Tim Lewis

Coldstream: page 2 from old RMWeb by timlewis original page on Old RMweb __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:12 pm Catching up on a few things I meant to reply to earlier... max stafford wrote: Tim, I've long loved the Kelso line, probably since visiting Norham Station in 1980. Norham is wonderful isn't it? Not been for a while. For those of you who don't know, Norham is two stations back along towards Tweedmouth and is preserved along with coal drops (with cover for lime cells), goods shed, signal box etc. I think you have to ring to make an appointment to visit. mines a pint wrote: the pics I have seen of Coldstream, and the rest of the branch typically (in Neil Caplans book) see one coach trains, its amazing just how 'sprawling' the plans are . ! Most of the photos you tend to see are from the early 1960s, when the trains were usually a Standard 2 (Hawick-based) with a single Mk1 or Gresley Brake Third. These were often supplemented by several parcels vans on some trains. Back in the 1950s, the trains were mostly two coaches (mixture of Gresley wooden and steel bodied 51' stock, some ex-NER, some ex-NBR, even some LMS!). I have a photo of a four coach train (LNER/NER stock) which doesn't appear to be a special of any kind. Don't know what date this is, but 50s sometime. Yes, the track plan is relatively 'sprawling': even small stations are quite big! The yard did get busy at times: I have pictures where there must be 30 or more wagons in the yard. Bernard Lamb wrote: I am looking forward to seeing the track when it is built. I see you have the situation of sleeper spacing for the different panels of plain track under control. You don't often see this feature in model form. Yes, that was one of the things that made me want to try and reproduce it (although I suspect most people won't notice at all). The track panels are a real mish-mash of lengths and sleeper spacings, many with 2-bolt fishplates. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Thu Oct 30, 2008 7:13 pm Well, I think I've finished tweaking the Templot plan for Coldstream Sorting out all the sleeper/timber conflicts took a very long time, some of it was , some of it was , but I reckon it will be worth it, as I don't have to think too hard about sleeper spacings anymore, just build the track . There might be the odd 'on-site' adjustment, but very few. My laptop crashed/locked (courtesy of Microsoft) a couple of times part way through: I thought I might lose a lot of work , but Martin has built in a 'continuous backup', so I didn't lose anything: brilliant An example screen shot is attached (maybe this should have been posted in the Templot forum): I'm going for a lie down now __________________________________________ Comment posted by Portchullin Tatty on Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:51 pm Tim, Having made a fair number of interlaced turnouts (the Highland were as tight as the North Eastern when it came to avoiding the use of long and expensive timbers!), can I warn you they end up being quite delicate. If you are proposing to make them on bench and then transfer them to the layout, you are going to have to lift them from the drawings ever so carefully. I made mine using ply and rivets. I found that introducing one or two "extra" rivets on the rails where they pass over sleepers but were not sitting on a chair at that point added considerable robustness and can not really be seen. I think you are using plastic components and I suggest you might want to do the same but with a chair, which you subsequently cut away. As another aside, think about turnout operation now. I made the mistake of putting turnouts in locations that were difficult to serve from below and sorely regretted it. With such a complicated trackplan, you could have the same? Like the layout, it looks as if you could have a good one there! Thanks for you comments about mine! __________________________________________ Comment posted by mines a pint on Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:08 am An example screen shot is attached (maybe this should have been posted in the Templot forum): I'm going for a lie down now a Well deserved one too! - I have to admit that twelve months into templot I have got to the stage of being able to put useable plans and templates together, but the plan does look like a 'work of art' in itself! I was sensing you probably already had the book I was referring to given the amount of research you have obviously put in, but just one question how on earth did you manage to find out how long each individual rail section was amongst all those different length panel lengths? thats truly amazing attention to detail? __________________________________________ Comment posted by 10800 on Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:24 am Having been used to working with SR type 60ft panels and their sleeper spacings, those short panels (30ft?) in the middle of your extract with what seem to my eyes to be very close spacings at the rail joints look very strange! How long did they last? __________________________________________ Comment posted by mines a pint on Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:33 am those short panels (30ft?) -Dont want to speak out of turn- but think they are 30ft/13 sleepers they were on the Rothbury branch too (was looking into that for a model some time ago) Edit: just rechecked book pic (longwitton)- 11 sleepers not 13 - 30ft is a guess also! __________________________________________ Comment posted by dave_long on Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:07 am Portchullin Tatty wrote: Tim, Having made a fair number of interlaced turnouts (the Highland were as tight as the North Eastern when it came to avoiding the use of long and expensive timbers!), can I warn you they end up being quite delicate. If you are proposing to make them on bench and then transfer them to the layout, you are going to have to lift them from the drawings ever so carefully. I made mine using ply and rivets. I found that introducing one or two "extra" rivets on the rails where they pass over sleepers but were not sitting on a chair at that point added considerable robustness and can not really be seen. I think you are using plastic components and I suggest you might want to do the same but with a chair, which you subsequently cut away. You may find this useful I've yet to try it as I built my last lot of points straight on to the layout but it's what I'll be trying on my next one. If you have built some delicate trackwork away from the layout then once your happy with it lightly solder a few pieces of scrap rail across the top of your trackwork to give it some added strength after pealing it away from the templates. hth __________________________________________ Comment posted by Bernard Lamb on Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:21 am mines a pint wrote: those short panels (30ft?) -Dont want to speak out of turn- but think they are 30ft/13 sleepers they were on the Rothbury branch too (was looking into that for a model some time ago) Edit: just rechecked book pic (longwitton)- 11 sleepers not 13 - 30ft is a guess also! You are correct Russ. 30' panels had 11 sleepers going by my NER data tables. There was an earlier steel rail in 80 lb section that came in 24' panels. Going by photos some of the original track lasted at least up until 1957/1958. Then a few short years after it was relaid in modern materials the lines were closed. I am sure that Tim knows more about NER track details than the rest of us put together so I better shutup. Bernard __________________________________________ ??? posted on Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:20 pm Portchullin Tatty wrote: Tim, Having made a fair number of interlaced turnouts (the Highland were as tight as the North Eastern when it came to avoiding the use of long and expensive timbers!), can I warn you they end up being quite delicate. If you are proposing to make them on bench and then transfer them to the layout, you are going to have to lift them from the drawings ever so carefully. I made mine using ply and rivets. I found that introducing one or two "extra" rivets on the rails where they pass over sleepers but were not sitting on a chair at that point added considerable robustness and can not really be seen. I think you are using plastic components and I suggest you might want to do the same but with a chair, which you subsequently cut away. As another aside, think about turnout operation now. I made the mistake of putting turnouts in locations that were difficult to serve from below and sorely regretted it. With such a complicated trackplan, you could have the same? Like the layout, it looks as if you could have a good one there! Thanks for you comments about mine! Thanks for the warnings. Yes, I had noticed the interlaced sleepers on Portchullin: very nice! My current thinking is that I will build the track in situ, but I'll try a bit of plain track and a turnout first to see whether I get on with this method. Turnout operation: the baseboards are designed to take Tortoises. Underneath they look like this: As you can see, a lot of the 'base' is cut away to allow access whilst maintaining strength. The underside of the top of the board is entirely unimpeded by any strengthening members or whatever so, apart from having to negotiate the bits of the 'base' that are still there (and if need be I can probably get rid of a bit more), then I'm hoping access won't be a problem. I should have said that the boards are also designed so that there are no turnout switches close to joints (that's why they're such a funny shape: the one in the picture is close to, but isn't, rectangular, some of the others are very weird shapes indeed). __________________________________________ ??? posted on Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:01 pm mines a pint wrote: how on earth did you manage to find out how long each individual rail section was amongst all those different length panel lengths? thats truly amazing attention to detail? I spent a looooonnnngggg time looking at photos I have lots of 'glimpses' of track details, but there are many areas I don't have good pictures of, and I certainly don't have any 'official' knowledge, so there's still a fair bit of guesswork, but I think I've managed to capture the essence of trackwork variability. 