Gibbo675

Hi Dave, The steam exhaust to the smoke box would be directed up the chimney via a curved pipe inside the smoke box in much the same way that ejector exhaust pipes are routed. I would suggest that so long as the pipe elbow on the smoke box side is placed somewhere near where the bottom of the petticoat pipe would be situated then you will be near enough to be authentic. Gibbo.

Hi Compound, My preference would be the locomotives and stock from the Gunvor and Peter Edwards illustrations with the look and style of the architecture and infrastructure from the John T Kenny illustrations. I was not altogether impressed by C R Dalby's illustrations even as a child although some were better than others. Gibbo.

Hi Dave, Its upside down for a start ! Have a look at the fourth photo down on this link: https://locoyard.com/2013/10/12/w24-calbourne/ The Westinghouse type shewn is a single stage with the steam driven cylinder at the top and the air compressing cylinder below. The steam inlet is top left, steam exhaust is top right and the lower right is air delivery. the air inlet is via a simple filter box which is situated in what may be termed bottom left, ie opposite the delivery outlet. The control valve looks as though it is operated via a rod running through the handrail which is why there is a pipe curving up and around the rear of the pump. The brass valve that sits atop of the tee piece is the governing valve which is why it has a small bore air feed running to it so that when the max pressure is reached the pump governs out and stops working only restarting when the pressure falls to a preset value. Hope that all makes sense, Gibbo.

Hi there, I've always liked the idea of a "Proper" version of The Railway Series locomotives and rolling stock rather than the not quite right RTR items that ate available. Do you have any more of the Railway series locomotives ? Gibbo.

Hi Brian, Both excellent and interesting work here. The photo shews well how much taller the Hornby model is, Is it too tall or not, do you know ? Do you have a thread ongoing shewing your work, I ask if only to make my task easier ! Gibbo.

Hio Brian, No need to apologise, all information is useful. The Modelmaster MM4486 will be looked into as soon as it is reasonable to do so. Thanks again, Gibbo.

Hi Brian, I've had a good look at Railtec including their search function already, they do sheet 7130, which I bought two of, that is for the BAA but they list nothing for the BBA. The only sheet that mentions BBA is sheet 6804 which are Railfreight logos for various types, BAA included. One reason I can't find anything might be that after looking at such a long list I go completely cross eyed ! In have plenty of time to keep looking for my paint has gone off somewhat and need some more anyway. Thanks all the same, Gibbo.

Hi Mike, I thought that 4ST was an epic play written by Johan Wolfgang von Goethe ! A poor effort at a pun however, "I am used to men that mock and scorn things beyond their comprehension." Gibbo.

Hi Folks, Work this evening has brought the BAA wagons, one of which arrived in the post this morning u to the same stage as the BBA wagons. There are only the side stanchions and the end structures to make up and fit before painting the bogies black and in time sourcing some more bauxite paint for the body frames. The BBA wagons are quite a bit larger than the BAA wagons from which they were developed, the frames are quite a lot deeper not just most obviously in the middle but also over the bogies and in the depth of the buffer beams. I shall have to have a good look on Paul Bartlett's site to see the best thing to do about the stanchions along the side of the wagons to see if I shall retain the uprights or cut them off as I did with the first batch of BAA's. The other thing I need to research is if there are any commercially available transfers for the tw BBA's or whether I shall adapt the ones that I have for the BAA's, does anyone know of any ? Gibbo.

