Denbridge
-
Posts
1,359 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Exhibition Layout Details
Store
Posts posted by Denbridge
-
-
If you hadn't left that giveaway text in the rear of the first picture, I'd have believed this was real.
Top modelling.
'Toy train' is how the Indians refer to the DHR
-
For Protocab I think you need to be starting out, rather than established ... both in terms of stock and layout. Unless of course you are well off and want it! I buy my kit at shows where there tends to be a promotion. I buy them on a loco by loco basis as I build them and the last set cost £80. Its my second loco so far .. the first costing £75. The controller is comparable to any other system.
I think the price will come down just as it did with the DCC chips ... but that is still in the future!
However I was not advocating Protocab, or trying to persuade anybody ... just suggesting that we will all find justification for our own system and reasons not to change to another .... which I think you have just proved?
I wasn't knocking protocab, nor DCC, although cost is a factor, I find a well thought out analogue control system gives me fully prototypical operation. I'm happy to stay in the dark age
-
1
-
-
Interestingly, with Protocab radio control you have both more wires and perhaps less complication - of course assuming you can put up with the requirement to charge the battery! You have the two wires coming from the motor and linking to the logic board. You then have a small cable which has a plug which connects the battery to the logic board. You have another small cable and plug which links the charging point to the logic board. Finally you have a small cable with plug from logic board to proximity switch. All of these small cables with plugs come ready connected to the logic board and the only wiring required is soldering the two wires to the motor. However, you have no pick ups on the model ... so no arrangements and paths to find. You also have no issues with shorts as the loco is not connected electrically and nor is the track powered. You also have no issues with dead spots or dirt effecting pick up and therefore running. Wiring the layout is far simpler - particularly if you look at mechanical point actuation.
It strikes me that all the systems have pluses and minuses and when push comes to shove its down to personal preference. One makes excuses for one's preferred system and the annoyances of the out of favour system grow into over large problems, whilst the benefits are ignored because not sought.
Interesting system. But one of the things that makes me refuse to switch to DCC is cost. Judging by the website it is nigh on £100 per loco plus the initial outlay for protocab. I'll pass on that.
-
1
-
-
I fear that I am in danger of becoming a silly old person. Motivation has suddenly evaporated, partly because starting the sequence over again has become repetitive and a bit boring, and partly also because it is now morning at PN, but I still have strong light coming in from the wrong direction, so photography doesn't look right. As I can neither turn the room on its axis, or for that matter persuade the sun to rise and set in the opposite direction, there is nothing I can do about that.
Here are the last two images I have in store. The first one illustrates the lighting problem very well.
Apart from the fact that the effect on the tender spoils the shot, that side of the loco should be in shadow anyway, and that irritates me considerably. If I go up the other end, I get the problem with shadows which makes things very difficult.
This is the Up Nottingham, by the way, headed by Quicksilver.
So there you have it. Can I be bothered to take any more? Probably not. I've detected a slackening of interest lately anyway, so perhaps is now the time to call a halt.
I have only recently discovered your thread, being a Rmweb 'newbie' and find it most enjoyable and absorbing. I've read most of it from page one and Peterborough North, together with Little Bytham have given me cause to re-evaluate Finescale 00 modelling, particularly the trackwork. Thanks for sharing your wonderful photographs together with your descriptions and general thoughts. I for one, hope you'll continue.
-
2
-
-
Lovely John.
I doubt it's a LRM kit as the D2 is a recent addition.
There was a WM kit IIRC, although I've no idea of manufacturer.
I have a recollection of building a D2 for a dear friend, now sadly deceased. I.m pretty certain it was a nu-cast kit, but the grey matter isn't what it used to be.
-
This looks very much like a Hamblings model. I inherited one a few years ago along with several other models from that vintage. The family friend these belonged to commissioned a large number of models during the 1950's and 60's from Hamblings, Eames etc. Even have models reputedly built by George E Mellor, later GEM .
-
Mo would like to thank everyone for their well-wishes. I would, too.
She is much brighter, thank you.
Since I won't be at Stafford (Mo's recovery permitting) until tomorrow morning, I spent an hour or two taking some more pictures of LB this evening (regularly checking Mo's health).
There was a post some little time back (doesn't this thread steam along?) about how, if OO track is well made and well laid/ballasted, from less than head-on angles, it could well appear to be EM (even P4?). To test this premise, I took the following pictures (though you can hardly see a rail in one shot).............
Obviously, the over-scale flanges immediately rule out P4.
