buffalo

Hi David,

Yes, mine is the Knauf pink foam, though it was only 52mm thick when I bought it. I think the 60mm appeared later. There was a topic somewhere about the availability of this stuff and the similar blue type (made by Dow, IIRC) and it seems to have always been a bit of a lottery as to whether anyone's local B&Q or Wicks stock it at any particular time. When I got mine, every Wicks branch in the area had stopped carrying it but a B&Q branch about 20 miles away had a large supply...

Nick

For those who may not be aware of expanded Polystyrene XPS material...

 

It comes in sheet size of 1200 x 500 x 60 mm from Wicks builders merchants, it's pink in colour any can be easily glued with PVA wood glue and can be painted as well....

David,

What you are describing sounds like extruded polystyrene. Much harder than the white expanded polystyrene which is the stuff often used in packaging. Yes, it is excellent material for landscaping and some of us even use it for baseboards. Here's mine, but there are several other topics on RMweb about using pink or blue foam.

Nick

This wagon might be of use to you http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SOMERSET-COLLIERIES-LTD-WAGON-KIT-CAMBRIAN-OO-/261412581359?pt=UK_Trains_Railway_Models&hash=item3cdd676fef there were other ones as well in the past which were pre lettered for the Somerset collieries 

Indeed,I have quite a few of these old Cambrian kits and am always on the lookout for more. I believe there was also a Timsbury Collieries kit made in rather limited numbers, though I've never seen one appear on ebay or elsewhere.

Nick

Thanks, Jerry. How on earth did I miss that

I do hope the proof-reading and editing is up to scratch, though. The first picture on the Lightmoor page is captioned "New Pit from the east...", it looks like from the west to me!

Yes, I'm sure there's enough of us interested in the area for a new thread welcoming these books.

Nick

Plug away Richard, I'm really looking forward to this volume...

Me too!

...along with the revised book on Camerton Colliery - the original of the latter was one of the main sources for my Highbury Colliery layout...

Jerry, I'm confused. I can think of several books on the coalfield with some coverage of the Camerton pits, and then there's the Maggs & Beale volume on the Camerton branch, but a book specifically on the pits? What am I missing?

Nick

You're quite right, Rob, I'd forgotten about the 1914 split   There's a detailed table in Bixley et al. "An Illustrated History of Southern Wagons, Vol 1" which gives a breakdown of what was retained and what was transferred in both 1914 and 1930. In 1914, 568 wagons went to the LSWR and 568 to the MR, with only 221 being retained. Apart from those you mention, 24 ballast wagons and 14 'miscellaneous' wagons were retained. A little confusingly, they list 101 service vehicles, presumably engineering dept etc., in the 1913 BoT return, though these are not shown as either retained or transferred. However, there were 106 in this category in the 1919 return and the same number were divided in 1930. In terms of Alex' question, all covered vans and cattle wagons were transferred.

Bixley et al. suggest, and I don't know of any contrary evidence, that the retained stock stayed in S&D livery until 1930.

Nick

...

In terms of the company stock, what happened to it at the grouping in 1923 or did it soldier on until the SDJR was absorbed?  Specifically, would the Bagnall/Jinty have run with SDJR vans or LMS ones?

The changes at the grouping were mostly legal and had little effect on the appearance of stock. Previously, the line had been leased by the LSWR and MR. They, of course, ceased to exist. The Somerset & Dorset Railway Co was wound up and it became the joint property of the LMS and SR from July 1923. Outwardly pretty much everything remained the same until 1930 when the LMS took over responsibility for running and the SR for maintenance and civil engineering. At this point, locos were transferred to LMS stock and, over the next few years, were repainted in LMS black. Carriage stock was painted in SR green. Other rolling stock was split between the two companies.

So, prior to 1930, and possibly for a few years after, wagons and vans in SDJR livery would have been seen alongside LMS, SR and stock from the rest of the big four as well as PO wagons and, as Jon suggests, a declining number of vehicles still in pre-grouping liveries.

Nick

Is it necessary to use a lathe? Would not a plain 1mm axle suffice, with a a bit of 1mm ID tube sliced up for bearings.

 

Chris

A similar approach that works well in 4mm is to use a 1mm pin point axle running in normal bearings, but with the wheels mounted on 1mm i/d tube (usually 2mm o/d). The tube is cut off level with the outside of the wheels. It is convenient in 4mm because many wheels normally have 2mm axles and Exactoscale supply the 1mm axles for their wheels. Maybe something similar might work in 2mm scale?

Nick

How about the latest incarnation as seen in this post in CK's recent topic on the Whiteball tunnel area work?