Hi Folks, Here is some more progress with steel carrying wagons, this time the two BBA wagons. Strangely I found that they were easier to build than the BAA type despite being almost identical bye way of the method of construction. The only trouble that I have had is that one of the end structures became detached from the sprue and I have some how misplaced it, I thought it would turn up the moment I made a replacement from plasticard but it didn't. I decided to fit the rectangular buffers for no other reason than I don't have any other stock with rectangular buffers. After looking at lots of photographs from Paul Bartlett's site and also of various models it would seem that the style of decking varies in that the gaps between the corrugations are ether filled in or left open. Both the Bachmann OO gauge and Grafar N gauge models represent opened out decking styles but looking on Paul Bartlett's website some are definitely filled in between the corrugations and others aren't. For the BBA I have done one of each style and the remainder build of BAA will be of the filled in style, while on ebay today another BAA winked at me and so I shall have three to build making a total of eight. Wagons really are a good place to start should you wish to become confused as to what they should actually look like. Unfortunately the project will stall for lack of paint as my bauxite paint has somewhat gone off having a consistency of thick custard, it was on the turn as I painted the last of the previous batch. Decking with one partially filled out. One of each deck type also shewing the replacement part for the end structure. Gibbo.

Hi Martyn, My thoughts exactly, although don't hold your breath for there is the small matter of loads of other stuff to get through yet ! Gibbo.

Hi Martyn, Here are the missed dimensions marked * added to the original set for the Hornby model: Centre height of buffers - 14mm. Correct. Top of sole bar - 16mm. Correct. Length over corner posts - 104.5mm. 1.6mm too long. Width over corner posts - 31.7mm. 1.6mm too narrow ? Top of sole bar to walk way - 34.75mm. 2mm too tall Top of sole bar to cantrail - 27.2mm size unkown. *Width over side bracinging - 33.5mm. 1.6mm too narrow. *Width over hopper side sheets - 31mm Size unknown. *Wheel base - 60mm Correct. *Length over buffers - 115.8mm 0.8mm too short. *Height form rail - 50.75mm. 2mm too tall. It would seem that the Hornby model is on a chassis that is dimensionally correct despite being a little coarse, for length it is a little long and a slight too tall, it is also a slight narrow. I shall have to look to see if I may be able to remove the roof, cut the top edge of the hopper down and refit the roof for a more accurate model or whether or not it will reduce by too much the end dimension of the vertical part of the hopper sides. Gibbo.

Hi Martyn, Did you happen to find out how the dimensions of the Hornby model work out for as a true scale size model ? I know that the diagram that the Hornby model is built to also had suspension pedestals fitted in place of the "W" irons latterly as you have done with the Lima wagons. As the dimensions go it would seem that the height and width are much more of an issue than the length when assemble as a train especially as they are slightly different in any case. Gibbo.

Hi David, You are quite right, should a Schnauzer be a type of beard it would all make much more sense ! How rude, Gibbo.

Hi Folks, Due to a serious case of "woman trouble" compounded with the loss of a job at an engineering workshop I have a rather large project in need of a good home. The locomotive needs a boiler although the frame set is almost complete requiring the following: Valve and cylinder liners. End covers to fit. Cylinders to final fix. Piston heads and rings. Valve spindle, heads and rings Truck and tender springs. Collars and pins to valve gear to complete. Reversing shaft bearing caps to complete. Unfortunately I have no workshop capacity and that which I shall be building will only cater for full size motorcycles and not small locomotives. I would love to see the locomotive finished so therefore I am happy to see it go to a good home should anyone wish to either take on the project and earn themselves part ownership of what is so far built or should they wish make a serious offer. General view with Britten Replica for sense of scale. As you may note from the photographs the project is a 15" gauge LMS Crab and the bike is a full size replica. Should anyone be interested do please contact either by way of this thread or by PM. Gibbo.

Hi Folks, Here are the almost completed BAA wagons. I say almost complete for I have not yet painted the silver band around the OLEO buffer shanks, worse still, I dropped one of them and damaged the end structure. Fortunately I enjoyed building them so much that I have bought another pair of BAA along with a pair of BBA wagons and have already pinched a spare end out of one of the new kits to effect the repair which needs a second coat of paint locally. I'm not sure if there are transfers available for the BBA or whether I will be cutting and shutting the leftover transfers from the BAA transfers that I have spare. The left hand end of the odd one out wagon is the newly repaired end. Gibbo.

Hi [previously Little but now] Big Jim, The locomotive is GBFR orange if that's what you mean ! Gibbo.