60030 on Afternoon Talisman.jpgSince 'streaks' were always valued most by us trainspotters, they're the motive power, and this little lot constitutes my fleet of the ones I've built for myself (from three different sources, none Hornby). The differences might be noticed. Apart from 60017 (beautifully-painted by Geoff Haynes) all these have been painted by Ian Rathbone (also beautifully). I suppose consistency in a class of model locomotives (ostensibly the same) should be the target, but it's more important that I've made these (over a period of time), so I live with the differences. I think the Pro-Scale ones are the best.
Can you tell the track is 'only' OO? You can certainly tell that one of the cattle wagons is branded in a far-too-late condition (I didn't notice as I weathered it) and the following van I made has rather 'freelance' numbers/lettering (still, if that method were good enough for Peter Denny, it's certainly good enough for me).
Finally, a picture of my home-brewed coupling, if anyone is interested - the one which seemed to cause a bit of a fuss recently, and was deemed 'superfluous'. All I can say is it suits me, is 100% reliable and is really cheap to make.
All being well, I'll see some of you at Stafford over the weekend.
These Pictures perfectly illustrate the point I was trying to make. Beautiful.
-
Thanks Denbridge,
Interestingly, both scenic-side track-makers on both Little Bytham and Peterborough North are called Norman, Solomon and Saunders respectively. It is both their professions.
Trains 15 unfitted freights.jpgNorman Solomon's work on LB.
Norman Saunders' work on PN.
From these low angles, I think it's fair to say that it's evident they're both OO. The ballasting on PN turned quite Saharan in colour over time, because of penetrating sunlight. It's since been toned down to a more realistic colouring.
00 will always stand out when viewed 'head on particularly with stock present, but when one looks at more usual views, the results are outstanding. I have returned to 00 from P4/EM for various reasons and am now regretting using Peco, having convinced myself it would be quicker, easier and cheaper ( I have huge stocks of Peco code 75 from an earlier HO German project). That said, with some work, the results aren't too bad
-
Thanks Paul,
Though it must be remembered that my scenic-side trackwork was made and laid by the finest track-maker in the realm, Mr Solomon. As far as I know 71000 is doing it all himself, which is very laudable in my view.
I think it's best that this correspondence (with regard to Basingstoke) comes to an end on this thread, if you (and others) don't mind please. Though, as you all know, I can be very argumentative, I hope I never (and never will) come across as pompous and very self-opinionated (though many might disagree with that statement).
As Anglian has eloquently pointed out, whether we differ in our various approaches to creating model railways is largely irrelevant (except it probably isn't if we want to learn something new).
I'd be entirely happy if this thread carried on................
Encouraging others to have a go for themselves.
Showing a very wide variety of skills, methods and techniques from a very broad spectrum of contributors (whom I thank).
Never dictating to others the 'right' way and never being so patronising as to inform folk that they must understand or know something. They'll find that out for themselves.
Always offering encouragement but never being afraid to give constructive criticism
Never descending into personal enmity and, particularly 'sniping'.
Any other aims or ideals?
It's because of the number of posters on here who do what's on the list I've just presented that I'm encouraged and helped in my own modelling projects.
Regards,
Tony.
Hi,
I have only recently come across your blog, being a 'newbie' to Rm Web. I am finding it both inspiring and hugely enjoyable, having read most of it from page 1, owing to a bout of severe ill health, confining me to barracks.
Little Bytham is absolutely beautiful in every way. Having always enjoyed Stoke Summit on many occasions, seeing those trains on your current layout has been a joy. Little Bytham and Peterborough North have led me to re evaluate my views of 00 gauge. The trackwork and ballasting are simply amazing. I really thought both of these were EM. A real inspiration. Thank you.
-
2
-
-
1. Threatening? where exactly?
2.how can coupling coaches so they perform in a uniform realistic manner and look convincing be a mistake? your method using Kadee couplings is in fact inferior. you still have daylight showing between your corridor connections. it matters not a jot what your so called professional qualifications are, they are hardly relevant to coupling MODEL coaches in a realistic manner, Tony and the many thousands of people who couple fixed rakes in the manner used, in varying formats have not made any errors whatsoever.
3. If you know anything of Mr wright, you would know he has built and been involved with several large, successful layouts, almost certainly better known than yours, however good they were. I personally am very impressed with Basingstoke, it is your habit of constantly attempting to belittle respected modellers to boost your own ego that i find offensive.
3. Pendon. Guy Williams was a very dear friend. What exactly were your contributions to Pendon? I'll look them up on the database I am compiling recording every individual who has been a modeller, guide, operator etc, since the 50's. I await to be impressed.
