justin1985

Is the 10' LMS fitted chassis still available? I can only see a 9' version in the shop list, but then I often can't find things that are staring me in the face! Or is it one of the many chassis designed by Chris have been very sadly culled from the shop? To be honest, I think the most important thing, for me, visually is the relationship between the body and the solebars looking in proportion - hence still thinking about going back to the PECO chassis for these BHE bodies, to be honest! The wide body 'teetering' on the scale width chassis, no matter how correct the chassis might be, somehow just looks too wrong to me ... So much of the visual character of wooden solebar wagons seems, to me, to be the chunkiness and prominence of the solebars, whereas steel solebars intrinsically seem to recede into the shadows because of the C section shape. I think in this respect Bill Blackburn's original 2-330, 2-332, 2-333 seem to capture this visual feel better than later designs. Justin

All of the images in Tatlow show an underframe fully braked with 8 brake shoes and vac pipes etc, so I just went with an LNER fitted chassis as ostensibly closest. Is the brake lever arrangement closer on the the LMS version? I was also wondering about the original generic 2-333 10' fitted chassis, which has the nice chunky fold up solebars?

Over the weekend I worked on the second of a pair of BH Enterprises (John Grey) GCR / LNER Fish vans, that had come to me built up using superglue and painted as GN vans. With this one, I just left it in Fairy Powerspray until the glue dissolved and just rebuilt it from step one. The chassis are built from the Association 10' LNER fitted kit. (Also the open that I had incorrectly finished as private owner, repainted correctly as an MR d299 wagon) With the fish vans, I can't help but think they look a bit top heavy - the chassis are so much narrower, they seem to disappear into the shadow. Clearly the body is oversized to fit a PECO chassis. I also have a pair of Bill Bedford etches for the same vans, which I picked up from an exhibition bits box. These are a good few mm shorter than the ones here, and no less than 1.75mm narrower. So, I'm actually thinking about taking these chassis off (use them on the Bill Bedford kits), and fitting PECO ones again. The 10' chassis seems much better detailed than the others by PECO, and they might not have enough brake shoes, but I can't help but think the width would be more important in looking "right" here. Any thoughts? Justin

Hi Gareth, I'd be prepared to do extra prints of designs that I want to use myself, but especially for shaded text, I don't think I've got enough time to take on commissions for other PO wagon owners. The wagon liveries I'm working on are: Fosdick - Ipswich - unshaded (done) MOY - earlier era branded for Peterborough, later branded for Colchester, ubiquitous throughout East Anglia - shaded (done) Mellonie & Goulder - Ipswich - shaded Allen & Boggis - Sudbury - shaded Ridleys - Bury St Edmunds - shaded J.H. Death - Colchester - shaded Coote & Warren - Peterborough - shaded Beaumont - Ipswich - shaded I can't imagine many others would be interested in these! Justin

I finished off the PO wagon with the two layered decals for the shaded text, and I'm pretty pleased with the result! This is on an Association 1923 RCH mineral. This is the side where I tried the black shadow layer first, and got the position of the O a little too far to the left by the time the white was added. And this side was done with white first, and the decal with the shadow added on top: Either way doesn't seem to make any difference in terms of clarity or hiding the waterslide film (which I trimmed down quite close to each letter). One thing though - I started a new can of Testors Dullcote, but it doesn't seem as matte as the previous one - more satin. I think weathering as per it's neighbours will help let it down a bit though. Justin

Really useful info! Where did you find the photo? That's just the info I was looking for - building a model of this wagon for a little layout inspired by Dailuaine. Justin

Many thanks for the comments and suggestions. I guess I should emphasise that I'm not really motivated by the competition per-se - I was just thinking of it more just an impetus to get some momentum back into the project. I think the prospect of lifting and relaying the siding has put a bit of a dampener on it recently, so a change felt more motivating than just a fix, if that makes sense? But point taken that the cut down version would look quite cramped! I'm thinking perhaps I'll just cut off the stubby flat extension at the end that was left to support cassettes, which is too short to be useful, but still makes the layout unwieldy to move and a bit big to store on a shelf, and make something longer, but bolt-on to only fit when its in use. I did toy with a plan for a separate specific DLJC layout (a small quayside scene based on Hythe in Colchester) but quickly concluded it was too small to be interesting. So ... I guess that answers it for me! Justin

Actually black first made it harder to line the text up properly - once the white was on, the O ended up a bit too far left and overlaps the ironwork, and the Y is a bit low down compared to the other letters. I'll try the white first on the other side tomorrow.