Hi Corbs and Folks, Mr Corbs is quite correct in that the only difference between the two derivatives of the MSC Hudswell Clarke locomotives are the shape of the tanks. I know this for I worked upon both No.32 Gothenburg and No.70 while at Riley & Sons in Bury. Be aware that there are fillet plates at the front of the tanks and along the top of the boiler closing the gap between the boiler which are not initially obvious from looking at the drawing, and also that the centre set of wheels are flangeless. Another point of note is that very often coal was carried on the cab roof when in service with the MSC to extend range and trips to the coal stage, the same reason that the tanks were extended. The names of the locomotives were representative of the ports that were traded with from the docks of the Manchester Ship Canal Company, however the name plates were removed for fear of vandalism during the war years for some locomotive had German names such as Hamburg and some sounded German to those that vandalise things such as Gothenburg. Good luck with this latest project. Gibbo.

Hi Jim, I'm not quite sure what you want me to write so I shall simply tell you the truth of my own experience; I am well aware of how to machine cylinder blocks having done so myself, it is not the machining of the cylinder block that is the difficult bit but the fastening of it into the frames into exactly the correct position and orientation that is the tricky part, I know as much for I have done that also. While at Riley and Son's we had a special protractor that had an adjustable spirit level incorporated into a vernier that clamped onto the crank pin while at the same time locating into the axle centre, it was capable of measuring the radial displacement of a crank in minutes of arc in relation to the other crank pins. It was made in Paris by a specialist instrument and gauge maker and was came to us via an antiques dealer in Sandbach that contacted us asking what it was, Riley bought it on the spot giving what they asked for it. It turned out to be ex Crewe works where it was used for just the very purpose that I have described. It was used when we at Riley's manufactured the driving axles including the crank axle for Tornado, when after pressing the whole together the positions of the crank pins were drilled and the crank pins shrunk into position. They were then checked and the crank pins skimmed to finish size in the correct orientation on a large boring machine somewhere In Audenshaw. I can't remember the name of the firm but they specialised in machining fabrications and castings for the oil industry. When building up a crank axle you must be aware that all journals must be re-machined after being pressed together, the fitting and riveting over of the screwed keys and also that the centres must be re-addressed to compensate. The reason for this is due to distortion and minor misalignment in manufacture which was no different at Riley and Son's as it would have been in any other workshop. As Riley's did not have a crank grinder that work was undertaken by Mitchel Shackelton & Co. Patricroft. this was done to ensure that the crank throw was correct. Once the crank axle was complete, the wheels were then pressed onto the axles and proof machined before being sent for the crank pin holes to drilled and the pins shrunk into place. In theory, theory and practice are the same thing, in practice however, they are not. Gibbo.

Hi Corbs, The driver pictured, of No.70, is David Feather, when at Carnforth nearly 30 years ago he was a driver upon the 15" gauge railway there. Fittingly in view of this being Mr Turbo Snail's thread we knew him as Snail Rail for his steady progress in adhering to the time table. Most of the rest of us usually arrived quite early, and used more coal and water for some reason or other ! Gibbo.

Mr Turbo Snail, I might be nearly 50 but, as I remember from being under 7 or so, spot the difference picture games had the two pictures in question juxtaposed for ease of examination. Looking good all the same despite having to put my specks on to read the cheat line. I put my speck on because I couldn't be bothered to increase the zoom of the screen via the tool bar due to being old fashioned ! In addition to my, looking good all the same comment I feel that you are somewhat understating your activities with the term, "General Bodgery". Gibbo.

