Kenton

Thanks Jamie, no problem with chaff, as it at least says there is someone out there. I also welcome critcal comments and pointing out faults/errors, as sometimes one can look at something too close for too long and simply become blind to it.

The camera can sometimes be very cruel blowing up things out of all proportion to their actual size. but it is sometimes useful as I had not noticed the scratch on the cab roof, and a few other bits of stray solder that will require attacking with the scrapers.

Hmm no faster did I edit it to correct my error you responded sorry for any confusion.

1. Good prototypes of large-ish GWR goods depots that can provide inspiration?

Hockley (Birmingham Snow Hill) - one of the biggest - there was a big article in GWRJ Nos 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 very detailed with good photos and lots of details.

Opened 1857 with both broad and narrow gauge. In 1900 there were 2 large sheds one for "Inwards" and one for "Outwards" they had different track layouts.

If you ask me that looks like it was worth the effort in the end. A few bodywork adjustments and a repaint will make it a model to be proud of.

I don't think I would have even bothered so a medal is due alone just for taking it on.

What exactly is wrong with the motor?

Mine in the Kitson gave up on me while on the rolling road. It only turned out to be one of the carbon bushes had twisted in the spring - easy to replace and all working again.

This does sound good Kenton. The Scalescenes Factory looks promising - pity it doesn't have 5 floors . Any thoughts on stock? You mentioned some shunting locos in the forum thread?

Stock ? Not a clue - I guess some vans - goods in and out - Period 60's ish so I'm going to have to do some new research.

The shunters: well none to be seen together The NB 0-4-0DH of course. I have a Class 14 (my third build - and I'll try to avoid all the errors on the last 2), another Sentinel :yawn: and a Taurus (I'm a bit in awe about building - I keep putting off but don't know why). I also have a Class 7 lying around somewhere that needs a new motor and a RTR Bachman 08 and :horror: a DCC Hornby 09

So ignoring any EWS interest there is/should be no problem with motive power.

But just about all my stock is way too early (by about 40 years) so watch this space for questions.

Am not sure of the details of the RMweb competition - Assume I can find them on the forum if I do a search.

Just in case you couldn't

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php/topic/3343-2010-challenge-rules/

go on enter

please give plenty of detail of these points as they are constructed.

Ah! now I understand - that really makes both my handles and hinges way over size

I can't put the hinges on the doors because they are not half etched, the hinges have to stand out from a full etch. i note your difficulty in getting them through the slots - perhaps you see why I don't like slot and tab construction. They fitted fine through the ones I built but not all the etches are the same.

Sorry I thought they were half-etched. The louvres stand out from the door face. so I was thinking that the hinge could at least stand out to the same extent as the louvre. Perhaps not enough to be true to prototype but less of a problem than both using wire or struggling with the slots. I should probably had a go at opening out the slots. But as you saw I interpreted them differently at the time. A mistake on my part that I fully accept.

The holes in the engine casing make assembly in the way I suggest much easier, you can get a soldering iron through them to tack the casing to the base and you can see what you are doing a lot easier with some daylight inside.

Yes, I can see that point now I have gone through the fixing of engine casing to baseplate. Though doing it the way I am building it, I think is easier with no worry about locking the baseplate to the footplate and do as much detail work on the flat as possible.. Well at least an equal alternative. Doing it the way you have suggested in the instructions with the addition of the casing doors after attaching to the baseplate would, I think, be even more difficult as at least I had a flat surface to work on and the doors were only susceptible to movement / shakes of my hand. They would tend to drop into the holes whichever way.

Of course there is still plenty of time for me to foul it up

Ah! Happy memories. the 2006 RMWeb 6sq ft Layout Challenge

Whatever happened to the 2007, 2009 ... 2010 challenges ?

Someone asked: What does it now look like on the other side?

well it did until a few minutes ago.

I guess my gripe was not really with the casing doors themselves in terms of a register. I just couldn't see why the holes were etched for them to fall into. They would have been easier to fit if the things hadn't kept dropping into the holes - ie. a flat side, no engine compartment holes.

The hinges are not very easy to reproduce, it might be just as good to use a short length of wire in the slot where the etched ones fit - depends on the builder's ability to solder very small parts. You have incidentally fitted them inside out - all that should be visible on the outside is a thin rib, most of the hinge is inside. the half etched part goes through from the outside, leaving the full etch part as the hinge - no bending or twisting needed.

I originally tried this and found that the part would not fit through the slot either from the front or behind.

I then interpreted - well I guessed - that they should be bent over. I guess I should have tried to open out the slot to make them slide through.

Yes, definitely wrong now that I have done it but at this point I just do not have the will to remove them. I suppose what I'm saying is that I don't think they look THAT bad from a distance - and probably no worse than the handles - another difficult task.

I think if I build another one of these I will go down the route of brass wire for the hinges and will make the handles from 0.2mm wire rather than 0.4mm.

Would it not have been possible to etch the hinges on the doors themselves?

Hindsight is wonderful.

Thanks Adam,

Having acquired a copy of the second volume of Industrial Railways in Colour: South Wales (Michael Poulter), I can confirm the photo on p46 and is an interesting livery, though a pity it is side on. It does look very run down by that date.

I am having some problem with the above in correlating the works numbers for the class. The caption for that photo indicates that the one in front with w/n 28027 was removed for preservation in September 1986.