4. Interesting backtrack on your previous posts concerning GWR coaches. You were wrong, but aren't man enough to admit it. (So you have 10 Hornby coaches So what? I have 35 here being converted to EM, detailed and with kit built additions to form prototypical rakes. Once my current bout of ill health improves, these will form a thread on here.
5. I never said, nor implied, that Tony had copied Pendon. Your fixation of using Kadee's within fixed rakes is baffling. it looks inferior to the fixed bar method especially with the daylight between the connectors.
6.Yet again you choose to make insulting remarks. I don't need to invest in the books you mention. I have owned and used them for many years, together with many, many other books, publications, drawings and photographs.
7. If your idea of helping other modellers is to criticise, belittle, and insult, people as proficient, indeed more proficient than yourself, then you have a funny idea of 'helping'
As an aside, I do remember the German and Japanese layouts, they were very nice, but hardly the pinnacle of modelling. Being the biggest isn't necessarily the best.
When most of Basingstoke is equipped with mainly kitbuilt or highly detailed,modified proprietary loco's and stock, I will be very impressed.
Lastly, having had 4 private messages stating you have always had a bad attitude, or words to that extent, i think i am far from alone in finding your attitude offensive.
You may also notice that my original comment has received more likes and agrees than most of your posts.
-
Well obviously you are entitled to your opinion, even when what you say is threatening. Which is not clever.
If Mr. Wright whoever he is, makes fundamental mistakes I'm only helping him by explaining said mistakes. And yes it seems he is unaware of the interaction between the real life technology involved. As a professional railwayman I'm giving him the benefit of my knowledge. If Mr. Wright had been a railwayman he would have known that, and not made the error in the first place.
Your claim that Mr. Wright is one of Britains most advanced modellers, is not really supported by what I was shown on his page. Did he himself personally build these layouts you refer too. I think NOT. But I have personally built all my large exhibition layouts myself. And my first exhibition layout was a German one way back in 1979. My exhibiton layouts have attended many exhibitions, in both Britain and mainland Europe. So what exactly makes this Gentleman an advanced Modeller?
If your going to mention Pendon, you obviously are not aware that I was working on parts for Pendon layouts way back in the late 1970's, and I certainly don't remember anyone there with the name Mr. Wright. I do however remember Guy Williams the man who educated me in the delights of coreless motors !
You should re-read what I wrote about GWR coaches. You obviously don't understand the terminology of "Gangway" - the correct name for the connection between vehicles. And "Corridors" the internal part that runs the length of the coach in most cases. Because what I said was, that the internal "Corridors", were cleverly designed in a number of Collett coaches to have angled ends (chopping off the corner of the toilet compartment in some cases. Toilet compartments are inside coaches not outside !). So that they now directed you to the "Gangway" through which you passsed into the "Corridor" of the next coach. That was also angled, but on the opposite side of the train. Therefore you can walk in a virtual straight line even carrying luggage, without the need to negotiate sharp corners. Hence one of the needs for Left and Right handed stock.
With regards to Bow ended and Square ended stock, on the GWR. If you use the BSS type gangway connection which is designed to work with a Screwlink coupling. Which is flexible in its length. You need more space lengthwise for the BSS gangway design. Because it is a "Suspension" type flexible connection. This does NOT prohibit Bow ended designs, and I never said it did. But it does make the design a little more awkward.
So most GWR corridor stock was Square ended through the Dean and Churchward eras (1880-1921). But this changed a bit upon the arrival of Collett, who took up office in 1922 as CME. The date of Colletts arrival is important, as he came on the scene just before the "Big Four" were formed (1923). Now the problem here is HMRI (His Majesties Railway Inspectorate). They had already determined that as a result of a number of accidents. That the Buckeye coupling and Pullman corridor connection were a safer method in accidents, to couple coaching stock. So they recommended all the new companies adopt this. Collett initially agreed, and experimented with the system applying it to a small batch of corridor coaches. However the GWR Board decided against the costs of adopting it fully. So the coaches already fitted were rebuilt to conform with the BSS gangway and Screwlink coupling. However this had introduuced the Bow ended design to GWR corridor coaches. (A number of non corridor Collett designs but not all, did of course have Bow ends). So Collett continued to dable with Bow ended designs erratically. Because he was also churning out standard flat/square ended types. The problem of a Bow ended design utilising the BSS corridor connection required the BSS design to be shortened. Otherwise the Buffers would have had to be impractically long. In other words in corners the buffers may have "locked" and derailed the train. The recent Hornby Collett "Bow ended" corridor coaches being a good example of one of his "Bow ended" designs. I should know I have a set of 10 of them, and you will find reference to these models in a previous Post.
