magmouse

9 hours ago, Chrisbr said:

Excellent work as ever, the new doors look great

Thanks, Chris. Yes, the doors have come out well. The build as a whole has been a bit frustrating, and a reminder of the limitations of whitemetal as a material. While Adrian Swain was an excellent pattern-maker, the nature of the process means the two sides are not quite identical, presumably due to slightly different shrinkage of the parts on cooling. As a result, nothing is exactly square, and it is difficult to find suitable reference points when fitting parts such as the springs and axle guards, to get them square, level and symmetrical.

If you look closely, there are all sorts of slight anomalies which you don’t get with an injection-moulded plastic kit. Hopefully once complete and painted the overall effect will be OK, but it will be slightly more ‘impressionistic’ than some of my other builds.

Nick.

I’m sure you’re right, Simon - I should try thinking, rather than reading and repeating! Even so, the point stands - solder doesn’t easily stick to them (unlike some I bought more recently, which have some kind of shiny plating, probably over steel as they are quite springy).

Nick

Good to have you back posting on RMweb, with your beautiful and characterful work. Please don’t leave it so long before the next post!

Nick.

Thanks, Mikkel. The clamps are hair grips, readily available online in a range of variations. These ones are stainless steel, rather than plated, and so don’t take solder when using them to hold parts for soldering. They are cheap enough to modify for specific jobs, cutting and bending them as required.
 

Nick.

1 minute ago, Mikkel said:

The conversion process must be a bit nerve-wracking given all the finesse of your wagons, but I've no doubt it will be successful. 

I've made a special cradle to hold the wagons in while working on them, wedged in with some dense neoprene foam. That helps hold the wagon in place firmly but without damage while working on it. I've found the Peco and ex Coopercraft wagons have enough flex to get the wheel-sets out by pulling the axle guards apart - rather terrifying, but actually OK. The white metal wagons will have the ends of the axles sawn off and inside bearing units fitted. It's just the Slaters ones, where the plastic is much more rigid, that are the issue. I'm still pondering on those - there's no hurry...

6 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

I like the idea of your father's wagons continuing their lives on various layouts across the land.

Me too!

Nick.

Thank you, Mikkel.

The only one of these wagons I have in my possession is Hunt & Son. The 4mm stock was passed on to others many decades ago, and rest of the 7mm stock was sold off via the Gauge O Guild over ten years ago. Hopefully much of it is still around giving its new owners pleasure.

I am still pondering whether I can convert Hunt & son to S7. I have worked out how to convert most of my existing stock (I’ll post about that soon) but I haven’t yet got a method for those with Slaters underframes. I’m only going to tackle Hunt & Son if I am very confident of success, based on doing the other three. It would be lovely to be able to run it, though.

Nick.

Thanks, Annie - yes, “Ariel fonts disease” must be cured!

And looking again at the photos, Dad seemed completely undaunted by wagons with large amounts of lettering. I think he enjoyed the challenge, looking at E. D. Williams, Cribbwr Fawr, and Pwllbach - I'd be searching out wagons with less lettering, not more!

9 minutes ago, kitpw said:

Proper modelling! Ingenious.

Indeed - the strapping was stuck on with Evostick contact adhesive, at a time when the glue formulation casually ignored the harmful effects of the solvents used.

Thanks, Graham and Louis.

5 minutes ago, Schooner said:

are we going to talk about the weathering on EMPIRE 635?

I’m fairly sure he did the weathering with powder paints, in the days before weathering powders were a thing.

6 minutes ago, Schooner said:

of much-deserved sentimental too I'm sure.

Yes, indeed!

3 hours ago, stevel said:

I particularly like the printed buffer

Yes - big thanks to Duncan @drduncan for those lovely items.

3 hours ago, stevel said:

but the wagon is the wrong colour, it's not red LOL.

Don't worry - more red wagons coming soon!

22 minutes ago, airnimal said:

But I am intrigued to know how you get the wheels in after you have soldered the W-irons onto the printed circuit board.