Some other weird and wonderful road/rail equipment there too.

Nick

Airfix on the brain (or air, more likely, given my advancing years). Triang "Magnadhesion" it was. Reportedly runs better on steel rather than N/S rail (although both are magnetic, so another myth?). Which I keep meaning to try, as nickel does oxidize slowly and the oxide coating is non-conductive .The reason (I have read) why we all need to go over the track on a regular basis with the cleaning rubber. I suspect dust, dirt and oil are more likely...

Whilst nickel has ferromagnetic properties, I suggest you try applying a magnet to your nickel silver rail and compare the attraction to that of steel rail. There's a world of difference and in most cases you'll find no detectable attraction to the n/s rail.

As to track rubbers, they are one of the worst things you can use to 'clean' track. They are abrasive and put numerous tiny scratches into the surface which are ideal for picking up dust, dirt, grease, etc. All you need is a simple solvent like IPA and a soft cloth.

Nick

No.s 10/11/12 were slightly different (and had a different diagram) from the others as they had a toilet and 7 fewer seats which presumably had some impact on the external appearance and probably the arrangement of the windows...

As far as I can tell, there is little if any external difference other than, presumably, a frosting or blanking of the window on the toilet compartment. Unfortunately most of the photos I've seen are from the wrong side, wrong angle or just too unclear to be sure about the window treatment. The window is certainly there and the space for the sliding door is behind it.

Internally, they lost six seats to the toilet compartment and an extra one next to the centre vestibule door in the other section. Presumably the pair of seats that slightly overlapped the door caused something of an obstruction.

...There were other differences although these might not have impacted on the external appearance - No.s 5/6/7 were built on the same Lot as 2/3/4 but were nearly a ton lighter and had more seats (lacking the buffet of course) while the higher numbered cars up to 16 were over 4 tons heavier than 5/6/7

At least part of the weight difference results from 2-7 having only a single gearbox whereas 8 and above had two. In the earlier types, the second engine had a direct drive and only came into use once the railcar had achieved a reasonable speed. The later types just used the two engines and gearboxes together at all times.

Nick

"Hang on - Solebars black ??????"

 

Nick meant:...

Thanks, David. I just nipped out for a short walk and missed Rob's reply...

Nick

Before you get too carried away witht the weathering, remember that the iron work on the solebars and ends would probably have been picked out in black (see David's photo in post #68)

Nick

The above post has been placed in the wrong thread!!!!!

No, the quote is from here in this topic when you confused Fishermen and Bar Keepers   Mind you, it's still a mystery why John quoted it without further comment

Nick

I think the pipe comes under the bogie, on this style of loco.

Yes, a quick flick through Russell suggests that on most outside frame 4-4-0s the vacuum pipe passes below the bogie front cross member. There were some exceptions, though, including the Armstrongs, 3521s and Badmintons which appear to have a little more room in this area and the pipe appears to pass above the cross member in a more conventional style.

Nick

For the pistons & valves to be removed, without recourse to taking down the bufferbeam....

 

later locomotives had bolted on beams, so the piston assembly could be got at. At least, that's what I've been told.

 

Ian

I'm open to being convinced, but given the inclination of the cylinders on the 4-4-0s and the access through the plating between the frames below the smokebox, I don't see how it has any relevance to the pistons. Perhaps it might help removing the valves, but looking at a diagram I cannot see which parts would require such clearance. The locos involved have a wide range of driving wheel diameters which, I suspect, will lead to a range of heights for the valve spindles, yet the buffer beam cutout is fairly consistent in size.

Apart from the inside cylinder designs, though, how do you explain the cutouts in the County buffer beams?

Nick

If you look at prototype pics you will see that the bufferbeam is deeper than Bachmann's although rather oddly it has a shallower section in the centre....

It may look a bit unusual, but I'm not sure that "rather oddly" is appropriate for a feature that was common to most GWR 4-4-0s, as well as Aberdares, some Atlantics, the odd Saint and even a few later designs. In most cases, the deeper outer part appears to match the depth of the inner frame, but I've no idea why they are cut away...

Nick

...Most lathework books are aimed at model engineers rather than railway modellers. There is I feel a gap in the market.

I'm not sure why you would say that. I was taught to work with drawings that were 1;1, or down to1/4 scale when I was working at 12"; 1' scale...

I read Paul's comment differently, rather than anything to do with scale, I thought in terms of materials. For example, you don't get to machine much in the way of cast iron when working in the smaller scales, and fewer of our parts are working parts, more just fiddly little bits of brass. As one without a professional machine shop background, just some short but useful introductions many years ago, I've certainly found the Williams and Sharman wrtings on making some of those fiddly bits very useful, but I'm not convinced there's a full book there.

