Jump to content
 

Mrs Durby

Members
  • Posts

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mrs Durby

  1. Hello 'Dinmore'. An aquaintance has now bought it on my behalf. It will be 'returned to it's maker', hopefully sometime in 2024, for refurb and, then - eventually - resale. But I have much else on my plate this year too, by way of commissions, so don't anybody hold their breath. On the other hand, one can almost hear it thinking under it's breath, "I'll be back . . . ".) 😉
  2. Lots of progress on this - all the track's laid and the PMs are fitted, for instance - just haven't had the time to post it recently. Before Xmas, with any luck ! (Says the author hopefully . . . )
  3. There's one tool I have found invaluable when track-laying; a mirror on a stick! (It lets one look along the rails and see the alignment as if a 6ft ganger with a keen eye! ) Here's one example for you; Proops Dental Mirror with Knurled Handle, Excellent Quality. V5403 "Others are available", as they say, some of which are flexible at the end and thus even more useful. That might help resolve your issues...
  4. And thanks, Ian ! Most helpful. No great panic, I am unlikely to start that one this year . . .
  5. Thanks Mick. Not sure I really need to model anything too accurate in 2mm scale, but as the blades need to work, while the rodding doesn't, I can't make the 'bar' long enough to risk a short between the rails! Thanks again.
  6. Hi Mick, (Andy here), can I take it by 'Back Drive' you mean ensuring that the long blades' centres move clear of the flangeways? Here's what I've made of it so far...
  7. Hello Ian, Detection I don't think so. The signal wires are running down the LHS, not the right, and I think the detection is done on that side. If so, that explains what I think is rodding from the middle of the FPL cover plate, heading to the left but difficult to see owing to the tree shadow. My guess - and as this was c.1947 and now long gone - is that it might be to help move the long blades of the long point, which is probably at least a C10... Fwiw, I am fairly convinced there were only 2 sets of rodding running down that RHS as far as that point and if so, that suggests something's duplicated somewhere. But why? What is interesting is that possibly by the late 50s, or certainly by the early 60s anyway, it has disappeared - that suggests to me that it's a GE design and BR altered it to more 'standard practise' when it needed renewal... But that's only a guess and I'm not at all familiar with GE point-rodding practise, which is why I'm asking ! Why would one point need three sets of rodding? Minehead Branch Oh, and thanks for asking about the Minehead branch. Could you confirm that 'Rule 39a' was suspended by 1947? (I note it was in the 1950 rule book, but that the suggestion is that catch points were added to enable that rule change in the 1930 revisions to the line.)
  8. Thanks Paul - that makes considerable sense about Rule 39(a) as you observed. The Lightmoor book on the Taunton - Barnstaple line is an excellent publication and a quality follow up to Volume 1 (although there is a minor error on one of the signalbox diagrams - presumably incorrectly copied from the SRS original). And as you say a number of crossing loops were very thoughtfully altered/provided on the Barnstaple and Minehead branches in the 1930s - showing taht someone in the GWR was well aware of the impact of the Block regulations on train crossing movements on single lines. Now that's very useful info; especially as I'm lined up to make a model of a Minehead branch station... Many thanks for posting. What I was looking for when I found this was an answer to the following question (might this be one for you, Mick Nick?) Below is a photo of Clare's east end blockwork, including an FPL and locking bar - but with three rows of point-rodding leading to it. So one's the blade movement, the nearest must be the FPL and bar, (with is that an extension of that to a length of rodding to the side to allow that ground signal to be pulled? And and an unseen Home too, presumably...), but what is the further one for? And no, it's not the catch-point for the siding on the left, that's the 4th one along... Anyway, here's the photo; can anyone offer any clues?
  9. Oxford is your friend wrt vehicles; although they don't do the Austin K2 (they came from w/m kits, as did the Morris staff vehicle), they now do several excellent alternatives, including a (smaller) Morris staff car, while EFE provided the bus which was merely repainted. (Generally speaking, requisitioned buses were not repainted in camouflage when used by the RASC but a few were and I chose to use one as it helped define the WW2 atmosphere I wanted to create. Brown coaches and white roofs repainted dark grey (as per my photos) ought to help with that too, as did the 2250 class without cab side windows and the pannier in black with plain 'G W R' on its tanks in white. Most of the WW2 posters seem to be intact, but if any are missing, 'Tiny Signs' is your friend there...) Were I to do the bus again, I would grind away the rivets which hold the chassis in place: dismantle it - which would make painting easier - and add at least a driver, if not a few more forces passengers either approaching to unload a train, or departing having just done so. There's an excellent book on that subject too; 'Run Away Somebody's Coming' by Robert Houghton, which explains a lot about what the RASC was and how (and where) it operated. Well worth reading... WRT wider issues, there's a post from 2013 on this site which discusses the subject [search for 'GWR in World War II'] and there's also a book on the subject by Tim Bryant called "The Great Western at War, 1939-45" which I'd recommend too. Finally, there is a pamphlet on WW2 camouflage patterns (of which the well-known and easily-remembered 'Mickey Mouse' is but one) - but sadly I can't find it to quote its details to you. It is worth noting, however, that every vehicle was different - applied by its crew mostly - with the paints they were given; paints which did not always allow them to copy the 'official guidance' owing to tone, colour or even the amount they were given, so you can 'go to town' on variety and have a little fun. The carefully-copied-from-the-book examples which one finds at vehicle rallies today does not necessarily provide a realistic guide, going by the few photos available of actual war-time British RASC vehicles, but they are definitely your 'best evidence'. wrt what they actually looked like.
