RLWP

<gratuitous image of Greater Britain>

1 hour ago, cliff park said:

In the early days of PAT we once had a contractor come into our (electronics) workshop, fail all 17 of our computer monitors (old fashioned tube type) and cut all the mains leads off. Why? Because he was doing a check to see that metalwork was earthed, put one probe on a screw in the case and the other probe on the earth pin of the plug. But the screw he picked simply screwed 2 pieces of the plastic case together. He had had the PAT course the day before, we were all apprentice trained electronics engineers, but what we said meant nothing to him.

When worried about the effect of PAT testing on our computers, we kept an eye on the tester. We eventually caused him a problem by pointing out the new SUN machines we had had separate leads, so labelling the plug was a bit pointless

He stopped testing and went to ask for advice, I don't remember seeing him again

Richard

Those buffer beams are very distinctive

Richard

3 hours ago, whart57 said:

 

Worm gears also impose end loading on motor shafts, and I'm told that Faulhabers don't like that.

A Faulhaber driving through a worm gear in a Backwoods Miniatures Hunslet:

Richard

1 hour ago, Argos said:

Hi RLWP, 

 

I was showing the smaller motors to highlight the range available. On most of the pages linked there are options for 8, 10 and 12mm motors that will offer more power.

 

That said I would expect any model train load for the period to be light anyway.

If the Hackworth gear gets a bit out of alignment, that Wren struggles to move itself. If things are OK it manages three small vee tippers on the flat

I think that equates to 1/4 of an SG wagon 

I didn't spot the bigger motors, I'll have another browse

Richard

I would avoid those really tiny motors. I have an 009 Wren with one in the firebox:

It really isn't very powerful. 

There are Faulhaber motors around 8mm diameter which are much more suitable

Richard

54 minutes ago, Nick Holliday said:

I have received the impression that often the design would be simply a specification for the number of compartments and their class, to fit within the assigned underframe, and the foreman would sketch out his proposals for the men to work to. Yes, there were lots of drawings produced, many of them thankfully saved, but I understand that many might have been drawn after construction, with the draughtsman measuring a finished vehicle, the drawing being more for record purposes, preserving in aspic any quirk that the selected coach had. 

I'm afraid this just isn't right, Nick. Otherwise the windows and seats wouldn't fit

By the late 19th century, this was a mass production industry. Somewhere in this thread is a reference to the hundreds of identical six wheel third class carriages Wolverton built. And I mean identical

ISTR when the Picnic Saloon Trust  got themselves a 30' 1" underframe for their body, even though they had never been together the fixing bolt holes aligned perfectly

There are some good pictures of the standardised parts the LNWR used on their site

Richard

7 hours ago, wombatofludham said:

 

5) Last time I checked the sky hadn't fallen in. 

Have I missed anything?

I'm not sure about this bit, a lot of sky in liquid form seems to be falling around here

Just now, t-b-g said:

Any chance another gauge war could have a thread all to itself rather than clutter up an already busy thread about these carriages?

 

It has been done to death and back again many times on RMWeb but if folk really want to do it again, it really doesn't have to be here, does it?

I actually launched as a reminder that even the most fervent modeller has to make compromises. It's the amount of compromise you are prepared to accept that probably separates us all

My compromises don't extend to pretend L&NWR carriages, it's completely OK with me if other people do

Richard

27 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Any model seeking to depict the real railway involves some compromise. 

Can anyone remind me of the compromises in EM and P4? I'm imagining it will be around tread width, flange size and flangeways

Richard

34 minutes ago, whart57 said:

Once upon a time I had a copy (repro) of Whishaws Railways of Great Britain. It disappeared in a house move unfortunately. I seem to recall that aside from some excellent drawings of 1840-ish locomotives and stock, it also had a chapter on the author's system of "Reciprocating Railways". The idea was to save on track construction by using single track lines efficiently. Anyone know more about it?

Is this it?:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WrU5AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=wishaws+Reciprocating+Railways&source=bl&ots=4DbNoGn2T8&sig=ACfU3U2nOHgeFGysmre0SiiEYKm2XH7tCA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwib9-mRlZnlAhUxVBUIHU24CEYQ6AEwA3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=wishaws Reciprocating Railways&f=false

Richard

This just typical of this forum, and the OP in particular. I've been modelling in 4D for years - another backwards step for the hobby

Richard

(will there be another thread for those choosing the 'other' option to apologise in?)