Nick

By 'pinned' do you mean nailed on ?

Yes, imagine a piece of metal strip as wide as the side planks and no more than 1/4" thick, often rounded on the top outer corners, with a hole every six inches or so. Then nail or screw this to the edge of the plank.

Nick

I think I'm right in saying the caps were a post war addition, or only became very common post war.

Would that be be railway companies of PO wagons?. A quick flick through just one of Keith Turton's PO wagon volumes showed what appeared to ne pinned strips without any of the wrapover clips on a few pre-1920 (poss. pre WW1) wagons, though most do not appear to have the strip until well into the twenties. In this volume, there was nothing with a wrapover clip until well into the thirties and most were WW2 pooling era or later.

Now that's a quick look at a small sample, so dates could change significantly with a better study. A lack of visible strips may be a product of most photos being taken from the side and below the top and the stip fitting flushly when the wagon was new.

It looks, then, like strips and clips are different issues.

Nick

ps. I forgot to mention company wagons. Many photos of GWR opens show strips from the mid to late 1890s, though the only trace of clips that I recall were on often heavily repaired wagons post-WW2 or in early BR days (esp O13 chaina clay opens). Perhaps others would care to look further at other company's wagons?

What was the function of the electric connector(s) mounted on each bufferbeam?

Push-pull bell connection to autotrailer?

Nick

...

But they did spend most of their time running behind (banker) instead of in front, and then it was wagons of the various mine owners in the Somerset coalfield.

True, but remember that, as delivered, they had screw reverse, vacuum brake and steam heating because they were intented for passenger use as well as banking and goods trips. However, they were introduced around a year before the LMS took over the locomotive side and he LMS quickly found other uses for these passenger-capable locos. Two had gone by July 1930 and, though they returned briefly, all had gone by the end of 1934. Only No 25 (7316 after 1934) returned during the war and stayed almos to the end.

Some photo evidence suggests thekept the blue livery for a few years, so 1929-1934 is the date range for the livery, rather than "late 1920s".

Of course, adding the passenger element doesn't make things much easier as there's not much in the way of contemporary stock available.

Nick

On the 4F, the splashers are separate parts and fit into gaps in the running plate from below. 

 

Hopefully, Bachmann will adopt the same practice with the 64xx, giving them the ability to fit either size.

 

John

The 4F splashers actually fit from above, not below, see the last photo here. More to the point, on both the 3F and 4F, the spalshers are far too big in order to fit their oversized wheel flanges. I suspect the same is happening here and the 64XX will end up with splashers more suitable for a 54XX. On the plus side, being removeable, there may be potential for a replacement etched component of scale size.

Nick

Dean's No 1 will be an interesting and unusual prototype, Ken. Will you go for the 1914 version with Belpaire firebox, small tanks and top feed, as in your drawing and the Russell photos, or one of its earlier forms?

btw, "precurser to the metro 2-4-0T" is an odd thing to say about it. There may be a typical Swindon similarity with No 1 in it's later forms, but the first five lots of Metros had already been built by May 1882 when No 1 was converted to a 2-4-0T. No 1 was also somewhat larger than the Metros in most dimensions.

Nick

There are several at Brent and the drawing for the one under the bridge at the East end is dated September 1892 and is fabricated from Galvanised Corrugated  Iron No20BWG The building has a roof radius of 5'3"  and is 8'3" from ground level to the base of the roof. The opening for the doors is 5'0 wide for double doors and there is a 4' wide 5' deep window at the rear of the building. The building is 14' long by 9' wide. with the left door hinge on the centre-line of the building.

Interesting. The dimensions, double doors and windows put it in the category later referred to as lock-ups rather than the much smaller lamp huts (see earlier posts). Do you have any further information on that drawing such as its source or a drawing number?

Since my earlier comment (#5) that 1904 seemed a reasonable date for their introduction, photographic evidence of several earlier examples has come to light. In particular, two photos in Keith Steele's Great Western Broad Gauge Album, OPC 1972. One shows part of a hut of typical lamp hut dimensions close to Maidenhead Bridge signal box, "...probably photographed in 1892...". The other shows the mail being collected by automatic TPO equipment at Cullompton in May 1891. The postman watching the scene is standing by a small wooden shelter and a corrugated hut slightly larger than a typical lamp hut. The latter hut appears to have a stove pipe chimney.

Any advance on 1891?

Nick