Seems to be working out reasonably well! J

I've been dipping into this project here and there, working on buildings, but no major progress for a while. With the announcement that the DJLC is being postponed to 2021, I actually had the thought that perhaps it was giving entering another thought, if it would be possible to cut this little layout down to fit. The layout as is stands has a scenic section just under 1m long - and a frankly too short area for cassettes - the total length is the 1220 of the short side of a sheet of ply. This is just a hangover from re-using the board that my previous Snape project was on. Here I've posed it with the 5 / 3 / 3 combination of wagons to operate as an Inglenook shunting puzzle, using the stock I've put together for the BR blue era. Even with some relatively long wheelbase wagons, it looks like I could cut about an inch from the right hand side, and still work as a shunting puzzle. Most of the length is taken up with the turnout leading to the little engine shed though. So - thought is - cut the trackbed back where the furtherest left turnout begins - roughly at the 40cm mark on the ruler - so giving a 60cm visible section. To retain the interest (and view block) of the engine shed, I thought I could add a kickback siding coming off the long siding at the front - perhaps an A5 to get the engine shed close to parallel to the exit track. This feels like less of a wrench than it might be, because I'd noticed that the track on the long front siding isn't perfectly level, causing a three legged wobble for stock. Mockup with masking tape as track! Any thoughts? Justin

It's just occurred to me, looking at the photo, that the un-weathered FOSDICK wagon doesn't have any diagonal strapping, so it isn't from the 1889 RCH moulding. Is it actually an MR D.299 open from the Association twin pack? Dohh! J

That was one of my thoughts, but, alas, I think that method is scotched by the printer drivers. Even though I'm working with a CMYK document in Affinity Designer and the colour laser has CMYK toners, HP's drivers appear to assume an RGB input. As far as I can tell, the document gets converted to RGB when you press print, then back into CMYK by the printer using one of the colour profiles defined in the driver (there is no CMYK option). So a very dark colour defined through CMYK (without the K) would get rendered into an RGB equivalent, then back to CMYK (presumably including the K). I've yet to actually try this (changing the toners over is a faff), but that certainly seems to be the way the drivers work. It might turn out that I've been over thinking it - I'll definitely test next time I have the white toner in. J

I've been working on some private owner wagons using decals printed using the Ghost system at the moment. The fact that the white replaces black means you can't print black and white at the same time, making shaded text liveries pretty tricky (I am working on one approach at the moment). So my first try has been a livery with all white text: "FOSDICK" of Ipswich. Here are two 1887 wagons, one weathered, one not yet. I built both of the wagons years ago and I can't remember which chassis I used - they ended up at quite different ride heights, which I hadn't noticed before. Here posed in the sun with the GER open. J

Hi Steve, I just found one of what I thought was the plate wagon underframe you had been after. However it is actually 2-378 BR style 8 shoe fitted 15' w/b for Peco plate/Twin Bolster Chassis. I don't know if that would do instead, or be adapted? It looks like Andy sorted you out with one, but if you're interested in this one, you're welcome to it! Justin

Agreed - but does that actually matter to Kader? So long as their factories are working at full capacity, producing products with the maximum possible profit margin, I can't imagine it matters to them two hoots whether that is British, German, or Chinese prototype. Basic fact of life - multinational businesses have zero intrinsic loyalty to any one national market. If a range of products or a national market cease to fit the global template, it will fall by the wayside. If British products increasingly fail to make what Kader head office see as a sufficient contribution to the global balance sheet, then we'll inevitably see the Bachmann UK ranges be scaled back in favour of other ranges. Perhaps eventually the range might just peter out if Bachmann Europe PLC cease to be able to make enough sales at the prices/margins demanded by Kader for production slots. That would be more of a problem for us as UK modellers than it would be for Kader as owners. Perhaps if it ever gets to that point, the tooling might get sold to someone else who is willing to take a thinner margin. More likely, in the long run, I think, is that smaller manufacturers (who almost by definition are happy to make a smaller margin) start to pick off more and more core prototypes.