51 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

"If we can't build a canal, then a railway will have to do"?

Certainly. While Blisworth tunnel was being dug there was a tramway over the hill

You can move a lot more stuff with one horse on water than on a tramroad

Richard

52 minutes ago, Dana Ashdown said:

Tri-ang's Rocket has a small motor in the engine itself, with all the pickups on the engine wheels. Consequently the engine is definitely oversized for OO, but I presume the tender is fine. However, because the engine is self contained, I would imagine it would be suitable for other projects.

 

Dana

Thank you, I wondered how they managed it!

Richard

41 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Another option might be the truly tiny drives that 009 modellers extract from Japanese N scale trams. They would need axle extensions, but it wouldn’t be hard to turn-up a combined part-axle and wheel, bored to fit the existing axle.

Compared to NG locos, early steam engines should have enough internal space to hide a motor somewhere - I'm assuming we are talking 4mm modelling here. 7mm and things start to look positively spacious.

Or put the motor somewhere else, like Backwoods did with their 009 Fowler:

The motor is in the tender with a shaft drive to the gearbox in the firebox

Out of interest, how did Triang do their Rocket? Does it have strange proportions, was is it made overscale?

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Triang-OO-Gauge-Stephensons-Rocket-Parts-for-Spares/293270136358

Richard

3 minutes ago, Hroth said:

 

Again it might have been in "Red For Danger" so it may well be an anecdote of times gone by!

 

I also think it is in Red for Danger, somewhere. That's a good reason to reread it

Richard

7 minutes ago, Nick Holliday said:

Another thought, just to put things into perspective, is that much of the work in the carriage shop would be carried out with few or no drawings.  Whereas on a locomotive it was vital that certain elements, at least, were built to critical dimensions and tolerances, and required the input of several different departments in the works, the bulk of a carriage was, at least at the time we are talking about,  in the hands of the joiners.

On some railways, perhaps. Like many things they made. L&NWR carriage doors are interchangeable between vehicles because Wolverton built on a production line with jigs. 

There must have been a time when what you are suggesting was true, this is the problem with lumping 100 years of development into a time called 'pre-grouping'. It's not like 25 years of 'Big Four' for instance

Hattons seem to be moving their project along nicely

Richard

4 minutes ago, WM183 said:

If I could hazard one more to ask you folks about... this one? It's much less clear and farther away.

Where did you find that image? That would help work out what it shows - it's a preserved line, and I think I've seen a very similar image in one of the magazines recently

Richard

Strangely enough, I drop in here for interest and inspiration, and perhaps to learn something about early railways

Richard

2 minutes ago, Ruston said:

It's a discussion, not a modelling thread. IMHO it has wandered way off-topic but, hey, no one's forced to read it...

No, but it would be nice to occasionally find some early railway modelling in here. Otherwise people will start a new thread

Richard

They appear to be as close to centre as possible while avoiding the coupling hook, bending the pipe or introducing more joints

Richard

3 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

I'm in two minds about the lateral position of the vacuum pipe. It tends to be easier to connect pipes between adjacent vehicles if they are mounted offset from the centreline. Or is this thinking too modern?  Whadjya reckon? (I've shown two alternatives.)

 

Also, now the buffers are a more respectable length, the vacuum pipe length might need to be a tad longer. (There may even be an RCH spec on such arcane connectivity.)

 

 

The one to the left looks a lot more natural

https://spellerweb.net/rhindex/UKRH/SECR/LCDRcarriages.html

Richard

<quick check - anything about modelling happening here yet? No. OK, go back to other threads>

1 minute ago, NHY 581 said:

Just announced. 

 

Hattons are to produce Hair shirts in a variety of liveries for those modellers who cannot bring themselves to purchase prototypically inaccurate stock regardless of how attractive and useful it might be. 

 

Rob. 

I notice the early versions are in BR maroon, GWR mid Brunswick and NSE

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

What is it about freelancing that so upsets some people?

 

I ask that as a genuine question, because, judging from this thread, freelancing, as in making stuff up, really does disturb some people very deeply, and I really don't understand why.

 

 

 

 

It is an odd one, and I'm as guilty as the rest. I happily accept 009 NG railways that never were, my own NG railway modelling has slightly more constraints. Fictional light railways are sort of OK but uncomfortable. Fully freelance UK mainline railways are (for some reason) too much for me

Damn, more introspection...

Richard