They first time, with finescale wheels, the W irons were soldered on with the wheels in situ. I used electrical cored solder so there wouldn't be acid flux fumes potentially causing rust on the steel wheels.

The second time, with the S7 wheels, I just bent the brass w-irons out and back again. A rather crude approach, and not one I would recommend on a regular basis, but it did the job.

Nick.

3 minutes ago, Dave John said:

A cracking build magmouse. Well worth the extra effort on the brakes and compensation. 

 

I also use a transverse buffer spring, not quite as elegant as that, but I find its less prone to jamming than coil springs in the buffer casing for wagons. 

Thanks, Dave. The buffer spring mechanism is the standard Peco components - all except the buffer housing itself. It's a good way to do it, as you say - another advantage is you don't have to worry about drilling two different diameter holes to the right depth as you do with internal springs.

Nick.

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

That brake push-rod is a thing of delicate wonder.

You can see why I had to model it, whether it's correct or not - a mid-Victorian delight!

3 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

On width: you've forced me to look again at the two photos in GWR Goods Wagons (3rd edition) p. 270 and see the brackets supporting the curb rail...

So there's a question: how much overhang before brackets get used? When there is a packing piece between the curb rail and the solebar? When there is no packing piece but the curb rail is greater than a certain amount? No packing piece, but also no notch in the curb rail for the corner of the solebar to fit into?

That's a 3-volume book right there...

Nick.

21 minutes ago, kitpw said:

....and then, of course, one has to paint it:  now what colour would that be?

Gred or rey, take your pick.

5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

This discussion is leaving me at the stage where the more I find out, the less I know.

I believe certain philosophies would take that to mean you are nearing Enlightenment.

6 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Exhibiting to public inspection the model over which one has toiled for hours is the only sure-fire way of obtaining the accurate information one could have done with before one started.

Oh, yes.

8 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I had not thought about the photo of 5141 immediately above (plate 338). The headstock of this one too scales out to about 7' 6" if one assumes that the buffers are at the standard 5' 8½" centres.

If you are correct and the photos show wagons 7'6" wide, that might explain my difficulty in resolving the curb rail and solebar spacing dimensions, as I was working to the 7'8" shown in the drawing.

Nick.

29 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

The drawing in Atkins, Fig. 244 in the 3rd edition, was made by TR or RT (Tourret I presume) and dated 18.8.95 (1995 I presume!) so it is at best a copy of an official diagram of March 1917 - can we assume that all the dimensions shown on this drawing were transcribed from the original, or have some been interpolated?

 

Yes, a transcription error is of course possible, or incorrect interpolations from the original drawing. The fact that both internal and external dimensions are given give some confidence, I think, but there is always the possibility of error or misunderstanding at every stage. There was/is presumably some original drawing this was based on, otherwise why write "Swindon March 1917" on it?

From a historical research perspective, we keep going, gradually refining our understanding but never fully confident we have a complete picture (c.f. Borges, On Exactitude in Science).

From a modelling perspective, there comes a point where you have to build the darned thing 😬.

Nick.

3 minutes ago, Western Star said:

Oh, come on Ian, you need to show us.

Yes, please!

3 minutes ago, Western Star said:

Next thing we know is that NIck is maybe going to ask you for replacement solebars for 4171.

Eek! One thing people need to know about me is I really dislike going back to things that are nominally 'finished'. I am going to have the bite the bullet on re-wheeling the existing stock for S7 - it will be a necessary, but not a happy, experience.

I'd be delighted to have a 15'6" example based on Ian's build, when the time comes, though. Somewhere like Netherport is going to attract a lot of container traffic - I am sure there is a big furniture and general repository near the harbour...

Nick.

Stephen @Compound2632 - all your analysis makes sense to me, and if we get confused between inside and outside dimensions, it seems perfectly possible the people at the time did also...

I am still unconvinced about the OH length of 4373 - I can persuade my measurements to produce a 17'6" figure.