As regards Mr. Wrights coupling system I'm sure it works well. Your implication that he visited Pendon, and copied their methods, should ensure it works well. However the coaching stock on Pendon is mainly GWR and from an era pre-dating the adoption of the Buckeye coupling and Pullman connection by the SR and LNER Post 1923. So as I've maintained all along what Mr. Wright has made to couple stock internally within sets, which seems to require him to add cartridge paper "Concertina" connections in addition. Is more suited to LMS and GWR coaching stock. Because, as I have said before, these two companies did not agree to take up the Buckeye and the necessity to have the Pullman connection to go with that coupling. So the gap between BSS fitted stock is generally wider.
So if you think that lots a load of "twaddle", I would recommend you invest in something like J.H.Russells classic and extremely good book (in two parts) about GWR coaching stock. Which will also introduce you to the delights of "King and Queen posts" (parts of coach underframing). For SR coaching stock you can't beat Mike Kings book "An Illustrated History of Southern Coaches" published by OPC.
Finally I would say, that unlike some more experienced modellers, I am quite happy to try and help other modellers. As it is also part of my job here at the Railway Museum in Mora La Nova (Spain), where aside from being the International Liason Officer. I'm also teaching a number of Spanish guys how to build layouts from the bottom up. In addition I think you will also find that another RM member "Jack P" who lives in New Zealand, is quite happy about the detailed information I have been sending him, to try and help with his excellent "Southern Railway " models, and his beautiful resprays.
71000
1. Threatening? where exactly?
2.how can coupling coaches so they perform in a uniform realistic manner and look convincing be a mistake? your method using Kadee couplings is in fact inferior. you still have daylight showing between your corridor connections. it matters not a jot what your so called professional qualifications are, they are hardly relevant to coupling MODEL coaches in a realistic manner, Tony and the many thousands of people who couple fixed rakes in the manner used, in varying formats have not made any errors whatsoever.
3. If you know anything of Mr wright, you would know he has built and been involved with several large, successful layouts, almost certainly better known than yours, however good they were. I personally am very impressed with Basingstoke, it is your habit of constantly attempting to belittle respected modellers to boost your own ego that i find offensive.
3. Pendon. Guy Williams was a very dear friend. What exactly were your contributions to Pendon? I'll look them up on the database I am compiling recording every individual who has been a modeller, guide, operator etc, since the 50's. I await to be impressed.
4. Interesting backtrack on your previous posts concerning GWR coaches. You were wrong, but aren't man enough to admit it. (So you have 10 Hornby coaches So what? I have 35 here being converted to EM, detailed and with kit built additions to form prototypical rakes. Once my current bout of ill health improves, these will form a thread on here.
5. I never said, nor implied, that Tony had copied Pendon. Your fixation of using Kadee's within fixed rakes is baffling. it looks inferior to the fixed bar method especially with the daylight between the connectors.
6.Yet again you choose to make insulting remarks. I don't need to invest in the books you mention. I have owned and used them for many years, together with many, many other books, publications, drawings and photographs.
7. If your idea of helping other modellers is to criticise, belittle, and insult, people as proficient, indeed more proficient than yourself, then you have a funny idea of 'helping'
As an aside, I do remember the German and Japanese layouts, they were very nice, but hardly the pinnacle of modelling. Being the biggest isn't necessarily the best.
When most of Basingstoke is equipped with mainly kitbuilt or highly detailed,modified proprietary loco's and stock, I will be very impressed.
Lastly, having had 4 private messages stating you have always had a bad attitude, or words to that extent, i think i am far from alone in finding your attitude offensive.
-
Well, thank you. The couplings are an etch, produced by Bill Bedford and latterly available from Eileen's Emporium and Wizard Models. That said, I was going to post a link and now can't find them on either website. I shall have to ask both parties at Doncaster.
There is a cast version and i believe it may still be available, but I honestly can't now recall who now supplies it.
Thank you.
Thanks to Adam (below) I have one source. Should really continue making my own, but laziness is rapidly becoming my mistress the older I get
-
Here you go - Brassmasters: http://www.brassmasters.co.uk/coach_couplings.htm
Adam
many thanks. I've always made my own, but getting lazier the older I get.
-
West End Workbench
by jwealleans
__________________________________________
Comment posted by craigwelsh on Fri May 18, 2007 10:42 pm
jwealleans wrote:
Can i ask what the maroon paint is?