10800 wrote: Having been used to working with SR type 60ft panels and their sleeper spacings, those short panels (30ft?) in the middle of your extract with what seem to my eyes to be very close spacings at the rail joints look very strange! How long did they last? and Bernard Lamb wrote: mines a pint wrote: those short panels (30ft?) -Dont want to speak out of turn- but think they are 30ft/13 sleepers they were on the Rothbury branch too (was looking into that for a model some time ago) Edit: just rechecked book pic (longwitton)- 11 sleepers not 13 - 30ft is a guess also! You are correct Russ. 30' panels had 11 sleepers going by my NER data tables. There was an earlier steel rail in 80 lb section that came in 24' panels. Going by photos some of the original track lasted at least up until 1957/1958. Then a few short years after it was relaid in modern materials the lines were closed. I am sure that Tim knows more about NER track details than the rest of us put together so I better shutup. Bernard Well at least you noticed the short panels! That was the intention. Those particular ones are 30ft: the reason they look so strange is that they are joined with 2-bolt fishplates (photographic evidence), so the end sleepers get very close together. This is 'non-standard'. But that's only the start of the strange-ness. The two platform roads at one time had 'ordinary' track (I have a picture from the 1930s: can't actually tell panel length, but nothing out of the ordinary). Sometime in the 1930s, most of both platform roads were re-laid with very short panels: I have no actual measurements, but as far as I can tell (from several photos) the Tweedmouth platform was re-laid with 24ft 10 sleeper lengths with 2-bolt fishplates, and the Kelso platform with 27ft 12 sleeper lengths with 2-bolt fishplates. Neither of these is standard either. They stayed like this until closure in 1965. Why this was done I've no idea: perhaps they had lots of 24ft and 27ft rails lying around, but the earlier standards (which panels had different numbers of sleepers) for these lengths used smaller section rail (as Bernard says). I can't tell from photos, but it would seem unlikely that they would lay light section rail on running lines at this date. Unless I discover strong evidence to the contrary, my model is going to have the same section rail throughout: there are limits to my madness There are several other types of track configuration in evidence from photos: for example, some of the main Tweedmouth line a bit away from the station has 45ft 18 sleeper lengths with 4-bolt fishplates, which may (or may not) be replacement track using the LNER standard. However, at the same place, the Kelso line has 45ft 18 sleeper panels with 2-bolt fishplates! Go figure, as they say across the pond. I could go on, but you must be bored by now . Bernard, my knowledge of NER track is limited to published standards, NER record etc., so I certainly don't consider myself an 'expert'. I do however, know quite a bit about NER track at Coldstream. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Bernard Lamb on Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:56 pm Very curious. I have never heard of 27' rails on the NER other than the very early wrought iron double headed type. I just wonder if the rail in your photos is pre 1889 double headed steel section which I thought only existed in 24' or 30' lengths. I can't imagine that any wrought iron rails survived in use as running rails into the 1960s. Now you could try and file a larger radius on the rail head and foot to represent a double headed section for relevant track panels. It won't take that long My interest in the area comes about through having friends who live near Mindrum, just down the branch towards Wooler. Bernard __________________________________________ Comment posted by micklner on Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:47 pm Hi Can you assist re what type of ballasting was used for rails for the LNER period? I know NER used Ash as ballast was this continued into LNER/BR? I am building a LNER (NER area) layout at moment. cheers Mick __________________________________________ ??? posted on Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:15 pm micklner wrote: Hi Can you assist re what type of ballasting was used for rails for the LNER period? I know NER used Ash as ballast was this continued into LNER/BR? I am building a LNER (NER area) layout at moment. cheers Mick I don't know what the 'official' method would have been, but ash/clinker was still very much in evidence at Coldstream right up until closure (see pic, taken sometime in early 60s, I presume it's had ballast added sometime since 1923 ). Having said that, I have pictures from further down the Tweed Valley line (and indeed some small areas at Coldstream) where it looks like some kind of gravel has been used. So, you can probably use whatever takes your fancy, but in LNER days I would go for ash myself, possibly unless it's a main line. I'm experimenting with ballast at the moment: none of the commercial products sold as ash ballast really do it for me (although Carr's '2mm Dark Grey' isn't bad). I guess that 'ash ballast' itself varied a fair bit. The stuff at Coldstream is quite dark, but I suspect elsewhere it could have been lighter? I'll let you know how I get on with my experiments. Currently, it looks like a toss-up between chinchilla dust and bird sand (useful things pet shops ), both sieved, and then soaked with poster paint. I think the sieving is key: 'normal' kitchen sieves will be too coarse: but you can get 'dusting sieves' I believe? I happen to have some old laboratory sieves which are great. (Check out the ballast in the yard on Andy C's New Hey as well: from memory, he used builders sand I think, sprayed with paint. That's where the bird sand tip came from as well). HTH __________________________________________ Comment posted by martin_wynne on Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:43 pm timlewis wrote: Hi Tim, Interesting pic. Is that a two-bolt fishplate and very close spacing I can see between the 4th and 5th sleepers from the camera? Martin. __________________________________________ Comment posted by micklner on Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:46 pm thanks Mick __________________________________________ Comment posted by BrushType4 on Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:42 pm martin_wynne wrote: timlewis wrote: Hi Tim, Interesting pic. Is that a two-bolt fishplate and very close spacing I can see between the 4th and 5th sleepers from the camera? Martin. Must be where the baseboards join. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:46 pm martin_wynne wrote: Hi Tim, Interesting pic. Is that a two-bolt fishplate and very close spacing I can see between the 4th and 5th sleepers from the camera? Martin. Yep, although this is in the section I'm not modelling at the moment, so haven't paid too much attention. Phase 2? The pic isn't really good enough quality, but it looks like a 12 sleeper length. This is the Alnwick branch just beginning to diverge from the main Tweed Valley lines (2 tracks on right). If you look very closely, you can just make out what appears to be a 4-bolt fishplate in the siding on the left. This pic below is taken just a little way back towards Coldstream (you can see the same signal). Note the obvious 4-bolt plate on the second line from the right (Kelso line). This seems to be an 18 sleeper length, so may be an LNER 'standard' 45ft panel. But, note also the close spacing and 2-bolt plate between 8th and 9th sleepers in the track on the right (Tweedmouth line). See, it's crazy __________________________________________ Comment posted by Rannoch Moor on Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:29 pm Tim, Just found the link into this - I'm looking forward to seeing how you progress in between the spending time on Kilbrannan Ferry. I do wish I'd gone P4 but have spent too much time and ??????‚?? on EM - hey ho.... Gus __________________________________________ Comment posted by martin_wynne on Sun Nov 16, 2008 12:06 pm Hi Tim, Another picture from Mick Nicholson showing a sleepered turnout. This is a more modern pic with good detail: http://www.templot.com/forum/view_topic ... 3550#p3550 Martin. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:23 pm timlewis wrote: Well, I think I've finished tweaking the Templot plan for Coldstream Hmmm, I thought it was too good to be true. I printed out the plan full size at work and took it along to my Area Group meeting last week to see what the boys thought of it. After much discussion, we decided that the coal drops road and adjacent siding were too close together, the end loading dock was too short, the turnout from the down line to the turntable/coal drops headshunt was too close to the platform and some of the yard turnouts might be too generous (i.e. too shallow an angle). The first three points are definitely true, I'm not sure about the last one. So, I spent a good part of yesterday comparing the plan with photos (again!!) and measuring parts of the plan and comparing against 'standage' measurements for the various sidings from the NER 'White Print' diagram, and against linear measurements (in decimal chains: now there's a fabulous unit!) from the official 'Line Diagram'. I've come to the conclusion that a bit of re-working is necessary, although most of the yard turnouts I believe are the correct angle (with the exception of the crossover near the goods shed and the coal drop turnout (which is why the lines are too close). Some of these things I guess no one would ever notice, but now I know about it I have to change them. So, it's back to Templot, but hopefully it won't take too long, although I probably won't be able to do it for a few weeks now. This just goes to show that, even if you work directly onto a surveyed plan as closely as you can, you may not get it right first time. Hey ho. __________________________________________ Comment posted by 60041 on Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:39 am Do you have a track plan for Coldstream - I am very interested in the railways of this area. __________________________________________ Comment posted by tetleys on Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:54 pm Very nice baseboards and it looks an exciting project but I cannot help thinking you'd get things done a lot quicker if you got rid of all that furniture somebody has stored in your model railway room! I do hope those tins of paint I spotted under the baseboards are not waiting to be applied to various domestic rooms. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:02 pm A (very) minor milestone for me: my 200th post tetleys wrote: Very nice baseboards and it looks an exciting project but I cannot help thinking you'd get things done a lot quicker if you got rid of all that furniture somebody has stored in your model railway room! Just wondering whether to pluck up courage to show this to SWMBO as an idea for 'change of use' of the living room. Hmmm, let me think.....nope! I do hope those tins of paint I spotted under the baseboards are not waiting to be applied to various domestic rooms. Much of the paint has already been applied (one of the many reasons why I haven't got far with my layout ), but there's still enough in the tins to make them useful as weights. 60041 wrote: Do you have a track plan for Coldstream - I am very interested in the railways of this area. I do, somewhere, but for some reason I can't find the image file at present. I'll have another look later on. __________________________________________ Comment posted by 10800 on Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:45 pm timlewis wrote: Just wondering whether to pluck up courage to show this to SWMBO as an idea for 'change of use' of the living room. Hmmm, let me think.....nope! (we don't have a smiley for spluttering on the keyboard!) __________________________________________ Comment posted by OgaugeJB on Mon Sep 14, 2009 4:11 pm Spectacular baseboards. Hopefully I might have the space for something similar one day JB. __________________________________________