The drawing in Atkins is curious in this regard - clearly made retrospectively in 1917, but it is an official drawing, and it explicitly gives both inside and outside dimensions for length (17'6" / 18'0") and width (7'3" / 7'8"). Atkins also states that "around this time [1917] it was recorded" there were 2300 1-plank wagons in service of various sizes, and then gives a breakdown of quantities of the various sizes.

It is unclear where this information came from, but the "it was recorded" rather suggests there was some kind of analysis or report done, rather than Atkins et al going through the registers and working it out. I wonder if the growing traffic in 'lift vans', AKA containers, was both the reason for the 1-plank wagons to remain in service so long, and why it was necessary to take stock of the quantities and sizes. 10 or so years later, the GWR and other companies were building both containers and dedicated container wagons for this traffic.

Nick.

30 minutes ago, Western Star said:

Ends between sides or sides between ends...

 

Until a few minutes back I believed that GW wagons were ends between sides and yet here, for my education, is a statement that requires re-adjustment of my memory.  Where did you find this nugget of GW wagon design?

Sorry, Graham - my reference to sides between ends was about the model, not the prototype. Since the cap strips mean you can't tell how the model is constructed, I decided it was easier to do sides between ends, since the ends are positively located by the end stanchions and can be accurately positioned and attached first.

Like you, I understand the prototype to be constructed ends between sides.

Nick.

9 hours ago, kitpw said:

s/h £112. Ouch! Modernisation postponed.

Ouch indeed. Keep an eye out, they do sometimes come up for less. I paid about half that for mine, within the last year.

10 hours ago, kitpw said:

There is a very clear photo of an 8 ton Open (with sack load) on page 53 of my edition

That was my other main reference, along with the picture of 4373 we have been discussing. It has the 10-leaf springs, and a different combination of cleats and rings for tying sheets to. It also has the famous missing nut on the corner-late, modelled faithfully by @Mikkel: 

Nick.

14 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

That is exactly what I did:

Sorry - I missed that.

1 hour ago, Mikkel said:

I do like these wagons. When I built mine I found this old photo. I think the atmosphere compensates for the lack of detail. The caption was "Round Oak, 1868", which raises some questions but may just be a wrong date. (Edit: Well, the original source is "Dudley: Illustrated photographs", the first edition of which was published in 1868.  The image is from a now defunct website, so I don't have further details.)

Thanks, Mikkel. It was your 1-plank build that made me add this to my planned stock, thinking it would be a good starting point for scratch-building. Only 1 plank - how complicated could it be?!?

And yes, that picture is great. One can vaguely make out the one-shoe brake. Can anyone offer details on the loco to the right? 0-4-0, outside cylinder, 4-wheeled tender.

Nick.

9 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Assuming 3' 0" between centres of spring shoes, for 18' 0" OH, 10' 0" WB gives 2' 6" between outer spring shoe and outside face of headstock whereas 11' 0" WB gives 2' 0". Eyeballing the distance between the spring stop block above the axlebox and the outer spring shoe, 1' 6", with the distance from the outer spring shoe to the headstock (measuring to a point directly below the head of the strap bolt) I get a dimension not very much greater than the stop-block to spring-shoe distance, which leads me to believe 2' 0" rather than 2' 6".

 

If the spring shoe centres were 3' 6", my spring-shoe to headstock distances would be 2' 3" for 10' 0" WB or 1' 9" for 11' 0" WB; this dimension being compared with 1' 9" from stop block to spring shoe.

I think what might be throwing your eye out is looking at the end of the headstock, which is not in the same plane as the spring she's and stop blocks. You need to use the point where the strap bolt comes through the headstock as the reference point for the end of the wagon, as that is (roughly) in the plane of the solebar face, spring shoes and spring stops.

4 minutes ago, drduncan said:

Anyone got good enough eyesight to read the number? I get *47*….

The first digit looks round-ish, so a 6, or maybe 5. Not 4. The last digit similarly, but very hard to tell.

Nick.

19 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Yes, much more like it. Very good, carry on.

"Yes, Sir! Thank you, Sir!"

(Blimey, it's the coupling police again!)

😅

Nick.