Err... it isn't! It's actually Railmatch Crimson. It's on a base of Railmatch Maroon (because I picked the wrong can up) but there are two coats of Railmatch Crimson on top. I can't tell now if it's the photo or it is a bit darker than the others I've painted but if it is so much the better for a bit of variety.
For LMS and BR Maroon vehicles I have in the past used the Precision LMS Maroon (brush paint) which seems a bit on the purple side to me.
Erm, oops! It does look good though and maybe if sprayed over a dark colour could make a good match for the Bachmann colour. I don't mind minimal differences in shades but my current paint job is totally different
. Precision dull BR maroon is also very purple and looks horrible sprayed over white. Think I need to look for this car paint..My parcels stock will get a lot of weathering over the top though eventually but some will have the original colour showing through.
Captain Kernow wrote:
jwealleans wrote:
Next time I'm in Halfords I'm going to try to find a can of British Leyland Damask Red which is apparently quite a good match as well.
One thing I've wondered when in Halfords picking up aerosol primer, is whether the car colours that are a close match to railway colours won't come out too glossy for our smaller scale models?
Someone on here showed a few models sprayed in gloss/satin black and oversprayed with matt varnish and this took the sheen off nicely.
__________________________________________
??? posted on Sat May 19, 2007 6:33 am
I'd have said much the same - satin/matt varnish tones it down remarkably. It's like when you put gloss varnish on a model and think you've overdone it, then when you apply the satin over the transfers all the detail reappears.
__________________________________________
??? posted on Tue May 22, 2007 3:23 pm
Put primer on these last night and I'm pleasantly surprised at how well the joins are hidden. Top and bottom are the two I've butchered, middle is an untouched full Third.
I've removed the moulded door handles and made holes for the grab handles. I did start carving off the door vents as well but the plastic they've used on these is harder than some other Kirk sides I've used in the past and I've given it up as a bad job. The moulding is very crisp on these so it may not be too much of a loss.
__________________________________________
Comment posted by mozzer models on Tue May 22, 2007 3:36 pm
looking good
have a look on my bench later as there will be a Y5
__________________________________________
??? posted on Thu May 31, 2007 5:43 pm
Some progress while the rain in France has fallen mainly on ... us.
It's been a few years since I put a Kirk kit together and some of the wrinkles had escaped me. The new ends I ordered were a little shorter than the sides so there was (and is) a bit of fettling to do. I've also come without the microstrip for the beading where I've cut in the middle of a panel so that will have to wait until we get home.
This is the full rake (Coopercraft didn't send the sides for the full brake before we left) perched perilously on the woodpile:
These are the two Dia. 9 composites. The pale yellow (it is yellow, honest) is an acrylic primer from a motor shop over here: I may try that as the basis for a teak finish on a future build.
__________________________________________
Comment posted by Jules on Thu May 31, 2007 6:52 pm
Looking good! I admire you doing five at a time - one at a time was enough to make me curse like a person who curses a lot!
__________________________________________
??? posted on Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:56 pm
Well, what with the rain and the flu and the kids I got bu**er all done on holiday: best laid plans and all that. There has been some sporadic progress since, however, leading us to the present state of play.
I've made up all the bogies (I use ABS ones as they're satisfyingly heavy, easy to make run freely and you can't see if they're out of square when they're underneath. The paxolin floors are good and solid, but now that the price of brass has gone through the roof I expect it'll be plastikard for the next ones I build. I've run out of channel and so these are awaiting solebars and attachment of body to floor.
The two brakes are moving on; I used a trip to Wales this week to make up the interiors from 20 thou plastikard and Coopercraft seating. The one on the left looks as if I cut it out on a moving train - it isn't really that bad. Note the packing on the left one - I made it according to the diagram, then had to adapt it to the slightly compromised measurements of the actual coach.
I did spend a large part of last Sunday making progress with the Wickham after weeks of inactivity. I see Charlie Petty's now doing one - well, mine's got an interior. It remains to be seen whether the idea of pushing it with a Gandy Dancer will work well enough to get it over baseboard joints....
__________________________________________
??? posted on Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:49 pm
The heavy rain is having one positive effect - I'm getting a bit more modelling done. I've done a bit on all of the coaches today but concentrated on the D42 brake which was the furthest advanced (probably due to having the lowest scratchbuilt content). It has been pulled out of a full kit while all the others are just ends, sides and roof.
