buffalo

May I be a little pedantic in the hope of avoiding any confusion by future readers of this topic? Neither the Somerset and Dorset nor the Joint company ever used anything like this as the companies no longer existed when BR introduced them. Forty odd S&DJR vans lasted to the LMS takeover in 1930 and were quite quickly replaced by LMS vehicles. LMS Stanier vans were still to be seen on the former S&D lines for some years after nationalisation when they were replaced by the BR standard type discussed here. Nick

It's really coming on well, Alan, and will look great with the HL chassis and decent wheels. Mike - no need to wait, use the search box. There are several HL builds on here, dating back to the pre-2009 archive. Nick

Indeed, Don, though I've always thought that blog entries work best when they present a substantive amount of progress, rather that the trickle approach that works fine in the topics. Nick

Now that is a subtle way of bringing us back on topic, Larry. After all, I believe Bill Hoole began his railway career in Edwardian times. Nick

Ah, you mean us weirdos who work in P4 Seriously, though, you make some good points here. Yes, most of us are prpbably happy to modify as needed but often kits intended to be built with compensation or springing still need to be modified because we prefer a different approach to suspension. Sometimes a rigid approach might be a better starting point. As to frames being too wide for 00, I wonder if some manufacturers take a dismissive approach to 00 and don't believe many would build kits for this gauge? I wonder what the relative proportions of kit builders are between 00, EM and P4? Nick

Yes, I really doubt the need in 4mm unless there's no support from valances. I definitely agree about steps, though, as they are often delicate in 4mm. I also wonder about whether there's any difference between versions of the Mitchell kit. The etches shown in the first entry do appear to be quite simple compared with, say, the Mitchell 517 although the latter copes with more variation (cabs, bunkers, firebox, smokebox, etc.). Nick

DC brakes in 1945-8 Yes, they were on the 1902 P6 from which the P22 is derived, but not on the P22. There is a cross shaft between a pair of triangular brackets below the solebars at one end. It may look like part of a DC brake but the shaft is connected by a lever to the vacuum cylinder above. See the P22 wagon diagram and a photo in Atkins et al. The handbrake is one of the jointed lever types. Nick

I'm not suprised you found attaching the buffer beam difficult if you just tin the mating surfaces and try to sweat them together. For perpendicular joints like these it is much easier, and gives a stronger joint, to just run a fillet of solder along the inside of the joint. Don't worry about visible solder in places where it is not going to be seen. When cleaned up it takes paint well. What I do is to cradle the running plate upside down in my hand and hold the buffer beam against the plate and valances with a small piece of wood with my first finger. Then drop a small piece of 145 degree solder or carry it on the iron (according to preference), add plenty of flux and run the iron along the joint. I also put a small bead between the beam and the valances. If you find your iron is not producing enough head to make a smooth bead, your tip is probably too small. I use an Antex 25W iron with a 3mm chisel bit and find it quite sufficient for the main parts of any 4mm build. I'd also recommend cleaning up the lamp irons before fitting. It is very difficult to get a file to them without scratching anything else. The ones you have that pass through the running plate are fairly strong, but those that are fixed on top, especially those with a half-etch fold, will almost certainly break if try to do anything to them. Nick

Will a 517 in chocolate brown livery at a station with chocolate frames and doors do? Mind you, I still have to finish and paint both (and the autotrailer) so don't hold your breath. Of course, Dave's much further ahead -- see fifth and sixth photos in this blog entry, I expect Ian will get there before me as well. Nick

Yes, I would recommend a little bracing. When I built mine about three years ago I didn't add any bracing at first, but soon found a slight sag (1-2mm) in the middle so added a single cross brace half way along. This seems to have done the trick. Nick

I'm always a bit wary of local claims of the "smallest x" etc. For example, this page claims that Chew Magna in Somerset once had the smallest gasworks. Presumably both claims refer to public supplies for there were many smaller gasworks at industrial sites and large country houses. Nick

Yes, it's superb. See also Dave's blog entry and construction details in preceding entries. What I particularly like is the presence of the timber strips on the walls to support the posters, very obvious in photos but rarely seen on models. Nick

If the top feed isn't finally fixed, try wrapping a piece of fine wet and dry paper around the boiler barrel and rubbing the base over this. Works well for plastics, brass and white metal. Nick