I think Graeme hit the nail on the head though - the difference between the prices of the two companies probably has a lot more to do with the companies than the products. Dapol are a small company, and it certainly seems like they set prices for each product individually. Farish / Bachmann are just a branch office of a Chinese owned multinational. The fact that Farish / Bachmann price increases are almost always uniform across the board very strongly suggests they have to set their prices in line with policies from "upstairs". You can imagine that trying to argue for holding down prices on certain products won't hold much weight to head office, who are undoubtedly setting targets for each country in comparison with each other, not with competitors within each of those markets. In a sense Farish / Bachmann Europe PLC are in competition with the other arms of Kader - for production slots etc - in a more direct way than they are with Dapol or Hornby. All Kader will ultimately care about is bottom line global profits - why allow models for the UK market to take up factory capacity if they make less profit than other markets? J

A penny for every "Gordon" comment ...

Sorry should have been clearer - I meant happy to give the not quite perfect ones away for free. The only issue with them is visible layer banding on the ends and the floor inside - the sides are pretty well as per the photos above. Basically I'd been fiddling with print settings after starting to use a different resin, but I hadn't noticed that anti-aliasing had defaulted back to 4x rather than 8x - so I did a lot of prints at that setting without realising what was causing the banding on the ends. As with a Shapeways print, you can file the banding and/or coat generously with primer. Print with 8x Anti-aliasing on the left, and one of the test prints with slightly more visible banding on the right. Both with a light blast of Halfords primer. The trade off with the anti-aliasing is that it softens the definition of details, so in some respects the test prints are a bit sharper. Transfers I'd have to charge for. I'd be happy to do fresh prints of the wagons using the perfected settings, but I'd probably have to charge for them to cover more time and resin. @richbrummitt I've still not got around to trying your GWR bogie mink again since upgrading the printer. Will try to do that this week and will let you know how it turns out. According to Tatlow this design was built from 1907 and still being built in 1923/4. He says numbers "fell off dramatically by nationalisation", but I don't know when the last went.

I might not be having much luck with locos at the moment, but I have been having fun finishing off some wagons! The GER 10t brake van is built from a David Eveleigh etch; the GER open wagon is one of my 3D prints; GER sand wagon is a resin casting from a scratch built master that I did a while back, and the GER butter wagons are more 3D prints. The sand wagon livery is wrong, according to the Basilica Fields blog, but I like it! I did also do decals for the correct version, so I'll try and finish a second wagon in that version. While I had been talking about commissioning some GER wagon decals, in the end I decided to bite the (very expensive) bullet and buy a "Ghost" white toner for my HP laser printer. The decider was the fact I also want to try doing plenty of private owner wagon liveries, for different size wagons etc, so the ability to do one off prints is really appealing! I think the white decals turned out really well! The decal film Ghost supply is really thin, and it works really well with Microsol. Here's a test print I did on black paper. I think I'll space the elements out a bit more in subsequent versions though - tricky scalpel work here! I'm happy to supply the GER decals to other 2mm members now I've got the system sorted. I've also got LOTS of the GER open wagon prints from experiments with the printer settings. Happy to supply the not quite perfect ones to anyone who wants them - otherwise they're going in the bin. J

Many thanks for all the suggestions! I think where I had it previously, it would have been ready for the opening out of crankpin holes as Jim and Tim suggested. But after fiddling with it, I think I'll have to make another fresh start with the quartering. I've put it away for now and I'll try to come back to it fresh again, after a break working on other projects. One thing did occur to me about the jig - I've had far more trouble quartering with chassis using 9mm wheels (Jinty and 57xx) than I did with J94 (8.5mm wheels) or new Farish 4F conversion (9.5mm). I've got a funny feeling I might have soldered up the quarter plates out of true. Looking at them, there is a little bit of a slant to the stack of etches. I might order a replacement for my next try - I think they now comes as milled plates? J