Fitting buffers has made the whole rake look a great deal more advanced:
while this one has had the underframe fittings added and only needs jumpers, steps and other details before it's ready for the paint shop. Then we're waiting for SWMBO to paint the Preiser figues which came on Saturday morning and she's all done. The ride height needs looking at as well - it looks as if someone's dropped half a dozen paving slabs into the boot at the moment.
__________________________________________
Comment posted by Jules on Mon Jun 25, 2007 9:15 pm
Looking good. Next time I make another one of these, I think I'll try the ABS bogies
__________________________________________
??? posted on Wed Jul 04, 2007 3:48 pm
This week I have mostly been finishing interiors.
Some progress on the rest of the coaches - more pics when there's some paint on.
SWMBO also now has 100+ Preiser people to paint before we can seal these up.
__________________________________________
??? posted on Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:39 pm
Suddenly it really feels like these have made progress. I've ground to a halt on the bodies until Mr. Cleal delivers more materials for steps, jumpers, etc, so I decided to make the roofs fit. They were all awful - around 2mm over length even on those coaches where I hadn't butchered the sides. So they were all chopped in half and reglued, matching each one to a specific coach so as to avoid tears when they finally have to be made to fit.
Suddenly they look like coaches and the whole thing feels like it's taken a huge leap forward.
The assortment of primers is an attempt to vary the shade of the final finish as both carmine and cream are fairly transparent colours.
__________________________________________
Comment posted by iL Dottore on Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:23 pm
jwealleans wrote:
This week I have mostly been finishing interiors.
Oh I DO like those
Any chance of a blow-by-blow description of how you did `em?
__________________________________________
??? posted on Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:07 pm
Not really rocket science - in fact it's all plastikard. I cut a 40 thou 'floor' to fit the coach - fairly snugly as you don't want it rattling about when it's all sealed up. There are screw heads sticking up through the floors of the coaches and the holes to accommodate these help hold the floor in place.
I then put the floor in the coach and mark the divisions between each compartment so they match the sides. That is quite important - I did the first one while travelling and worked from the diagram, only to find the side wasn't quite accurate and I had to move the partitions.
The compartment side I had to experiment with to find the most rigid thickness which was still easy to cut: I ended up with 15 thou as the best compromise. It has flexed a little after being stuck in place but that won't be visible once they're in the completed vehicle. I did use a Kirk one for proportions of window to panelling - from memory it's 23 mm high, so 10 mm panel, 10 mm window and 3 mm above. I had to work out rough proportions for the windows and vertical bars for each compartment as well; I ended up leaving 2mm between windows, which made the central (door) one just a little larger, which seemed to work. In a third class compartment (6'2" or 25mm) you get 2mm, a 5 mm window, 2mm, a 7mm window, 2mm, another 5mm window and a final 2mm. Measure in from the sides and you end up with an even distribution of apertures even if your overall measurement is slightly out.
Rule all that onto the plastikard and cut it out. Slowly and patiently. I could only do one a night with plenty of breaks and a new knife blade. I take my hat off to David Jenkinson and those panelled coaches he used to produce.
Once you've got your corridor piece, cut out the compartment partitions. The corridor is 2' wide (8mm) so you can work out width using that and the height is the same as what you've already cut.
Stick together against a piece of wood to keep it square and allow to dry. The (inaccurate) toilet partitions are marked out using the interior in the coach and measuring a straight line between the corner of the last compartment and the far side of the corridor connection.
The seats and arms are Coopercraft's own. Arms in first class only, obviously. I've forgotten the shelf in one of the coupe compartments.
The colours are as per Michael Harris. The LNER mainly used different shades and finishes of wood, so I've used Humbrol 62 for the sides, 186 for the floor and 133 in first class where the finish was apparently darker. The seats ('fawn rep' in Harris) are Humbrol 93 and the first class ones 77 (? - I think). The first class will have antimacassars and I'll use Tiny Signs pictures as well.
Leave to dry and instruct wife to begin painting passengers.
Et voila!
__________________________________________
??? posted on Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:05 am
About time I posted an update. I struggled with masking the sides to spray the red (cheers to Brian - Mozzer- for the tip about euro tape) but we're about there now. Once the next Mainly Trains parcel arrives I'll have enough lining for all of them as well.
I've been adding in other details on the interiors, painting a lot of little people and getting the shells looking something like. Last night I decided to move one of them forward just so I felt I was getting somewhere.
This, then is one of the brake thirds with lining added, off-black paint applied and the roof posed in place.
