Regularity

Not currently in stock, but here you go: http://www.modelrailways.tv/132-rolling-stock-page-1.html

Not stub axles, no. The axle goes all the way across, but the axleboxes are outside the wheels . Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

Note also that the rear axle has a strengthening plate around it, suggesting a need to address a weakness. Such as would arise from the inside frames stopping short at the firebox.

Based on the well tanks on the Furness Railway, plus sight of drawings for other engines of this wheel arrangement, I can offer the following. The rear carrying wheels are only carried in the outside frames - this keeps the springs and their mounts away from the firebox, keeping the wheelbase down. The front carrying wheels are (usually) also carried only in the outside frames, for the same reason with respect to the cylinder block. It is important to keep these carrying axles as close as possible to the firebox and cylinder block to keep stresses down on the frames. The middle, driving, wheels are supported by both the inside and outside frames, with axleboxes either side of each wheel. Early GWR broad gauge engines also had a fifth bearing, in the middle of the axle. (There was room!) The inner frames ran above the outer axles, if they reached that far. Now the fun bit... Where did the inner frames begin and end? Think of them as being the braces to the belt provided by the outside frames. These latter are the main structural component of the locomotive, as everything else is fixed relative to them. But the role of the inner frames is to support the power unit, i.e. the cylinders and the crank axle, plus valves and eccentrics. As such, the inner frames have to begin by being bolted/riveted to the cylinder block, and must go beyond the driven axle. Since they will need joining together, (or keeping apart!) then a spacer of some form will be needed beyond the reach of the cranks and connecting rod big end, in addition to that provided by the motion bracket (which is also quite possibly supporting the mid length of the boiler). This will have to go in front of the fire box. On the drawing you have, the bottom of the inner frame is quite clear between the leading and driving axles, but there is no indication of this besides the firebox. It is likely that both the inside and the outside frames supported the buffer planks at the front, but only the outside frames at the rear: it is also likely that there was no footplate in front of the cylinder blocks. The outside frames may well have been a sandwich with thin plates either side of a substantial thickness of wood, necessary due to the fact that the high quality steels which rendered this unnecessary lay some years in the future: the Furness engines had outside frames composed of 5/16” plates sandwiching timber of 3 ⅜”, or 4 in total. You could easily cut the outside metal frame from 5 thou sheet and emboss it to represent rivets, and sweat it onto a piece of 1mm or so metal. How much of this you actually follow is up to you. It is perfectly possible - and a lot easier - to build a working inside framed chassis, and to make the outside frames cosmetic. I know I would, and having done it once the same way as the prototype, so would the best modeller I know!

Puts me in mind of the Furness Railway colours, designed to be indicative of hematite ore. And I agree with Derek: that’s a lovely engine.

When modellers bemoan “finescale”, they overlook things like this: finescale modellers did this as a matter of routine, and wrote about how it improved the running. As manufacturers started to realise that model railways is a hobby for serious adults, and no longer about train sets on the carpet, they started to pay more attention to fidelity and quality. This is true across the hobby, in all popular scales, not just American outline H0. (Look at the Lionheart pannier tanks, the latest Grafar offerings, Hornby’s re-tooledFlying Scotsman, etc...)

I agree. Until I spent time getting to better understand the background to North American (not just US!) railway practice, a lot of it seemed weird, but in actual fact once the different circumstances (outside of lines with a heavy passenger traffic) are taken into account, it makes perfect sense - and if it didn’t, then it would be my failure to understand the prototype, not the prototype itself.

I remember wondering why two wagons I built as a pair were wider than all the others, with headstocks that weren’t full width. When I cut the floors out, I forgot to subtract the thickness of the sides... ...or there’s the six wheel brakevan where I built a sub frame for the axleguards, axleboxes springs and brakes, with the foot boards mounted on the body. This all meant that painting was much simplified. And when painted, the two were united and something didn’t look quite right - and the painted finish drew attention to it. I had built it with a 5’ + 5’ wheelbase instead of 5’6” + 5’6”... That was the last time I used superglue to join the two parts together.

Better to find out now, rather than any further down the road. But still a bummer.

Damask red from a rattle can, applied over a red oxide primer.

As with everything, you get what you pay for - and cheap purchases end up costing more.

I agree, Don, but in the quote provided, Cyril was dogmatically making a distinction between Model engineering and railway modelling which isn’t necessarily true. It is possible to build everything and achieve a comprehensive working layout that is operated in accordance with prototype practice. I don’t disagree with his opening statement: we all need to find our own fulcrum for the balance between enjoying the building and enjoying the operating, but in my mind, if he had ended with, “...short cuts... ...may have considerable validity” then it would be a different story. Better still, Don, to also point out that this does not mean that some modification to the purchases won’t be required.

Smith’s 3-link couplings, per pack of four pairs, are about £9.50 assembled, and £6.20 I assembled, or nearly £2.40/£1.55 respectively per pair. I haven’t included postage costs. So about the same for someone in 00 wanting to use more prototypical couplings, if they are prepared to put the links on the hooks, etc. £1.60 for a pair of working automatic couplers with magnetic remote uncoupling capabilities that look reasonably like the prototype seems quite cheap. I suppose that if you have 100 cars to convert, then it is quite expensive, but if you can afford 100 cars, then it may not be such a consideration...

I see no ships!

I get the point; like many of Cyril’s aphorisms there is a starting point for debate. However, having met him a small number of times (and had my perception of him confirmed by others who knew him far better than I, such as his son) I know that Cyril wasn’t trying to start a debate, or suggest that every modeller has the “right” (whatever that means) where to draw the line. No, Cyril was being dogmatic. If you disagreed with his point of view, he simply talked over you and simply refused to accept a counter argument. This is a shame, as he had some cracking ideas and was an exceptional journalist.

This is great: stop-motion watching the glue dry!

It is entirely possible to achieve an operating layout relying 99% (some of the coaches use etched zinc sides and ends from the late Trevor Charlton) on your own resources: http://www.s-scale.org.uk/gallery9.htm

A real sausagist would make his own.

That texture is nicely done. How did you go about - different grit sandpapers?

Good: I didn’t want to be the only one.

Yes, but as I pointed out at the time, they were sat on the same table as the quiz setter (you).Coincidence? So you say.

The longest “run” of turnouts you have is five, so positioning them will determine how long the various spurs will be. Sounds like you will have enough space, though. You probably have enough space to use #8 turnouts, which will look and flow much, much better - if you can also increase your minimum radius, then so much the better, too. As to the specifics of the arrangement of the tracks, I cannot comment - presumably you have taken some prototype locations as your reference points, and drawn inspiration from that. There are two important factors in a layout design: does it look believable, and can you operate it without too much complication. The real thing had no desire to make shunting difficult, as this increased costs, and doing things properly at the right pace is perfectly enjoyable.

You could always buy them:https://youtu.be/vS-bFTzymuA