Thanks Rich. They are flanged crankpins, and I had been careful to keep their faces free of paint etc., and the faces of the rods are smoothed off neatly with a very fine file. I guess checking the crankpin flanges under a lens might not be a bad idea. The binding was occurring at the same spot - 90/270 degrees, but only in one direction. That does indeed suggest quartering, doesn't it? Well - one step forward, ten steps back! I tried the rods reversed again and noticed a very slight binding on the rear pair of axles. So I tried adjusting the quartering by hand, and made it infinitely worse each time. I just don't know how anyone can adjust quartering by hand by the requisite one or two degrees at a time - the force required to get any movement seems so great that the minimum movement possible seems much too much. So I evolved a technique of returning it to the jig, holding one side with the wheel flush against the jig and then using a small screwdriver to adjust the wheel facing me, such that i could close the jig onto it without any resistance at all. Having got the previously suspect rear axle set up that way, it seemed like the others were around 1 degree out, so I adjusted them so the same trick worked. Now - nothing! According to the jig, the wheels can't be anything other than quartered. Each axle set up the same way on the same jig, facing the same way, etc. But now it won't turn more than a quarter! (is there a possibility of the jig not working correctly if the quarter plates were soldered up with a bit of a slant or something? I would have thought, though, that even if they weren't quite right, being used consistently should still get the right result? Did i see the etched quarter plates are being replaced with milled ones?) Quartering still seems very much like a dark art to me - some people seem to just have the knack of adjusting by hand, but I just don't. It's enough to make me want to only model four-coupled locos now! As far as it is possible for me to discern! Any tips for checking? The flanged crankpins prevent putting a straight edge against them or anything, so far as I can see. Also been there, done that. I thought I was being very careful on that this time around. All the wheels were pressed into the muffs with one of the half etched spacers from the jig kit between muff and bearing, and full thickness ones between rear of wheel and frames. Any differential left from closing them in against the gauge is going to be tiny, I would have thought? All these attempts to adjust are resulting in the wheel spokes starting to get distorted and the guard iron parts of the frames etc getting bent

Yesterday I returned to an etched Association loco chassis that I'd been working on a good few months ago and put away when I got distracted with other things (intended for the old Farish 57xx, but I'm planning to use it for an LNER J52). The original problem was quartering - I just couldn't get the rear axle successfully quartered. This time I took the offending wheels out by melting off the muff, and re-fitted them using the Association jig. Now the quartering seems good - it rolls extremely freely with the rods reversed on either combination of front and centre, or centre and rear axles. BUT with the rods on properly, and retained close to the wheels with cable sleeve (but with some play) it occasionally binds and doesn't seem to run as freely. BUT if I let the rods run further out on their pins (i.e. the cable sleeve only on the very end of the pins so a good 2mm or so of lateral play) it runs really smoothly again! Any ideas?

Thanks! They haven't settled entirely into the gaps either side of the (comparatively) hefty vertical beam, but its pretty much perfect into the normal planking. I did the full Micro-Set then Micro-Sol treatment, and returned to slosh on plenty of extra Micro-Sol (red bottle) after a few hours, several times, until there was no sign of air gaps within the planks. That seems to work really well with this paper - as you've said, its commendably thin!

That's a masterpiece Steve! Absolutely beautiful work! I'll try the two NPCS that I've stripped down with different base coats (one orange, one deck tan) and see how I get on.

I think white might be the missing ingredient from my previous attempts! As per Mike's method, I started off trying to blend in the red parts on a Dapol Gresley (as Mike was doing on the equivalent Hornby models) and then I had been trying to effectively match the Dapol finish on other models. I'll still try to match that on the NGS Gresley full brake - but previous experiments on smaller pre-group NPCS (horse box, prize cattle vans etc.) ended up looking much too saturated and vivid when I used the same formula as the Gresley. The tone and saturation on the Howlden seems to have that slightly less vivid look that seems to suit pre-group stock a little better than the bright rich teak on preserved Gresley stock (e.g. NYMR). I'd love to see a step by step, if you get the chance when doing the other side, maybe? especially before and after the varnish. When you say you're mixing and building up the effect - do you mean you're building up layers of multiple different blends of the colours (and presumably allowing to dry between)? Or are you working with all of the colours still 'wet'?