Here is a closer view of the end showing the added jumpers, toilet fillers and an attempt alarm gear. It would be really nice if someone did a set of parts for the alarm gear as I don't feel I've got terribly close (but at least it's represented).
__________________________________________
Comment posted by mozzer models on Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:39 am
that looks very nice i am glad the tip worked for you
__________________________________________
??? posted on Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:53 pm
While I've been short of 'E's I've been getting the interiors ready to go and using those invaluable Preiser seated figures which Mrs W has been sporadically painting.
Pictures by Tiny Signs, mirrors from cooking foil stuck to A4 paper. Mirrors should be oval - does anyone know where you can get an oval hole punch? The window transfers are HMRS although I'm waiting for some from John Peck (can we still talk about him?) to try.
We seem to have a group of synchronised arm folders in this coach...
__________________________________________
Comment posted by number6 on Tue Jul 31, 2007 3:16 pm
Splendid! Nice muted 50s colouring there.
Hope that lav is locked out of use
I'm quite taken with these coaches. I had my fill of coaches last year [too many compartment door handles to form] but now I'm itching to get back to another batch. There is so much work in them but these are going to be a treat.
cheers
Raphael
__________________________________________
??? posted on Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:41 am
Now the sun's threatening to come out here's the first one of this batch all but complete. Brake 3rd to Dia. 146 - still needs just the corridor connectors adding, the ducket glazing and weathering once the paint's properly cured (and I've completed the other 4).
Incidentally, number6, I forgot to say how pleased I was to see someone notice the muted colours on the passengers - we did actually think about that and do it deliberately so your comment was quite gratifying.
Completely invisible inside the finished coach, of course, but I get that warm glow...
__________________________________________
??? posted on Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:14 am
The end is finally in sight for the Gresleys - they can now cure for a couple of weeks before weathering, corridor connectors and final troubleshooting. I had some running problems with them on the club layout (chosen because the track is like a rough sea) but we are gradually working through these.
This is the completed 4 set which was the original project:
From front to rear:
Brake 3rd to D41
.. and one of those cruel closeups which shows how hard it is to mask that beading successfully. It does show what a difference the MJT grab and T handles make to these coaches - well worth the effort.
CK to D9 - one of the 'cut and shut' jobs in the rake:
TK to D141 - this is as near the straight Kirk kit as I get:
BTK to D146:
.. and this is the only difference, the ducket. Again those lovely MJT handles make all the difference and save a very fiddly soldering job.
This is the odd man out - I did two of the Composites in case I screwed one up but they both came out quite well. The intention is to weather this one more heavily and add it as a strengthener, or use it in a separate rake.
The interior is visible but you have to get pretty close to see it. You can also see where I made the holes for the commode handles in the wrong place. The window signs are John Peck's.
For my next project - all the reading I've been doing around these has put me in a carriage frame of mind. There should be a full brake to go with these but Coopercraft haven't had any sides since May, so while I'm waiting I wondered about a quick project which might be done on the cheap...
Does anyone remember these?
I bet there are hundreds lying unwanted on swapmeet tables and available for pennies. This has been in the parental attic since the mid 70s.
Comparing this (D329 TK if you want to be technical) to the Isinglass drawing showed it to be about 4 mm over long but apart from that a pretty good match. Hornby have obviously used a standard end and underframe at the time and they've stretched the side to fit, so there's no single section you can remove to shorten it. That said everything is in the right place relatively and the overall length is actually spot on - the ends they've used haven't got the steep angles of the Thompson original.
Anyway, as long as you don't put them next to the new Bachmann ones I don't think it will show.
This is what I had left when I had stripped it down and thrown away what was useless:
I've filed all the detail off the ends and drilled the sides for more of those MJT handles. The buffers will have to go. The roof has also been filed flat.
This is what I then added in:
Floor from 40 thou plastikard, interior a mix of 30 and 15 thou as described earlier in the thread and solebars from 1/8" Evergreen channel. The bogies are what was left from the Kirk kits I butchered for the Gresleys and the wheels were donated by a club colleague.
This is the interior so far - these coaches had vestibules one third and two thirds of the way along their length, so the compartments were in little clumps. Notice also that the solebar is stuck to the side of the floor rather than the bottom. The sides have a lip underneath them (they slotted into the old underframe) so they do sit 'on' the floor rather than sliding down over it as the Gresleys do. The solebar has to meet the bottom of the Hornby side, so you have to arrange it like this.
Your thoughts/comments appreciated.
