think my mid-height sockets can stay where they are, i'm not modelling the inner control cables, but there would no doubt only be one per pair of coach ends, and the cars would be handed. The radiused, or slightly arched panto roof is probably for water drainage, not obvious from the side, only when viewed from the end, so i'm happy to leave as is. BK

I've added the dummy end detail to the remaining inner ends, then a slight puzzle dawned on me? On a typical AC Class 302-308 unit cab front, the two air-brake multiple unit pipes are prominently mounted in the middle, but where are they on the front of a 1956 DC unit? They certainly could run as 8-car formations, so either the flexible pipes were added separately each time they were coupled, or they didn't have any connecting pipes, relying on each unit generating it's own pressure, and the brakes being applied through the control system? When I added my inner end detail, I actually cheated and copied an AC unit end, finding a DC inner end pic proved impossible, but the DC unit would still require brake pipes and jumper cables between each of the four cars, so there's a chance they were to the same arrangement? Surely the DC units must have had some air-brake provision between units, otherwise how would a working unit assist a failed one, and release the brakes? BK

Well actually the section of the LTS from Fenchurch St. as far as Stepney East, and then on to Stratford, was energized at 1500v DC as part of the GE 1949 scheme. The idea was to operate a new service between FS and the GE, but it never happened, although presumably it could still be a handy diversion route. The route beyond Stepney to Shoeburyness and Tilbury has only ever been an AC electrified route. All the GE 1949 and 1956 DC schemes were converted to AC operation in the early 60s, along with the FS to GE section through Bow, with the addition of AC between Barking and Forest Gate, which enabled either London termini to be reached from either GE or LTS routes. The Bow route was mostly used for stock transfers between FS and Ilford depot, I believe some of the 1949 DC gantries still stand on this route, with possibly even some approaching FS? BK

Here's some progress with the Motor Brake Second, the bogies are DC Kits BR/SR sideframes attached to Southern Pride nylon plain bogies, with Hornby 12.5mm wheels, to reflect the smaller 3'3" size of those on power bogies, well 12.5mm is actually 3ft 1.5inches, but it's near enough and shows the difference from the trailer cars running on Replica BR bogies, with Jackson Romford 14mm wheels (3ft 6in representing the real 3ft 7.5in, which no doubt wore down to 3ft 6in? The sideframes are the correct wheelbase of 35mm (8'9"), although the SP bogies are 34mm (8'6"), the difference hardly shows. It's been difficult working out the underframe equipment, but by studying the few photos and the above film, i've cobbled up the arrangement the best I can. The re-positioned guard's van doors also needed some alteration, the blank doors needed new windows, which also became the inward-opening doors with droplights. EMUs don't just have jumper cables on the outer ends, i've added a representation of the inner end sockets and connections, plus dummy buffing plates in place of buffers. The pantograph is Sommerfeldt, borrowed from a DC Class 76 kit! BK

Hi Ray, We're firmly on the rival GE route to Southend Victoria with this project. Okay everyone, it's film show time with a Youtube copy of the classic 1956 BTF film on the very subject. Enjoy. BK

Here's my interpretation of the Southend unit cab fronts, the small L-shaped pipe is for the whistle originally fitted. When these units were rebuilt for dual AC c.1960/61, becoming Class AM7, these front ends were drastically altered, and the whistles were replaced with horns, mounted below the buffer beams. I think my SP whitemetal buffing plate on the left needs a little bit more filing down to horizontal, I believe Replica can supply plastic equivalents? BK

Roofs Update: Here's a not very exciting pic, showing where I have rationalized the roof layout by removing half of the moulded-on vents. Of course stupid me should have done this before I added the toilet pipes, but no harm done, it was just slightly more awkward (slaps own wrist). I can't vouch for the new vent arrangement being 100% Kosher, but it should be near enough, centre trailer photos are near impossible to find. It's the usual old story when modelling some of the more obscure units, plenty of front three-quarters shots and cab front pics, but very few of the middle of the unit (gnashes teeth in frustration). BK

Hi Paul, I wouldn't trust anything schoolteachers say, as the great GBS said "those that can, do, those that can't, teach". I'm not that much of a stickler on spelling, no problem with the occasional "ain't" or "it do be", but we must defend our langauge from American English, which is creeping in, with things like "onto". "Rooves" is not acknowledged by Chambers or the OED, I suspect "rooves" is an American spelling, anyone got an AE dictionary? Pronouncing roofs or rooves is rather like saying Shrewsbury or "Shrosebury". Correct spelling is like getting your roof vents in the correct order. Beekay.