You could but, as Jol asked a reasonable question, it's only fair to try to answer it. The simple answer is that, as I model in P4, anything less that 4' radius is tight, but the method will allow much tighter radii in 00. Starting with the available sideplay on the middle axle, I get about 1.4mm on P4 wheels so would expect about 3.3mm in 00 with the same axleguards. Half this figure gives the maximum sideways movement in any curve. Using a typical GWR 6-wheel wheelbase of 19' or a scale 76mm, the versine of a chord of this length (which gives the required sideplay) is 0.6mm at 1200mm radius, 0.8mm at 900mm and 1.2mm at 600mm. At my estimated 00 sideplay, the minimum radius is about 438mm. For the alignment of the outer axles, it's a question of when the angle between the wheel and the tangent to the rail is sufficient for the wheel to try to climb over the rail or, more likely, to strike a crossing vee. At 900mm radius, this angle is only 2.4 degrees and at 600mm it is about 3.6 degrees. With the typical flangeway gaps in 00 or EM track (1.5-1.0mm) I doubt that this is enough to cause problems (though I haven't done the sums), but anything much tighter could do. Another thing to consider with the outer wheel angles is that any 4-wheel vehicle of the same wheelbase will, of course, encounter the same problems as a 6-wheeler. This rather makes a mockery of the fact that most companies used 4-wheelers on lines where the radii were too tight for 6-wheelers. So yes, Cleminsons have their place but in 00 is suspect it is only well below 2' radius. Nick

You really don't need a Cleminson chassis unless you have very tight radii and need the outer wheels to turn into the curve. The method Peter describes is both cheep and reliable. Get a length of 2mm o/d, 1mm i/d brass tube and a length of 1mm silver steel from Eileen's or other sources. Cut the tube and mount the wheels on it. It should not protrude beyond the wheel faces. Cut the silver steel to the normal axle length and shape the pinpoints by mounting in a drill and filing to shape. Alternatively, you can use Exactoscale axles with the plastic removed instead of the silver steel. Both pinpoint and plain ends are available as are plain bearings if you want to use them. Nick

Quite so, and not just Cornwall. I can remember some older folk calling them broccoli in the fifties in the Bristol area. It was, after all, years before most people had seen calabrese or other funny coloured brassica. Nick

Surely, broccoli on the GWR was mostly white? Nick

Thanks for the comments, Ian. I also have that tee shirt and it's part of the reason why I was thinking about this. The idea in my head was to make a parting tool holder that would fit in the normal toolpost with any clamp screw(s) on top so nothing to foul the chuck. Running in reverse with an inverted front-mounted tool also lets the swarf fall away under gravity. Well, David (and Pat), I did say "a lathe with a reversible spindle". Like that described by Ozzyo, there's nothing to unscrew on mine. Nick

Jeff, It would require making a holder to get the tool to the right height, but that would be a fairly simple task. Nick

I've been thinking of making a rear-mounted tool post for parting off as illustrated by Ian for the last few months. Part of the reason for not having got around to it is that there is an alternative for lathes with a reversible spindle. That is to mount the tool upside-down at the front and run the spindle in reverse. My gut feeling is that with this approach it would be easier to see what was going on. Any views on the relative merits of the two methods? Nick

Herewith the promised photos of the guard as supplied in the three possible positions dictated by the pin and slot: Even if it had been assembled the other way round, it's difficult to see most of the possible positions beinof much use. I think I can live without it Nick

Thanks Pebbles. I've just been out to the garage to have a look and that does seem to be the answer. In fact, the lathe came with two plastic screens and I'd assumed the second one was an alternative chuck screen with a fitting for a different type of hinged cutout switch so I'd never taken it out of its sealed bag. The pastic is already cracked around one of the mounting holes. The three indexing slots set the screen in some strange positions so it's difficult to imagine just what it is meant to screen from what. I'll take some photos later but it's too cold at the moment. Largely redundant seems to sum it up. Nick

It is perhaps ironic for those who are still amused by such tired old nonsense that, other than minor details as much within as beteen classes, most of the 54XX and 64XX are the same except for wheel size and the resulting difference in splasher size and buffer height. Nick

Yes, the usual 00 disease splashers were the first thing that struck me. Mind you, if you fit larger wheels and move the buffers down a bit, they'll be about right for a 54xx. Nick

I was thinking along similar lines, David, but the hole centre is 100mm from the left hand end of the slide so, even with the normal toolpost removed, it wouldn't get very close to the chuck unless the cross slide was wound out to its limit. Maybe, Pat, but 10mm seems a little on the large size for most dial indicator supports, and why the indexing slots? There's plenty of room on the machine for magnetic bases. At least I now know that I'm not alone in wondering what it is Nick