__________________________________________
Comment posted by mozzer models on Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:33 pm
Very Nice there mate the blood & custard look superb
& i will be following the Thompson as i have been looking at the 10 i have from when i was a kid
will you be painting the thompson Blood & custard as well it will be a lot eazer to mask up & will you be flush glazing it:lol:
__________________________________________
??? posted on Fri Aug 17, 2007 1:12 pm
will you be flush glazing it
The man from SEF, he say yes...... and yes they (there are two) will be blood & custard.
__________________________________________
Comment posted by Jules on Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:40 pm
Those look great - I might have to have another go at some of those myself.
__________________________________________
??? posted on Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:50 pm
Well, this is certainly a quicker project than the Gresleys up to now and as Brian pointed out the sides are a damn sight easier to mask.
Here, after Sunday evening's efforts, is progress to date:
Sides painted and now awaiting lining; roof detailed and primed and now to fill and smooth; ends detailed and repaired where one corner broke off in sympathy with the old buffer it was glued to.
Interior built and painted; just awaits fitting of seats (drying), details and the odd passenger. There seems to be very little information about moquette colour for the seats in these vehicles (it's a conversation we've had on here before) so based on the LNER CA website these seats will be red with black patterning which was certainly a BR period scheme. I've also left the 'grainy' effect on the interior deliberately in case the larger windows on this coach make it more visible than on the Gresleys.
__________________________________________
??? posted on Tue Aug 21, 2007 8:47 pm
This appalling 'summer' we're allegedly having prevented outside pictures so we're stuck with what I can shoot in the workshop.
The sides are now lined, numbered, varnished and ready for the flush glazing. Trial fitting shows it to be very flush indeed (in fact a s*d to get in) so this will be undertaken when I'm firmly in the mood. These have to be numbered as the 1947/48 builds as they went over to rounded corners in 1949.
The interior has had the seats and glazing fitted. Sign of the changing times - in a 7 compartment coach, only one is non-smoking.
Most of the evening was spent on the underframe - I need the body assembled in order to set the ride height, but the central gubbins was able to be assembled. Trusses from the Kirk kits butchered earlier, with cross bracing added; the rest Comet and MJT.
__________________________________________
Comment posted by mozzer models on Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:11 pm
Looking Good
__________________________________________
I've just come across your blog and am finding it very interesting. May I ask who makes the cast brass Carriage coupling units you've used?
-
Very nice, although Tony Wright has made the classic error of not understanding the difference between Buckeye coupled stock with Pullman connections. And BSS gangways with screwlink couplings. What he has added would go much better on LMS & GWR coaches.
Above: Using Bachmann's own clip in brake hose coupling (takes but a second to install) this rake of BR Mk1 coaches obtains almost real life closeness, and costs nothing extra, in monetary terms or time. Adding concertina gangway connectios to SR/LNER/BR types with Buckeye couplings makes the models more unrealistic.....
On Bachmann BR Mk1's (as seen on the link you gave) you need to add Kadee working Buckeye's, or do as I've done in the photo above. Then you can have the corridor connections (as fitted by Bachmann) virtually touching. Without any neccesity to make the gap between the vehicles larger to fit totally superfluous and unrealistic concertina gangway connections. As these items are realistically only suited to BSS gangway type vehicles with screwlink coupllings such as LMS & GWR stock with flat/square ends. Rather than bow ended LNER/SR/Pullman and BR types that used rigid Buckeye couplings and short semi-rigid Pullman type gangways !
71000
Firstly, I am enjoying your thread, this will be an impressive layout. However, I think you need to take a careful look at how you post YOUR opinions. To state that Tony Wright has made classic mistakes and to infer he is less knowledgeable than you is complete twaddle. Mr Wright is one of the UKs most experienced modellers as well as being involved with several large successful exhibition layouts plus his superb Little Bytham. his coupling method works very well indeed and in fact is very similar to that used by Pendon Museum. I will also add that a lot of your so called knowledge is complete garbage, especially with Regard to GWR carriages. You state the GWR used offset corridor connections. Rubbish. You also state they didn't use bow ends on their carriages, again total twaddle.
I will continue to enjoy your thread, though please, reign in the "holier than thou" attidude, especially when you aren't certain of the facts.
-
2
-
Painted myself into a corner?
in Layout & Track Design
Posted
I've been reading this thread with interest. Having seen the plan develop through its various forms I'd have to say I agree with 'Stationmaster'. If I were to build something like this the plan in #72 is the one I would adopt. All of the others, while having nice elements, have too many potential problems, be they operational, appearance, access, etc. The plan in 72 has all of the operational elements without unnecessary future hassles. I've found through hard experience that it is all too easy to over-design.