Hi Jim, As for the dimensions of the the 2:1 lever any slight inaccuracies that may be compounded in the building of the locomotive such as minor degrees of arc in either the building up of the crank axle, the alignment of the cylinders or even the working of the valve gear that may be compensated for in various ways. These include the drawing or jumping of rods appropriately, eccentric boring of bushes and the shimming of bearing blocks, occasionally all three. I was, some twenty years or so ago, involved in an investigation as to why 60007 would not run properly in back gear, despite running fine in forward gear. It was found that there were several discrepancies in the valve gear systems on both the left and right hand side of the engine which made for compounding errors including, unequal swing of the expansion links due to incorrect back set, uneven lift to the die blocks within the expansion links and incorrect travel to the middle valve. The uneven lift to the die block meant that the valve gear could not be accurately set for the left and right hand side were effectively working at different cut offs and so the lead figures for, mid, full and working cut offs could not be accurately recorded. There was also talk that the wheels were not original to the frame set despite being appropriately stamped, possibly from 60026 but uncertain, this bore out when the front and back dead centres were trammelled out and found to be very slightly inaccurate. Having the radial alignment of the crank axle match the inclination of the cylinders is most important as the wheels would have been manufactured to the set of the cylinders within the frames at the time of building. Various modifications were made that greatly improved matters but the locomotive would still not run well in back gear although we got it timed perfectly in forward gear. The reason for setting the locomotive so is that it spent a lot of its working time in forward gear upon the main line. When built the 2:1 levers would be adjusted to give the correct valve travel to suit that particular locomotive, the compensations being measured in the thousands of an inch over levers that are several feet length thus compensating for two sets of compounding errors in two sets of motion. Hi Phil, Should you look at the positions of the valve chests of either a Gresley or Bulleid pacific you will note that the valve chest of the middle cylinder is much closer to the blast pipe than the outer pair, and when running slowly there is a relative delay from the port face to the exit and chuff at the chimney compared to the middle one. On a Bulleid the port edges for the middle cylinder are about 18" from the tips of blast cap and the outer pair are approximately 10-12 feet away along a pipe with two 90* bends and an expansion bellows. The radial offset of the crank is 8* from the 120* position so that the piston is at front and back dead centre when the valve opens to its full lead steam figure due to the inclination of the cylinder at 8*, the valves being timed at 120* interval per full revolution of the wheel. Any questions just ask. Gibbo.

Hi Jim, What a well observed comment, it must be difficult thing to fill the pages of a magazine when we are all on RMWeb showing off for free what used to be in the magazines. I agree totally that you should work with what suits you and those that are sniffy about others work for such reasons ought to be ashamed of themselves. I like to build stuff from plastic models both RTR and kits, scratch built plasticard, all followed up by brush painting. My efforts end up on my thread and should others like and take an interest on what is posted then all the better. Gibbo.

Hi David, The crank axles of both Bulleid and Gresley pacifics are set at 120* with one crank offset to account for cylinder inclination, it is the angle of the cylinders that cause the staccato exhaust in both types. In the case of the Bulleid the cylinders are set at 1:40 for the outside pair and 1:7.75 for the inside, the valve gear is driven by a secondary 120* crank which is fixed to the crank axle via the chains. The angles at which the offset crank throws are set, without doing any sums, may well be the angles you note above. The reason is so that each set of valve gear drives the appropriate valve in relation to the inclination of the particular cylinder and also the reason for the uneven exhaust. The cylinders of the Gresley pacifics are set at similar angles but I don't know the exact figures. With the Gresley pacifics the conjugate gear is arranged to compensate for any slight difference in angle between the cylinders by way of the 2:1 levers. The 2:1 levers would only work at that ratio if all of the cylinders were on the same plane and therefore the ratio of the levers are altered to allow for the angular displacement of the cylinders where they are set differently. The reason for the highly inclined inside cylinder is so that the connecting rod clears the front axle when the crank is at bottom dead centre. This is the book to read, it will explain it all in matter valve gear: https://www.amazon.com/Locomotive-Valves-Valve-Gears-Jacob/dp/0951936719 Bulleid gear is not in the book but once you understand Walschearts gear then you will understand that the secondary crank takes on the function of the more normal return crank. I hope all that makes sense ! Gibbo.

Hi BW, There is this page on Railtec Transfers site which may be worth a look. http://www.railtec-models.com/community.php Railtec's transfers are top quality and would think that the recommendations for resprays will be of similar standard. Gibbo.