Coldstream: page 1 from old RMWeb by timlewis original page on Old RMweb __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:37 pm Welcome to Coldstream, the planning and researching of which has been occupying my mind on and off for over 20 years now: time I got building! The baseboards have been built for a while now, but last weekend they were joined together for a final sanding of the joints etc. (thanks, Gavin!). I've had a couple of days off this week, and SWMBO is away, so I've temporarily taken over the living room The first couple of pics just show the boards, with a couple of locos positioned to give an idea of size. Sorry about the quality of the pics: they look better without flash, and it's been gloomy in Shrewsbury recently (hand-held at c. 1/4 sec). Underlay will be Exactoscale foam (1 layer yard, 2 layers running lines). I made a start on laying this. The baseboards, although an odd shape, fit very precisely, and I had aimed to attach the underlay across all boards, then cut through at the joints, thus giving a low visibility join in the underlay too. Started off well enough.... Can you see the flaw in the method yet? The templates are temporary ones from an as yet incomplete Templot plan. Everything is in more or less the right place, but haven't tidied up sleeper spacings etc. The 'proper' one will get printed on a large plotter at work. Having tried to cut through the underlay at a joint as a trial, it became apparent I had under-estimated how much the Copydex would get into the joints, and it's much better at sticking ply than foam: not good . Yes, it's obvious to me now, but it wasn't at the time. So, a re-think was required: luckily I hadn't got too far, so the air was only a rather fetching shade of sky-blue rather than the darker purple that it might have been . Took the boards apart, removed bits of underlay that had become ragged in the process, and recommenced, this time doing one board at a time. This is actually much easier, just going to prove what a dumbass idea my first attempt was. So, this work is still in progress. While waiting for glue to set, I'm trying to finish off the Templot plan, which is taking a while but should pay dividends in the long run. I hope to continue making progress over the coming winter, and will keep you updated (just don't hold your breath) . __________________________________________ Comment posted by micklner on Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:42 pm Hi I presume there will be fiddle yards at each end, is this based a particular station or fictional, lastly what is the large hole at one end??? Nice work so far Mick __________________________________________ Comment posted by dave_long on Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:44 pm That looks really impressive already. What plans do you have for the 2 large holes in the baseboard tops? Is that all your scenic area or do you have more to come? __________________________________________ Comment posted by ChrisM on Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:48 pm nice, what period is the layout going to be set?? You going to be running a day when the ECML is closed and A4's with crack expresses are passing through __________________________________________ Comment posted by smudgeloco on Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:02 pm Tim, your baseboards look amazing. That trackplan looks very interesting too. I can see that this is going to be one to watch. I look forward to seeing progress. Be sure to keep us updated. Michael. __________________________________________ Comment posted by martin_wynne on Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:00 pm timlewis wrote: So, this work is still in progress. While waiting for glue to set, I'm trying to finish off the Templot plan, which is taking a while but should pay dividends in the long run. Hi Tim, Great to see Coldstream taking shape at last. I don't know how far you have got with the interlaced NER timbering in Templot -- there is a Templot video showing how to create custom NER templates at: http://www.templot.c...orum/view_topic ... 1779#p1779 Also a Templot data file of NER turnouts for downloading. regards, Martin. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:32 pm micklner wrote: Hi I presume there will be fiddle yards at each end, is this based a particular station or fictional, lastly what is the large hole at one end??? Nice work so far Mick dave_long wrote: That looks really impressive already. What plans do you have for the 2 large holes in the baseboard tops? Is that all your scenic area or do you have more to come? Thanks gents. There will be fiddle yards, but like everything else about this layout, not simple. Depending on what happens when, initially I may have to make do with cassettes. The long term aim is that it ends up in the loft with a single fiddle yard to allow continuous running. Also in the long term I'm hoping to exhibit it, in which case it will use a different fiddle yard and continuous run, shortly to be modified to be dual purpose for Coldstream and a friends layout. It is based on a real location, on the Tweed Valley line between Tweedmouth (ECML) and St. Boswells (Waverley Route). What you see here will be built using a 1908 NER plan, with no compression. The smaller hole is where the turntable will eventually be (yes, I know turntables aren't that shape ). The other bigger hole is for a lower level bit of scenery adjacent to the coal drops. In this pic you can see the turntable road (ending up in the small hole) and part of the coal drops siding (the one that's running along the edge of the big hole).... Lastly, yes this is "all" I'm building for now (it'll take long enough! ). There is the possibility of the optimistically titled Phases 2 and 3 however, which would extend in both directions, although some compression and other geometric liberties would be necessary. But that's a looong way off. __________________________________________ Comment posted by max stafford on Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:42 pm Tim, I've long loved the Kelso line, probably since visiting Norham Station in 1980. I'm going to be paying a lot of attention to what looks like being a superb rendition. If my shed was bigger, I'd consider something based on this line. The loft has already been claimed by the Caley! Dave. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:51 pm ChrisM wrote: nice, what period is the layout going to be set?? You going to be running a day when the ECML is closed and A4's with crack expresses are passing through About 1950-52, but with a few bits spanning 1948-1957 (allows me to run some locos which didn't make it to the 1950s, and also some more 'modern' stock, but not together (at least not in public ). As you may know, the line was used for periods of several weeks as a diversionary route when the ECML was out of action: this happened at least twice (1948 and 1956) and possibly more. Problem was that they suspended the normal passenger (and probably goods) service during these periods I believe. If I ever get to the point of having enough stock to run ECML expresses, then at least I've got an excuse. However, after the 1948 closures, there were two freights a day each way Niddrie (Edinburgh)-Tweedmouth, which continued for several years, so I hope to have a long freight or two. Applying a bit of licence, out of my period in the 1930s there were scheduled Newcastle-Edinburgh trains that went this way. So, plenty of reasons for wanting lots of stock: just need time to build it!! __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:08 pm martin_wynne wrote: timlewis wrote: So, this work is still in progress. While waiting for glue to set, I'm trying to finish off the Templot plan, which is taking a while but should pay dividends in the long run. Hi Tim, Great to see Coldstream taking shape at last. I don't know how far you have got with the interlaced NER timbering in Templot -- there is a Templot video showing how to create custom NER templates at: http://www.templot.c...orum/view_topic ... 1779#p1779 Also a Templot data file of NER turnouts for downloading. regards, Martin. Hi Martin, long time no see! Yes, it's nice to see something actually happening (though I'm not going to stop armchair modelling completely ). I've only recently got my new(-ish) laptop and broadband sorted out at home, and haven't got round to 're-joining' the Templot forum: seems like I've been missing some useful stuff. Based on the 1 in 8 template you did for me ages ago, and using the NER plans books, I made 'library' interlaced templates for 1 in 6/7/9 almost a year ago: bit fiddly, but got there in the end. Only thing outstanding was that I couldn't get the check rails to move to the correct position (I found what I thought was the right menu option, but it didn't work, can't remember detail, I'll discuss it with you sometime), but I can live with it for now and just move them 'manually' when I lay the track. I'm not going to suggest that my efforts are 100% accurate, but they look like NER turnouts to me (it would be interesting, but possibly embarrassing, to compare mine with yours ). What I'm doing with the Templot plan now is sorting out all the sleeper conflicts where several interlaced-timbered turnouts start to interfere with one another (you'll probably tell me that if I'd done it properly this wouldn't have happened!). Also, there are six different configurations of plain track to sort out: all good fun! Nearly there, but its surprising how long it takes to shove timbers. See you soon? __________________________________________ Comment posted by 10800 on Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:11 pm Good stuff Tim, nice to see something 'real' after all those years of planning and research! And I'm pleased to see you've put down all those newspapers and dust-sheets to assuage any potential wrath from SWMBO Better get on with mine now I suppose ... __________________________________________ Comment posted by martin_wynne on Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:32 pm timlewis wrote: What I'm doing with the Templot plan now is sorting out all the sleeper conflicts where several interlaced-timbered turnouts start to interfere with one another (you'll probably tell me that if I'd done it properly this wouldn't have happened!). Hi Tim, No, it's always a struggle to get the timbering conflicts sorted out. I think the prototype must have been just as difficult. Here's a superb pic from Mick Nicholson which may give some clues: http://www.templot.c...orum/view_topic ... d=11#p1027 and another pic of NER track: http://www.templot.c...bubwith_ner.jpg See you soon? I hope so. Every so often Gavin rings me to remind me it's Monday. It's high time I came over to see what you have all been doing. cheers, Martin. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:47 pm martin_wynne wrote: No, it's always a struggle to get the timbering conflicts sorted out. I think the prototype must have been just as difficult. Here's a superb pic from Mick Nicholson which may give some clues: http://www.templot.c...orum/view_topic ... d=11#p1027 and another pic of NER track: http://www.templot.c...bubwith_ner.jpg Glad I'm not missing something obvious. Thanks for the links to the two pictures: very nice. The sleeper ends on the turnout road in the first one are all over the place. The catch point operating linkage is interesting in the second one. I actually have quite a few photos that show aspects of trackwork at Coldstream, trouble is, with the usual low-angle shots, it can be difficult to work out what the sleeper arrangement is, especially when the ballast is more or less level with the tops. I'm not sure how 'standard' the NER standard was: just from photos I've seen, it's clear that things have to be adjusted to fit the site (which is good, cos it means that I can 'make up' what I don't know, albeit following what I believe would have been sensible practice). __________________________________________ Comment posted by mines a pint on Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:28 am Looks like it will be an interesting one to watch being built ! the pics I have seen of Coldstream, and the rest of the branch typically (in Neil Caplans book) see one coach trains, its amazing just how 'sprawling' the plans are . Look forward to seeing more! __________________________________________ Comment posted by Bernard Lamb on Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:38 am timlewis wrote: I actually have quite a few photos that show aspects of trackwork at Coldstream, trouble is, with the usual low-angle shots, it can be difficult to work out what the sleeper arrangement is, especially when the ballast is more or less level with the tops. I'm not sure how 'standard' the NER standard was: just from photos I've seen, it's clear that things have to be adjusted to fit the site (which is good, cos it means that I can 'make up' what I don't know, albeit following what I believe would have been sensible practice). The only town with it's railway station in another country? There are several published shots of Scots Gap taken from the road overbridge that give a very good view of some typical NER sleepering. I don't think that there ever was a 'standard' drawing. I did draw up a template based on C & L parts many years ago and there were always a couple of timbers that didn't want to play ball. It all looks very good so far and I am looking forward to seeing the track when it is built. I see you have the situation of sleeper spacing for the different panels of plain track under control. You don't often see this feature in model form. Bernard __________________________________________ Comment posted by martin_wynne on Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:11 am Bernard Lamb wrote: The only town with it's railway station in another country? Hi Bernard, See also Knighton, on the England/Wales border: (not as off-topic for this thread as you might think. ) regards, Martin. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Anglian on Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:33 am I look forward to seeing this one develop. Your work so far looks of a very high standard. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Oct 26, 2008 4:34 pm 10800 wrote: Good stuff Tim, nice to see something 'real' after all those years of planning and research! And I'm pleased to see you've put down all those newspapers and dust-sheets to assuage any potential wrath from SWMBO Hi Rod, you've changed your avatar!! Yes, seemed like a good idea , no point getting negative brownie points. Having said that, when I took the boards apart (see above), one very nearly fell off the trestle into the bureau bookcase: this could have been painful, both financially and physically (there doesn't seem to be an emoticon for 'intense relief'!) Better get on with mine now I suppose ... Yes you should. I can say this with a straight face now __________________________________________ Comment posted by 10800 on Sun Oct 26, 2008 5:01 pm timlewis wrote: Hi Rod, you've changed your avatar!! Yes, just a bit of nostalgia (don't know how long it will last). Maybe I should have a competition to guess where/when it is (Andy C and Tony W are excluded from entering!). __________________________________________ Comment posted by James on Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:47 pm Hi Tim! I'm really looking forward to this developing - if it to the same standard as your stock it is going to be amazing! __________________________________________ Comment posted by keefer on Sun Oct 26, 2008 7:17 pm that looks like a really nice trackplan, lots going on without looking too crammed in you probably have all the info you need, but if you don't mind here's a couple of links i found whilst looking for the station/line history: http://www.subbrit.o...k/sb-sites/stat ... ndex.shtml http://www.northumbr...railways.co.uk/ ... coldstream good luck with the layout __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:52 pm keefer wrote: that looks like a really nice trackplan, lots going on without looking too crammed in you probably have all the info you need, but if you don't mind here's a couple of links i found whilst looking for the station/line history: http://www.subbrit.o...k/sb-sites/stat ... ndex.shtml http://www.northumbr...railways.co.uk/ ... coldstream good luck with the layout Keefer, I did already know about these links, but many thanks for reminding me anyway. Just to prove that it's always worth revisiting sites, there are two colour pictures of Coldstream on the Northumbrian Railways site that weren't there a couple of weeks back! And, I've never seen them before . They don't tell me anything 'new' about the infrastructure, but always nice to see different photos, especially colour ones. I suspect the pic of 76050 may be the last day of passenger services: I know it pulled the last train (although I thought I'd seen a pic somewhere else with two coaches?). Several people have said that the track plans look interesting. Yes, I think there should be enough operating potential. I'll post a decent track plan at some point, but you can get the idea from the maps (the later one: it changed a lot!) on the northumbrian-railways site. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:16 pm James wrote: Hi Tim! I'm really looking forward to this developing - if it to the same standard as your stock it is going to be amazing! You're too kind by half thanks . Stock is one thing, but as yet I've never done any scenic work, made any buildings or laid any track, to say nothing of wiring etc. So, plenty to learn and have a go at! Looking forward to it! __________________________________________ Comment posted by 10800 on Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:08 am What are the overall dimensions Tim? __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Oct 28, 2008 7:01 pm 10800 wrote: What are the overall dimensions Tim? The scenic section is just over 12' long, and about 4'6" at its widest. (I know these should probably be metric). The running lines are more or less in the middle of the wide section, so will need some very reliable auto-couplers (on things that need to uncouple)! So, not enormous, but quite a large area to cover, 'scenery'-wise. __________________________________________

As with my workbench thread, I'm copying over my layout thread (there isn't much of it as yet and it's nicer to have things all in the same place). Still prefer topics to blogs, so topic it is! This introductory post will be edited to form some kind of contents list.

Here's a couple of pictures of the first LNER steel 21T to be (nearly) finished. This was the first time I'd tried the 'Maskol approach' for weathering steel bodied wagons. Pretty pleased with how it turned out (and it was good fun too ).

Having snapped the etch on my first attempt at making up the lever guide for the P7 20T hopper (because it was too long: see above post around 1st October), I found a solution for further attempts. When cutting the guides from the etch, leave the etching tabs in place at either end: these can then be bent over and soldered together to form a robust (-ish) unit, see pictures below (well actually, you can't see it on the pictures because it's hidden behind the catch that supports the brake lever, but you know what I mean) The Ambis levers for the P7 are very nice: this picture shows how the complex shape of the bent etch is a big improvement on a solid plastic moulding. Below are just a couple of shots of the very nearly completed hopper, based on a picture in the Cheona book. It's fairly obvious that the makers plate (which are transfers from the Slaters kit) and the wagon sides show different numbers, but this will be remedied with a bit of judicious weathering. On the last picture you can just about see the monkey tails that I've added: eight on each wagon. Looks quite nice I think: only another six of these wagons to upgrade

Thanks for the tip Martin: I'll probably do that when I write the 'contents' list (probably tomorrow).

Well that was easy, thanks to Martin for the transfer utility Further workbench progress will appear here in due course.