A nice find for that scot-rail image as well so I have added it to the list above.

I'm still in awe that you managed to get the chassis running at all - even more so after taking it apart and reworking it.

I am also surprised at the motor choice - a bit on the powerful side for this lightweight.

This comes with all my usual reservations on hand drawn layout plans and the fact they never seem to take account of reality (it is easy to draw a point sharper and in less space than it really occupies and also to totally ignore track widths and clearances.

My first thoughts:

- what a lot of hidden track - that is going to be inaccessible to re-rail the inevitable derailment.

- what scale and room dimensions?

- are you aware how wide an 8 road fiddleyard is and how long the point ladder at either end is?

- on the left is a single circle raising the track by one level - do you realise how big that needs to be to have a gradient that a model loco can climb?

- other than watching trains go round I am a bit lost on the reason for the layout.

Thanks 26power,

An excellent set of very detailed photographs of one of the two preserved examples.

Some of that detail is well beyond 4mm and beyond anything I will achieve.

Of course not being too familiar with the original prototype condition does leave me questioning what might have been added/altered.

Nice to find this thread as I have one of these kits in the "to do" cupboard.

you still may finish it before I do ... so many other things to do it seems to only get a look in. However, I am finding this blog and the encouragement from comments on it quite a driving force. Fortunately, Easter 2010 is far enough away ...

Having then to scroll up to then read down, to then scroll up again is a bit of a pain! ?

Thanks 28ten, I was of the impression that Southwark didn't do 4mm kits

He does some really excellent kits with super detailed instructions. His GWR hoppers are especially nice.

The rest is a bit too much LSWR for my needs but you know the saying ... can't resist something in brass.

That platform furniture looks really good. So often missing from layouts yet there was always a trolley or two.

Thanks for the designer's perspective on removing the window beading. I had never thought of roughly separating the parts first simply to give access to the shears. As they say "one is never too far gone to learn new tricks". In isolation, one just plods on for years with the same old techniques and the odd new tool or two, then along comes RMWeb and you find there are so many other ways of doing everything.

Michael,

Thanks once again for taking the time to follow the topic and adding information. The information about the NBL GA definitely means the "fuse box" (or whatever it is) goes in.

I'm now curious as to why it was taken out of D2774

I hope you don't find my comments too critical - as they say "I was just following instructions" But you wouldn't want to employ me to check them - with my kitbuilding speed and habit of wandering off the plot just to do it my way.

Though joking aside, the instructions can be very important to someone without access to photographs of the prototype or a basic understanding of it ... if it were one of many other well known kit suppliers I might have gone away and drilled holes. I guess it didn't help looking at your web site where I interpreted what may well be only solder run as the grab handle

Daft, I know, but there are folk out there ... and I'm proof of it.

It's shown on the side view, should also be on the back view - I'll amend the drawing.

Michael Edge

Michael,

I have looked again at both side views with a big magnifying glass and still cannot see it. Was I correct in my guess at it being the "fuse box" as shown in the blow-up of D2767 in preservation? As I cannot see it in the photo of D2774 above, and other photos I have are all from the wrong angle, I still am confused if this is a later addition or a removal from D2774.

There is another discrepancy with the instructions and the drawings at this point. The instruction refer to fitting

the small grab handles on the cab front

I think I can see them on the drawing (front bonnet view) close to the baseplate and on the photograph of the completed model on your web site. But the holes for these grab handles do not appear on the etch and I cannot see this handle in any of the photographs of the prototype that I have access to.

In fact the holes that are on the cab front do not appear in the same place as on the CAD drawing. Indeed, the only holes that are on the etch are those that are the register holes for the engine casing former.

By manually pulling on the appropriate cord end, the wagon could be made to move.

Thanks Adam. I was limiting my reference list to "in service" rather than "in preservation". I have some considerable reservations about loco photographs take "in preservation" as all to often changes are made that are not really relevant to history - like colours and painted faces - for example that first link shows it painted blue

Thanks Adam,

I will also add that to the list. I must seek out a copy for my own library.

Is it showing as re-liveried in NCB or otherwise? Also, is there a date given?

All complaints about the location of the battery boxes should be addressed to North British

Excellent :D

Though not given in complaint, it was quite a serious suggestion about being able to:

1. fold the battery box and step casing from one part.

2. fold those tiny rear angles back from the inner layer of the buffer beam. (my fingers are too big, shaky and heat sensitive to hold that part vertical while using a soldering iron on it)

3. the cab step treads being tagged on the long sides and not the ends. (I admit I over shortened one of them by less than 1mm - so is my mistake - but it has such a drastic impact on the shape of the steps)

you have to forgive my comments (please) they are given purely from an wide world out there kit builder's perspective ... at least I am not asking for tabs and slots yet ...

I usually use a sharp scalpel on a hardwood block to cut the tags. All snips that I have tried (I'm always on the look out for better) have a tendency to distort small thin parts. As does the use of a cutting mat.

In fact the removal of the window beading from the fret (coming soon) is seriously worrying me as these are thinner than the tags that attach them - superb detail that could be so easily spoiled by their clumsy removal.

I had also considered moving up to 0-16.5 & 7mm standard gauge... but I don't have any 7mm stock, especially a loco.

Just the excuse (if one was ever needed) to build one