  10. Fwiw, the curve immediately in front of the half-timbered cottage looks to match the original, but beyond that it is much eased, and I note that two points in Dinmore's photos have plastic wing rails to the frogs and so are probably Tillig. I can understand the use of those as a) their code 83 rail is very similar to code 75 and so easy to knock 7thou. off the height over a couple of inches and they'll match well, while b) these larger radius Tillig points have flexible sleepering, so they can be bent slightly to fit a new design into largely existing geometry much more easily. The only problem with Tillig (apart from their delicacy!), is that the sleepering is 'equalised' rather than laid perpendicular to the 'main through road' - a particularly European feature - but since people are happy to use Peco which always* uses the straighter road as it's main track, (so meaning that a siding or bay which goes straight on while the 'main line' curves around the corner, not prototypical practise), I cannot see a problem with that, especially when the sleepering is hidden behind a bank of trees. [* 'Y's and crossings apart, of course.] Shame the signalbox has been lowered; how now would the signalman see over a van or coach in the loop to see what's happening on the main line? Still. Easily rectified, and at least the original box looks to be intact as the new groundframe...
  11. All things considered, it seems to have survived its trials and tribulations (- so what exactly is a 'tribulation', anyway?), pretty well. I've seen worse damage after being dropped or trodden on at exhibitions, so yes; eminently restorable. What does never cease to amaze me is how some people insist upon putting totally wrong period additions and out-of-scale toys into carefully constructed scale and period-specific set pieces. Just goes to show how thoughtless some people are, doesn't it? Hey ho. No-one on here would do owt s' daft, would they? What a great find ! (Wish I'd seen it myself!, but still; nice to see it's 95% still in good condition. Here's what parts of it used to look like...
  12. Hmmm. My reading of those 3 is that 1 & 2 had 15 windows each, all the same size but, assuming they were built on the same chassis, either the windows were a tad wider than No. 3; (really? Possible; they probably were all hand made in those days afaik), or the gap between each light was a bit wider. As far as I can tell from that angle, the end coach of the rake in original (i.e. 'for sale' condition), has 15 windows and a blank panel which, if replaced with another light, would make 16 windows. My money's on that being the soon-to-be ANDR No.3... As for 28" wheels, try continental. They do use smaller wheels than us and some have really very fine flanges... At 3.5mm to the foot they'll be precisely to gauge too - but since you're P4ing, you'll need broad gauge ones, of course...) 8^D
  13. Indeed, but I managed to put a saw through the length of the windows (below the door-lock key housings), then fit the whole side back together. I then added a small sliver along the top edge before filing the end-topss round and replacing the beading with a bit of 10thou shaped to the same arc, glued then the top filed down to match. A 2mm drill through some 20thou. (doesn't split so easily at 10thou.), leaves you with a load of holes of 1mm radius, bits of which can be easily cut out to form the fillets in the corners. That took me rather longer than I wanted so I did another one, took my time to make it nice and neat, and then cast it (in those days), in biscuit resin. Here's a very poor image of a ctr-bk 3rd and a 6-wh compo - both arc-roofed - but they're packed away at present and difficult to get at to take a more recent photo - sorry !
  14. Rather late to the table, I expect, but how about a down-graded U17...?
  15. So is this 00 or N? (I'm guessing 00...) My guess is that the building is a dunny... Odd coincidence, but I'm doing the same location in N...
  16. Now we see some landscaping foam added. (Who would risk that on laid-and-ballasted 9mm track?) Anyone who knows the prototype site ought to recognize it now. Now to begin track-laying . . .
  17. Here's the woodwork done, all bar the edging/Backscene; to be added last...
  18. Still busy with the woodwork. Nearly done with that so more to upload soon... ;^D
  19. The close-up shows the counter-sunk screw heads painted with acrylic in an effort to prevent rusting. Once the glue's good and dry, alternate, or 2 in 3 screws (depending on various factors), are removed and the holes back-filled with glue and sawdust*. Where track is to be laid, the acrylic-painted screw-heads can also be filled with very little risk of rust breaking through and lifting the track. [*And yes, filler's quicker but very noticeable and also tends to fall out sooner or later. Glued sawdust doesn't.] More soon...
  20. No comments needed, really. Just watch it grow if you want to. You'll know it when it's done...
  21. Yes, compensation usually helps both electrical pick-up and haulage ability, as well as being a bit more forgiving of any track, erm, 'irregularities'? Which reminds me; have you had to rebuilt that double slip which was originally causing you hassle? With its long wheelbase and tender I guess the Aberdare will either kill or cure that issue !
  22. Shame about giving up with tender pick-ups. There are several ways round that if you find 'drivers only' pick-ups unreliable. Just ask... Did you hang the tender front on the loco draw-bar for extra weight?
×
×
  • Create New...