Regularity

Be sparing when applying it: if it gets into the bearings, it will lock them to the axle!

When I last did this, I used a cocktail stick to put a small drop onto the outside of the hub/axle interface.

You need to use Loctite anaerobic adhesives/sealants, such as 603, and not cyanoacrylate “super glue” for bonding an Alan Gibson wheel to a steel axle.

Hi Maurice,

 

I am struggling to recall the specific traffic. It was someone’s reminiscences about working for BR in a magazine a few years ago. Not sure, but I think it was fruit traffic from Kent. His point was that 20+ years after nationalisation, there was still rampant regional jealousy ruining a lot of the business due to a lack of what is now known as “joined-up thinking”. A very frustrating situation: I have seen businesses locked up due internal turf wars at senior management level, whilst everyone below silently screams in inaction.

I never knew until just now what the inside of a ventilated van vent looked like. Probably not going to have any impact of my modelling, except that the more I know, the greater my capacity to understand.

 

The situation circa 1970 was worse than you say. Not only were those wagons standing at Weymouth out of use for 44 weeks of the year, but non-BR design wagons (even if built by BR) were being scrapped whilst at the same time the Southern Region was losing traffic due to a shortage of vans. WR wouldn’ release those vans because they were “reserved” for use when WR needed them, not for when BR needed them.

 

Pre-nationalisation thinking was not limited to wagon design...

 

as for the mineral wagons, the GWR memorably tried to introduced higher capacity wagons under Felix Pole, but the mines were resistant. One reason was the need to raise the loading gear to accommodate taller wagons, but I think the main one was that capital investment in new things reduced profits, which is partly why the railways did not invest in better freight equipment in the thirties. The other reason was the burden of “common carrier” status placed upon them in the early days of the railways to protect the carrier business, a burden which was not removed until the 60s, rather than after WWI when so many surplus lorries came on the market and tipped the balance the other way: should have been part of the Grouping Act, really.

 

Thank you for a fascinating post, Maurice.

 

PS Fred Phipps does a 1:32 resin body for such a vehicle.

10 hours ago, Norton961 said:

Very impressive Dave, how the hell do you solder that lot together!

 

I’m guessing, but carefully...

On 24/02/2019 at 19:30, Portchullin Tatty said:

Wonderful locomotive (real and model!)

 

 

 

So much so that I was inspired to rejoin CRASoc!

Very nice. Very nice indeed.

“it has taken a while”

Really? I was amazed at your progress!

 

3 hours ago, wenlock said:

Hi Grahame, quite right!  Thanks for the appropriate picture from one of my favourite films!

 

That’s actually a very good idea!  If and when I extend the layout and model the other side of the bridge I would have all the necessary buildings already made!

Of course it’s a good idea!

If you have room for it, you could always build a small diorama with loco shed and water tank, as a display piece.

Where was the water tower located at Abbotsbury? At the loco release, or on the shed road?

Use your prototype inspiration as the source for, well, your inspiration... (Or possibly, as the well-spring for your ideas.)

 

Edit: if you have it that far down your loco release road, then tender engines running loco first to Sherton Abbas won’t be able to top up.

Somewhat after the time of posting, but when you have assembled your points and crossings, how do you remove them from the double sided tape I think I can see? Do you de-tack the tape a bit first, or dissolve it away using white spirit?

Quote

(alternative title 'nice bit of fluff')

 

Ah, but it wasn’t nice...

On 05/02/2019 at 16:00, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Well, they would, wouldn't they?

 

Banks don't like to pay out.

The difference between £500 and £500,000? 

If you owe the bank £500, then it’s your problem.

if you owe them £500,000, then it’s their problem...

Will you be adding a flywheel to the second shaft?

Maybe a bit late to the show with this question, but you don’t seem to have a catch point on the longer goods siding, the one which comes off the double slip.

Have I missed it?

A fiddle yard needs be little more than a broad shelf with a length of plain track, if you don’t mind a short delay while changing stock (but even then, on a real railway, the train needs to clear the section, and the next train in the opposing direction needs time to get through, too.)

If you don’t mind the observation, instead of half slates at the end of a row, slaters usually have a slate and a half. Nice to see it done properly with a gap between each slate.

Sorry to hear that, Dave. Get well soon.

 

As for your other dilemma, are you using DCC? If so, you could rig something up with a small relay or gearmotor to rotate a figure into/out of view via a function, using the standard module on the loco and an accessory only module on the coach. If on DC, you might be able to contrive a simple arrangement using a magnet on the end of a stick, or similar, to move a lever mechanically.

 

Amazing.

Battery powered milk frother, price a couple of quid, plus aa batteries.

Ok, it doesn’t shake, but it does stir.

 

Or try this - watch the video and read the post.

http://modelerssocialclub.proboards.com/thread/10689/homemade-vallejo-paint-shaker

Nice work, Dave.

 

Like you, I have added a few crumbs of coal to the inside of my PO wagons, but following this post yesterday (http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/113035-more-pre-grouping-wagons-in-4mm-the-d299-appreciation-thread/?p=3371960) I wonder if I shouldn’t have?

 

I do like to apply a very thin wash of gunmetal (non metallic) to the insides of wagons as the last stage, to bring out the grain. I am now wondering if that shouldn’t be the metallic version, followed by a very light burnishing with a clean brush to bring out a few sparkles, representing dust that got embedded in the planks?

I thought Duck was an 8750 class, at least initially?

 

The reason the GWR went in for saddle and later pannier tanks was to allow for free access to the motion. The position of your name plate would obstruct this. Could it not go on the side of the tank, with either no NWR, or just N and W either side?

 

Regardless of that, it does look superb in that livery!

That's very observant. I hadn't noticed anything myself but you're right.

It does show, doesn’t it?

 

I always say "never assume" but as with the smokebox door when you buy these kits you do assume that the most basic details are correct.

It’s surprising, isn’t it?What gets me is the uncritical “reviews” in the model press. Forget about a fraction of a millimetre here and there, this is 3mm and enough to upset the proportions of a well-balanced and even handsome prototype.

1463 appears to have a shorter wheelbase, or is that an optical illusion?

The K’s kit and Airfix RTR locos had incorrectly sized smokebox doors because the Roche drawing on which they were based had it wrong.

 

Nice collection of front-coupled tank engines.