On Tim L's P4 Workbench: (old RMWeb topic page 5) by timlewis original page on Old RMweb __________________________________________ Comment posted by Pennine MC on Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:38 pm but I was reasonably happy with how the steel floor looks: I should think you are Thanks for that Tim; I have tried techniques working powders into wet paint, but not with any great perseverance, I have to say __________________________________________ ??? posted on Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:38 pm Pennine MC wrote: but I was reasonably happy with how the steel floor looks: I should think you are Thanks for that Tim; I have tried techniques working powders into wet paint, but not with any great perseverance, I have to say Thanks Ian. The first couple of times I tried it I ended up with a horrible mess. I think the key is probably the very soft brush used to remove the excess: you don't want to 'scrape' the powders, or 'grind' them into the surface, just lightly remove/re-distribute everything that isn't sticking 'naturally' to the paint. Also (probably goes without saying) the paint shouldn't be too thick (or too thin!). Difficult to describe, but works for me. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:20 pm I've decided to try and actually finish some of the wagons that have been in a state of part-completion for varying numbers of years! There must be around 30 of them, mainly hoppers and cattle wagons. Here's progress on two of the cattle wagons: These are both LMS D1661 (David Geen kits). As you can see, one has got as far as a bauxite top coat. The other has a preliminary coat of 'wood' ('light grey' and 'natural wood'), although it doesn't really show up too well in the bright sunshine. The intention with this one is that it will be in bauxite, but badly in need of a repaint, with a fair bit of bare wood showing through: lots of painting stages to go yet. I also have two hoppers part way through the paint shops: A David Geen LNER 13T and a Slaters 20T P7. Both in the preliminary 'wood' paint: these will both be represented as unpainted except for number patches etc. I've decided to replace the brake levers and lever guides with these rather nice etches from Ambis: They've even etched the chain and split pin used to pin down the brakes: crazy! they're very nice, but very fragile and I doubt whether they'll survive long in service! The pictures show the 12T/13T etches, I also have some larger ones for the P7s. I'll post again when there's a bit more progress. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Steph Dale on Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:22 am Tim, I'm really enjoying seeing your modelling and (particularly) the finishing of your models. I was wondering how you'd got on with the David Geen LMS cattle wagons - I think yours are the first ones I've seen built up. I've also noticed that you've left off the etched straps; was this a deliberate ploy? Steph __________________________________________ Comment posted by Captain Kernow on Sun Aug 30, 2009 4:55 pm timlewis wrote: While this is still wet For the steel floor, I did the same thing, except I wanted a rustier look, so instead of just talc, I also used a couple of shades of rust weathering powders (one quite 'orangey', the other quite dark brown) as well. These were just dumped onto the floor in small piles at random, then 'tapped off' and brushed off as above That is very effective, Tim. I hadn't thought of putting the weathering powders on when the paint was still wet - I've done it that way, but let the enamels dry first, but I do like the added texture that your method provides! __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Aug 30, 2009 8:51 pm Steph Dale wrote: Tim, I'm really enjoying seeing your modelling and (particularly) the finishing of your models. I was wondering how you'd got on with the David Geen LMS cattle wagons - I think yours are the first ones I've seen built up. I've also noticed that you've left off the etched straps; was this a deliberate ploy? Steph Thanks. The cattle wagons built up quite well: I built them up a while ago, but I don't recall having to do any major surgery. You get a choice of doors which is good (the two in the photos have different doors: one has a two-plank bottom door, whilst the other has a three-plank). As usual I sprung these (using Masokits etched W-irons): can't remember whether I used the axlebox/springs castings from the kit, or from another source. The 'missing' etched straps will go on later, after I've finished the main body paintwork. I made the roofs (not shown in the photos) from 20thou plasticard, braced with strips of 40thou cut (near enough) to profile with a compass cutter. These two will be piped (not fitted), so can keep the brake gear supplied in the kit. I intend to build another three of these, but am waiting delivery of some etched underframes from Bill Bedford, so that I can build them as fitted (these were a different diagram, D1840 I think from memory). These will need some minor alterations to the body strapping, but nothing that a few bits of plasticard won't cope with. Thanks for your interest. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Steph Dale on Sun Aug 30, 2009 11:06 pm Thanks for your interest. Not entirely idle curiosity, if I'm honest. I did the patternwork for David. I think I may have done that NE hopper you're building as well, but the memory fades - it would have been a long time ago... I'd forgotten about the two sets of doors too - oh the joys of a well set-up pantograph milling machine! Steph __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:35 pm Steph Dale wrote: I did the patternwork for David. In that case, how about doing the patterns for the later D1944, and getting David to sell that as well! __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Aug 31, 2009 7:08 pm Bit more progress today. Some of the wagons have got to Stage 2 in the process of reproducing 'unpainted wood', having been dry-brushed with gunmetal, dark earth and light grey (not forgetting the insides!). Pre-dry-brushed example on the right. (Sorry about slight blurring on this one) Still a long way to go, but looking promising I think. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Sep 14, 2009 3:58 pm Some more progress on wagons (though none are yet finished ): firstly, two LNER cattle wagons, one in BR livery, the other in LNER. The roof isn't really white, just looks it in the photo. Next, an LMS cattle wagon badly in need of a repaint: And a couple of hoppers: Obviously still lots to be done, but quite happy with progress so far, except for how long it's taking. Doesn't painting/weathering/transferring wagons take forever? __________________________________________ Comment posted by Torper on Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:46 pm Hi Tim, Sorry to drag you back briefly from these marvellous wagons to the J25, with which I've been much impressed. I've long considered the tender split-frame pick-up method you've used, but have been put off by the apparent unavailability of 2mm split axles for the tender wheels. I can't see any indication on the photos that you've cut the axles and rejoined them with insulating ###### and araldite or some similar system, and wonder how you dealt with it? And what did you find was the best way of establishing an electrical connection between the wheel rim and the axle? David __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:55 pm Torper wrote: Hi Tim, Sorry to drag you back briefly from these marvellous wagons to the J25, with which I've been much impressed. I've long considered the tender split-frame pick-up method you've used, but have been put off by the apparent unavailability of 2mm split axles for the tender wheels. I can't see any indication on the photos that you've cut the axles and rejoined them with insulating ###### and araldite or some similar system, and wonder how you dealt with it? And what did you find was the best way of establishing an electrical connection between the wheel rim and the axle? David I used commercially available 2mm split axles (in 2 or 3 parts that you have to assemble): I can't remember where I got them though: I think it may have been Branchlines but I don't know whether they still do them (a quick look at their 'blog' style website includes a message from March 2008 saying that 2mm split axle parts are in short supply, but nothing more recent. Branchlines has recently changed owners, whether this affects what they stock I don't know). EMGS used to do them as well I think, but I'm no longer a member so can't easily check. You can just about see the axle joins on some of the photos if you look very closely, although they are a bit obscured by the hornblocks. I used etched shorting wires to connect the rim to the axle: I'm always rather surprised that these work at al, but they do, very well! I got mine from EMGS, but Bill Bedford does them. The J25 is packed away at the moment, but if I remember I'll try and take a couple of specific photos. Hope this helps. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:19 pm Some more progress with wagons over last couple of days (sorry no pics at the moment). Numbering/lettering on this batch is complete . I don't usually bother putting varnish over my transfers, but some of these looked a bit vulnerable and probably prone to coming off (most notably some of the Methfix ones, not used these before, found I had to wait quite a long time between each number to let them 'stick'), so I decided to varnish over all of them with Humbrol Matt Acrylic. Seemed to go on OK (brushed), but when dry left a very obvious 'whiteness' on some of the transfers. Bit disappointing this, will have to disguise with some suitable weathering. Started to put the brake levers/guides on the 13T hoppers, then realised that the Ambis etched guide (see pic above) isn't correct for the hoppers I've got (it is correct for earlier NER wagons, which in fairness is what Ambis describe it as). I was becoming resigned to reverting to the whitemetal castings from the kits (which are OK, but not brilliant), when I remembered I had a Dave Bradwell etch that includes some exquisite lever guides (see plate wagons earlier), so I'm using these. Slow progress! __________________________________________ Comment posted by 31A on Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:40 pm Interesting that you apply the transfers before you've finished painting the underframes etc., Tim - I ike the confident approach! __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:53 pm 31A wrote: Interesting that you apply the transfers before you've finished painting the underframes etc., Tim - I ike the confident approach! Painting and weathering of the underframes will all be done by hand, so unless I make a real mess and/or my hand slips quite a way, then hopefully it shouldn't be a problem (hope I'm not tempting fate here!) __________________________________________ Comment posted by iak on Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:32 am The finished articles are awaited with anticipation __________________________________________ ??? posted on Thu Oct 01, 2009 7:04 pm timlewis wrote: Started to put the brake levers/guides on the 13T hoppers, then realised that the Ambis etched guide (see pic above) isn't correct for the hoppers I've got (it is correct for earlier NER wagons, which in fairness is what Ambis describe it as). I was becoming resigned to reverting to the whitemetal castings from the kits (which are OK, but not brilliant), when I remembered I had a Dave Bradwell etch that includes some exquisite lever guides (see plate wagons earlier), so I'm using these. Slow progress! Thought I'd do a bit more on the brake levers on the 12/13T hoppers today. Unfortunately, turns out that the Ambis levers are the wrong shape (unless I'm doing something really stupid, which is always possible, but I don't think so in this case). The straight section of the levers is too short, and they curve too much, resulting in a downward slope where the lever goes through the guide, and a funny looking arch shape above the axlebox. After much fiddling, mainly involving lots of bending in the plane of the lever (which is difficult to do without distortion) I managed to get something acceptable, but it was a lot more work than I was anticipating.. Grrrrr Maybe they are the correct shape for some 12/13T hoppers, but not for the ones I'm doing. I'm only doing two 13T at the moment: I'll probably battle with the other one tomorrow (though I might use some spare Masokits levers, which might be easier). Thankfully, the levers for the 20T P7s are straight, so shouldn't have the same problem. __________________________________________ Comment posted by micklner on Thu Oct 01, 2009 7:26 pm Are you aware of the C+L lever etches ex Slaters I use them on my Hopper thread they cover side and end brake versions Mick __________________________________________ ??? posted on Thu Oct 01, 2009 7:31 pm micklner wrote: Are you aware of the C+L lever etches ex Slaters I use them on my Hopper thread they cover side and end brake versions Mick Yes, I am, but thanks for the reminder. I remember following that thread with interest. I have a C&L etch that I will use (someday ) to make an ex-Central Division P7 with the end brake levers. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:07 pm The two 13T hoppers I'm working on are now back on their wheels: (3-link is stuck in the photo of one of them). Still a little bit more weathering to do (bit of rust on the metalwork), and some handrails to re-attach, then they're about done . Now on to the brake gear upgrade for the 20T P7s. This is the Ambis etch for the lever guides: The instructions aren't the best, for instance it doesn't tell you that the H-shaped piece (that bolts to the solebar) needs several folds. Managed to make some progress once I'd figured this out: So far so good, looks nice, but boy, these are fiddly. Next step is to fold the long piece over to form the lever guide: turns out this is slightly too long. In trying to fettle this, I broke the etch at one of the fold lines, then when trying to sort this out managed to lose alignment elsewhere. Cue lots of swearing . Will have another go tomorrow when I'm more in the mood __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:22 pm This will be the last post on this thread in this version of RMweb: I've transferred all the posts to the new version. See you over there! __________________________________________

On Tim L's P4 Workbench: (old RMWeb topic page 4) by timlewis original page on Old RMweb __________________________________________ Comment posted by The Minister on Sat Apr 04, 2009 3:52 pm rob2 wrote: Excuse me for hijacking the thread Tim but while pipework is under discussion- on some Q7's the RHS handrail divides about a third of the way along from the cab and a pipe comes out,ducking under the boiler...?Any takers? Rob Hi Rob, Its the operating rod for the steam reverse. Regards The Minister __________________________________________ Comment posted by James on Sat Apr 04, 2009 4:22 pm rob2 wrote: That chassis employs the most fiendish ingenuity Tim .....and now I know what that thinner pipe that comes out of the handrail is! Excuse me for hijacking the thread Tim but while pipework is under discussion- on some Q7's the RHS handrail divides about a third of the way along from the cab and a pipe comes out,ducking under the boiler...?Any takers? Rob Steam reverser pipework iirc - like this possibly? Excuse the poor teenage modelling! __________________________________________ Comment posted by ArthurK on Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:08 pm The Q5, Q6 and the Q7 all had the handrail split on the right side. As on the blower valve a rod through the hollow handrail operated a lever with am arm leading down to a valve which admitted water via a pipe to the steam reverse cylinder. In the older system a second rod was required to control entry of steam. The was only clearly visible on the Q5, on the other iwas concealed by the firebox cleading. In BR days one of these was dispensed with on the Q7s and the remaining one was at at lower position than the handrail. After that the Boiler handrail was continous. Best check the photo of you favoured model. On the Q5 the steam reverse cylinders were visible at the top of the right-hand sandbox. On the others they were low down between the frames. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:58 pm ArthurK wrote: That 'thing' on the side of the smokebox is the blower valve operated from the cab through the hollow handrail. Lets see someone do that in 4mm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Thanks Arthur (and others for the info on the steam reverser gear, another example of how useful RMWeb is! ) When I made the blower valve (he said confidently, now knowing what it is ), I realised that I should have included a thinner section of 'handrail', but I couldn't think of an easy quick way of doing it, so I decided to live with it, at least for now. Having had all this attention though, maybe I should do something about it (another excuse for not finishing the J25?). Maybe I should just file the handrail wire down a bit. Here's a close-up picture from the preserved J21, when it was in NER green at Beamish in the early 1990s. __________________________________________ Comment posted by rob2 on Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:35 pm Thanks all,thats that cleared up then,great prototype photos btw.Mine subject did have this and its a something I incorporated despite not being one to usually add a lot of detail but it interested me,glad I did now that I know what it is! __________________________________________ Comment posted by James on Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:48 pm Good to meet you Tim! Your J25 looks even better in the flesh! I was very impressed! __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:29 pm James wrote: Good to meet you Tim! Good to meet you too James. Didn't take long to upload the photos. The two J25s do look rather nice together don't they! __________________________________________ Comment posted by James on Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:01 am timlewis wrote: Didn't take long to upload the photos. I was keeping out of the way of the wall papering! timlewis wrote: The two J25s do look rather nice together don't they! They do! It was quite interetsing to compare the same type but at completely different stages of their careers too. __________________________________________ Comment posted by ArthurK on Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:12 pm Here's one I made earlier! Just for a contrast to those two nice P4 models, compare with my own very old, very battered OO version. Totally scratch built. Boasting Romford wheels for the loco and believe, it or not, Hambling wheels on the tender. I am beginning to show my age!!! Also fitted with KaDee couplings front and back, never could get the hang of three link. This was built as a batch of four 0-6-0s, J27 (saturated), J27 (superheated), J24 (saturated) and the above J25 (superheated). For some reason the J25 was completed some years after the other three. __________________________________________ Comment posted by ArthurK on Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:18 pm Just for the record this is the only time I photographed a J25 in the flesh. Location is Low Fell. The signal box is long gone, as is the loco. I could kick myself becasuse on a visit to Gateshead shed the sister engine 65727 was there but for some reason I didn't take a shot of it. It was tucked away in the corner but i am sure that I could have made something of it. All I have is a bit of it lurking in the background. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Wed Jul 01, 2009 8:39 pm Nice pic Arthur! Shame you didn't get the picture of 65727, as that's the one I'm building. Very nice model J25 too (and scratchbuilt as well: superb). No progress on my J25 since the above pictures. Combination of being very busy at work and also working on a few wagons for Lower Soudley for the Wells Show. Currently off work sick, but sufficiently debilitated (pleurisy: wouldn't recommend it) that can't do any modelling . Still, seem to be on the mend now, so should be able to get back to some modelling soon I hope. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:15 pm As mentioned above, I've a couple of wagons on the go, the J25 being on hold at the moment. Couple of Parkside 1923 RCH 5-planks, the ones with steel floors for carrying stone. This is one of the latest Parkside kits, with lovely crisp detailed mouldings that fit together superbly. I fit sprung buffers as usual, but this time packed out the back of the headstock to get the retaining bush further back in the hope that the springing will be softer. Unfortunately, the combination of this with Bill Bedford W-irons on a short wagon mean that there is conflict between the axle springs and where the buffers want to be: I think the easiest solution on this one is to use Masokits W-irons instead, which have a smaller footprint (the BB ones aren't attached yet). Also been working on a couple of Parkside plate wagons. This is a very early kit, and the mouldings are not as good as recent offerings, but still reasonable. It was a bit fiddly to get the ride height right, but looking promising. No problems with space for BB W-irons on these, although the prototype has wider (heavy duty?) W-irons: I'm not aware that anyone makes these, so I've filed the moulded ones down and simply put the BB ones behind. Once painted I don't think the subterfuge will be noticeable. (And yes I know there should only be one V-hanger on one side: I removed it after taking the picture). __________________________________________ Comment posted by craigwelsh on Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:44 pm timlewis wrote: Couple of Parkside 1923 RCH 5-planks, the ones with steel floors for carrying stone. This is one of the latest Parkside kits, with lovely crisp detailed mouldings that fit together superbly. We were wondering in the club what the steel plated floor was about, i'd assumed most merchandise wagons would still be planked. This wagon is a bit annoying compared to the 7-plankers in the floor being flush with the bottom of the sides instead of being raised at the sides,allowing full height solebars. It caused me some issues building mine with my own chassis I fit sprung buffers as usual, but this time packed out the back of the headstock to get the retaining bush further back in the hope that the springing will be softer. Are you doing anything about the ferrules on the end of the buffer bodies? They appear to be missing on the Parkside moulding and Exactoscale ones are underscale. Unfortunately, the combination of this with Bill Bedford W-irons on a short wagon mean that there is conflict between the axle springs and where the buffers want to be: I think the easiest solution on this one is to use Masokits W-irons instead, which have a smaller footprint (the BB ones aren't attached yet). This was one reason why I went for something closer to the Masokits spacing on my kit (other major reason was the other end where the longer springing got in the way of the brakes!). Also been working on a couple of Parkside plate wagons. This is a very early kit, and the mouldings are not as good as recent offerings, but still reasonable. It was a bit fiddly to get the ride height right, but looking promising. No problems with space for BB W-irons on these, although the prototype has wider (heavy duty?) W-irons: I'm not aware that anyone makes these, so I've filed the moulded ones down and simply put the BB ones behind. Once painted I don't think the subterfuge will be noticeable. (And yes I know there should only be one V-hanger on one side: I removed it after taking the picture). Bill Bedford told me at Railex he hopes to have heavy duty w-irons frets out by Rail Wells, indeed I bought a full underframe kit from him for the Plate wagon at Railex although I haven't built it yet. My previous plate had the same dodge you used along with a Fruit D that used thinned down originals, the plate however wasn't very square and I couldn't get it to run. Its since been dropped aswel so very much sidelined! Dave Bradwell does very nice brake levers and tie-bars for these if you want to enhance that aspect by the way. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Adam on Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:25 am Are you doing anything about the ferrules on the end of the buffer bodies? They appear to be missing on the Parkside moulding and Exactoscale ones are underscale. With Parkside's moulding technique it isn't possible to mould the collars (flange, whatever) on the buffer casting - Exactoscale call them ferrules because what they market are exactly that. I tend to use bits of 20 thou' drilled through and roughly shaped. If in a hurry I'll use a dab of cyano, if not, I'll weld them on and shape once set. Adam __________________________________________ Comment posted by David Bigcheeseplant on Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:16 am For buffer ferrels on Parkside kits I use evergreen 3/32 tube sliced then glued to the buffer shank with MEK when dry (leave overnight) use a large file to reduce the thickness, then a drill to countersink the end, To my mind it looks ok and is cheep. David __________________________________________ Comment posted by 31A on Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:42 am Are you doing anything about the ferrules on the end of the buffer bodies? If not replacing the buffers with metal ones, I tend to use a 10 thou wide strip of 10 thou Plastikard (i.e. square section or as near as I can judge by eye), curve it between my fingers and mek pak it to the end of the buffer moulding, a bit at a time to avoid breaking it, until a circle has been formed round the end of the buffer. The Mek Pak softens the edges into a curved shape, but can be finished off with files or emery paper when set, if necessary. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Captain Kernow on Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:29 am Either way, the most common way of adding these 'flanges' seems to be to Mek them on and let them dry rock solid, before filing down - that's what I'd do as well. Didn't know Bill Bedford was doing (?already does?) a chassis kit for the Parkside Plate? I'll check the heavier plate 'W' irons out at Wells, though, thanks for that tip. __________________________________________ Comment posted by craigwelsh on Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:36 am Adam wrote: Are you doing anything about the ferrules on the end of the buffer bodies? They appear to be missing on the Parkside moulding and Exactoscale ones are underscale. With Parkside's moulding technique it isn't possible to mould the collars (flange, whatever) on the buffer casting - Exactoscale call them ferrules because what they market are exactly that. I tend to use bits of 20 thou' drilled through and roughly shaped. If in a hurry I'll use a dab of cyano, if not, I'll weld them on and shape once set. Adam Not sure what you mean about the Exactoscale item? See http://www.exactoscale.co.uk/downloads/ ... ersjpg.pdf but the pack we got certainly didn't fix Bachmann or Parkside wagons. I Don't really want to try Mek making 30 wagons worth of these things . If that is the only way though . Yup Bill really has a plate underframe out and I have one, he also does an underframe for the BR tube wagon as well. Sorry for hijacking Tim's thread a bit here! __________________________________________ Comment posted by David Bigcheeseplant on Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:53 am "I Don't really want to try Mek making 30 wagons worth of these things . If that is the only way though ." I have done nearly 100 wagons adding the ferrals using tube, once you get the hang of it, then its quick and easy. David __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:14 pm craigwelsh wrote: Are you doing anything about the ferrules on the end of the buffer bodies? They appear to be missing on the Parkside moulding and Exactoscale ones are underscale. Hmm, I suppose I should! Bit of a fiddly PITA, but then, what's new Bill Bedford told me at Railex he hopes to have heavy duty w-irons frets out by Rail Wells, indeed I bought a full underframe kit from him for the Plate wagon at Railex although I haven't built it yet. My previous plate had the same dodge you used along with a Fruit D that used thinned down originals, the plate however wasn't very square and I couldn't get it to run. Its since been dropped aswel so very much sidelined! Dave Bradwell does very nice brake levers and tie-bars for these if you want to enhance that aspect by the way. Yes, I've got some of Dave's tie bars and brake levers, which was part of the reason I didn't go for Bill's complete u/f, although I might try one next time round. Interesting to hear he's doing the w-irons: will need quite a few ultimately. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:32 pm Adam wrote: Are you doing anything about the ferrules on the end of the buffer bodies? They appear to be missing on the Parkside moulding and Exactoscale ones are underscale. With Parkside's moulding technique it isn't possible to mould the collars (flange, whatever) on the buffer casting - Exactoscale call them ferrules because what they market are exactly that. I tend to use bits of 20 thou' drilled through and roughly shaped. If in a hurry I'll use a dab of cyano, if not, I'll weld them on and shape once set. Adam So, having had my attention drawn to the lack of ferrules, I suppose I had to do something about it. I went for the 20thou plasticard option, which seemed to work OK: I must not have been paying attention in Buffers101 class, as I was blissfully unaware of the lack of ferrules until now That means I have several ferrule-less wagons, but I don't think retro-fitting will happen! Bit more progress on the plate wagons: the brake gear mouldings are a bit poor, the plastic is that horrible greasy black stuff, the detail isn't too good and both push rod mouldings are the same, which won't work with lifting-link gear. I really should have replaced the lot with brass/N-S, but I need to get these finished soon, so I lived with bits of it. I did upgrade with some Dave Bradwell etches, and put some spare brake shoe etches on the 'wrong-side' push rods. Should look OK in the end. My plan to use Masokits W-irons on the RCH 5-planks back-fired: the ride height was way too high and the axlebox mouldings were nowhere near the axles! Sadly, I only discovered this after super-gluing one set on (which I'm now trying to remove, half off so far ). So, I've reverted to Bill Bedford ones: I did try and remove some of the etch so I could still use sprung buffers, but the clearances were all too tight, so I've decided to live without sprung buffers on these: annoying, but it'll get them finished. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Aug 18, 2009 3:18 pm Not posted for a little while: you may remember I was trying to get some wagons ready to run on Lower Soudley (the Shropshire & Herefordshire AG layout) at RailWells. Didn't quite get them finished, but then was taken into hospital, so the wagons made the exhibition, but I didn't Thankfully now back home recovering, so thought I'd post a couple of more recent pictures. The plate wagons got finished in time for the exhibition (just!) except for some final weathering touching up in places. Fairly pleased with how they turned out, although I reckon the Precision LNER freight grey is too dark, however, after some judicious weathering it doesn't look too bad. The RCH 5-planks didn't get finished: still awaiting numbers and weathering of the woodwork, but I was reasonably happy with how the steel floor looks: Might get some more done whilst I'm off work. __________________________________________ Comment posted by 10800 on Tue Aug 18, 2009 3:40 pm Nice Tim, especially that steel floor Good to see you back. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Sharpwit on Wed Aug 19, 2009 6:59 pm Nice steel. Did you say how you do that? I can't remember... -- John __________________________________________ ??? posted on Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:29 pm 10800 wrote: Nice Tim, especially that steel floor Good to see you back. and Sharpwit wrote: Nice steel. Did you say how you do that? I can't remember... -- John Thanks. No, don't think I have said how I did the steel floor. My 'methods' are (surprise, surprise) heavily based on those of Martyn Welch from The Art of Weathering, plus a bit of my own trial and error. Firstly the floor was brush painted with my usual 'steel wagon underframe mix', which is a mix of Gunmetal (Humbrol 53, NOT the Metalcote variety), light grey (Humbrol 64) and Bauxite (Precision, but Humbrol equivalent would of course suffice). I don't really know what proportions I use, just do it by eye, but it's mainly gunmetal. For a recently out-shopped wagon you might want to add a bit of black, but I generally avoid it. While this is still wet, on underframes I then apply liberal amounts of talcum powder, then almost immediately 'tap' off the bulk of the excess, then remove much of what's left with a very soft brush. This imparts a very subtle texture and also tends to highlight detail. Not only that, but it more or less dries the paint too, so you can proceed with further weathering if you want (although I wouldn't recommend anything too heavy duty until it's properly dry). For the steel floor, I did the same thing, except I wanted a rustier look, so instead of just talc, I also used a couple of shades of rust weathering powders (one quite 'orangey', the other quite dark brown) as well. These were just dumped onto the floor in small piles at random, then 'tapped off' and brushed off as above. Job done. Really very simple, and almost instant gratification! Hope this is useful. __________________________________________

On Tim L's P4 Workbench: (old RMWeb topic page 3) by timlewis original page on Old RMweb __________________________________________ Comment posted by OgaugeJB on Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:47 pm Oh, one thing I forgot to mention is that during overhauls the valve spindle ends below the smokebox door had plates placed behind them to move them forward. I can't quite remember why this was done, but it is something you might like to look at if you are modeling a particular engine and period.. JB-out __________________________________________ Comment posted by micklner on Sat Jan 17, 2009 9:36 am Hi Chassis looks superb . What kind of curves could that set up cope with?. Is the chassis designed for that set up alone or can it be used with a normal set up for the motor ? presumably attached to the rear driver? Mick __________________________________________ Comment posted by LH a JC on Sat Jan 17, 2009 9:53 am That is a mighty fine piece of engineering. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:42 pm micklner wrote: Hi Chassis looks superb . What kind of curves could that set up cope with?. Is the chassis designed for that set up alone or can it be used with a normal set up for the motor ? presumably attached to the rear driver? Mick Thanks Mick. I don't know what the minimum radius that this will go round is, but it has been round a couple of friends layouts without any bother: I think the minimum on any of these would be just under 3ft, but I imagine it would cope with sharper radii if necessary. I believe Dave usually designs his kits so that they will go round a radius of a metre (even the 9F apparently). Dave recommends a motor in the tender driving a Sharman box (which I don't think are available anymore?, the instructions were written in 1996), largely so you can get lots of weight in the firebox/boiler over the drivers where it's needed, but I don't see why a High Level/small Mashima (or similar) combination couldn't be used if you wanted. You might need to file away a bit of the chassis depending on gearbox choice. The picture below shows a view from underneath: there isn't much clearance for the Sharman box, but if you used something slightly bigger you could safely file away some of the adjacent chassis (this is part of the ashpan, the ingeniously-designed etch for which also includes the dummy springs and acts as a removable hornblock/axle retainer, hence the visible bolt head). The view from above shows the other end of the bolt in the ashpan: there's a fair bit of room in there and the firebox above for a motor/gearbox, but you'd have to ensure the correct choice to make sure it fits (but then you always have to do that). Hope this helps. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:48 pm OgaugeJB wrote: Hi Tim, it's great to see another J39 on the build. I am currently building a J39/1 in S7 (which you can see on my workbench thread http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=19603), which has paused slightly due to a number of things. I'm yet to put working infernal valve gear between the frames, but the other reason for the delay in finishing the build is that eventhough I have the Yeadon's book for the J39, I still have no idea what the injector pipe runs behind the cab steps are. I was wondering if you had any drawings or better closeup images of that area?? The J25 is fantastic by the way !! JB. Thanks JB. Just had a browse through your workbench thread: some superb stuff on there, love the K2! Not sure I can help much with your query: I'm not too hot on the technical aspects of steam engines, I just know approximately what they look like! . The only drawing I have for the J39 is the Iain Rice one back in MRJ34, which probably isn't detailed enough for your needs. I have a few J39 photos, but no clear details of the cab step area. The rear of the DB chassis looks like this: and upside down: And this is the sketch from Dave's instructions: I think the pipe runs you're referring too are probably not included in the kit, so I don't think this will help too much, but might still be of interest. In Dave's instructions, he mentions that "several" J39 drawings are available from the NRM plan service, so it might be worth contacting them. He also says that there may be Beyer-Peacock drawings (they made 28 J39s) at the Manchester Museum of Science and Industry. OgaugeJB wrote: Oh, one thing I forgot to mention is that during overhauls the valve spindle ends below the smokebox door had plates placed behind them to move them forward. I can't quite remember why this was done, but it is something you might like to look at if you are modeling a particular engine and period.. JB-out Thanks for the heads-up on this. My J39 will eventually be 64868 as running in the early 1950s, so I'll need to remember to check photos for this when I get round to detailing the body. __________________________________________ Comment posted by micklner on Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:49 pm Thanks great pictures . Mick __________________________________________ Comment posted by Jub45565 on Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:53 pm Looks like a good job on that chassis. How does Dave organise the suspension on these? It looks like an inverted version of Bill Bedfords W iron routine, is this correct? Cheers, __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Jan 17, 2009 9:23 pm Jub45565 wrote: Looks like a good job on that chassis. How does Dave organise the suspension on these? It looks like an inverted version of Bill Bedfords W iron routine, is this correct? Cheers, More or less, yes. You solder a small L-shaped bracket to the axleboxes: this has a hole in it through which the spring wire passes. The bracket ends up on the lower surface of the axlebox, i.e. underneath the axle. Either end of the spring wire also go through fixed location holes on the frames. One end of this is adjustable. Extracts from instructions below should hopefully make this clear. When in place, they look like this (front axle with chassis upside down): middle axle: Springs can be adjusted either by using a different gauge wire, or by bending the angled piece of the chassis (with the spring locating hole in it) that can be seen to the right of each of the axles. This design is only used on the J39, which was the first of Dave's chassis kits (I think). I believe most, if not all, subsequent kits use hollow screws to locate and adjust one end of the springs (which is probably a better arrangement). I've got an unbuilt B1 and a WD in the drawer. so I'll find out one day! __________________________________________ Comment posted by Horsetan on Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:29 pm timlewis wrote: ....the J39, which was the first of Dave's chassis kits (I think). Um, no. The chassis which was and is part of the P3/J27 kit was the first to be released, followed by the chassis kit for the Thompson B1 (which had hollow grub screws from the word "go"). The J39 followed after I believe most, if not all, subsequent kits use hollow screws to locate and adjust one end of the springs (which is probably a better arrangement). I've got an unbuilt B1 and a WD in the drawer. so I'll find out one day! Yes they do. Word of warning: when you place the chassis the right way up, make sure that the tails of the individual springs don't fall out of the hollow grub screws when you lift the chassis up off the track or any surface that it might be resting on. I used Dave's adjustable system on an experimental chassis for the LMS Duchess, and also on the (still underway) Stephenson valve-geared Black 5, and had terrible trouble trying to keep the springs seated in the screws, even though the tails were the right length. __________________________________________ Comment posted by mlgilbert30 on Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:51 pm Word of warning: ............had terrible trouble trying to keep the springs seated in the screws, even though the tails were the right length. I had a similar problem using the Scalefour Society units on a Stanier 8F. Got around it by inserting short lenghts of brass tube, secured with Loctite 290, into the hollow grub screw. The tube was a closer fit on the tail of the spring and was effective in helping the spring to stay put. Morgan __________________________________________ Comment posted by Horsetan on Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:41 pm ^^ That sounds like a good way round it, Morgan. What diameter tubing did you use? __________________________________________ Comment posted by ham on Sun Jan 18, 2009 8:26 pm Ooooo this is gorgeous................ Makes me all impatient and eager - dribble Is it possible to put a motor in the engine rather than in the tender? I'm just not that experienced with chassis to start jumping frae the highboard with such things __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Jan 18, 2009 8:49 pm ham wrote: Ooooo this is gorgeous. Is it possible to put a motor in the engine rather than in the tender? Thanks Ham. Re. engine in loco, see the post above from Jan 17 at 6.42pm. I'm sure it would be perfectly possible: you may need to file a little bit off the chassis here and there, but nothing major. I think the main drawback would be that you won't be able to get as much weight bearing directly on the rear drivers: I don't have enough experience to know how much of a problem this might be, but I imagine it would still run fine (but perhaps not quite as well?). Having said that, putting the motor in the tender really isn't difficult, and some of the High Level boxes are designed to be (optionally) driven this way. One advantage ( at least I think it is) is that you don't need to bother with pickups on the loco: just pick up from the tender. Between the frames on the loco is quite crowded as it is, especially if you put the dummy inside valve gear on. __________________________________________ Comment posted by mlgilbert30 on Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:41 pm Horsetan wrote: ^^ That sounds like a good way round it, Morgan. What diameter tubing did you use? Ivan, Just had a poke round in the workshop. I believe the tube I used has 0.8mm O/D x 0.45mm bore. Can't remember where it came from but I'm sure Finney and Smith would have something suitable. Morgan __________________________________________ Comment posted by ham on Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:00 pm timlewis wrote: ham wrote: Ooooo this is gorgeous. Is it possible to put a motor in the engine rather than in the tender? Thanks Ham. Re. engine in loco, see the post above from Jan 17 at 6.42pm. I'm sure it would be perfectly possible: you may need to file a little bit off the chassis here and there, but nothing major. I think the main drawback would be that you won't be able to get as much weight bearing directly on the rear drivers: I don't have enough experience to know how much of a problem this might be, but I imagine it would still run fine (but perhaps not quite as well?). Having said that, putting the motor in the tender really isn't difficult, and some of the High Level boxes are designed to be (optionally) driven this way. One advantage ( at least I think it is) is that you don't need to bother with pickups on the loco: just pick up from the tender. Between the frames on the loco is quite crowded as it is, especially if you put the dummy inside valve gear on. Sl???’?‚??inte __________________________________________ Comment posted by Stephen M on Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:08 pm This thread is very interesting indeed. I am another with a Bachmann body awaiting the purchase of a Bradwell chassis. All looks very impressive. Will be going down the huge motor in tender route as well. Quick question though, was there an MRJ article on this chassis or am I imagining things? Cheers, Steve __________________________________________ Comment posted by Horsetan on Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:19 am Stephen M wrote: ....was there an MRJ article on this chassis or am I imagining things?... Not that I can remember. Chris Pendlenton built the "K1" kit in a recent MRJ, and way back someone else built the "J27" kit. A photo or two also appeared of a John Hayes-built "WD" 2-8-0. Tim Shackleton built the Bradwell "B1" chassis in "OO" for his Wild Swan / "Plastic Locos" book. Not seen any articles (yet) on building the 9F, N2, J39 or A1 chassis kits. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:04 pm Horsetan wrote: Stephen M wrote: ....was there an MRJ article on this chassis or am I imagining things?... Not that I can remember. Chris Pendlenton built the "K1" kit in a recent MRJ, and way back someone else built the "J27" kit. A photo or two also appeared of a John Hayes-built "WD" 2-8-0. Tim Shackleton built the Bradwell "B1" chassis in "OO" for his Wild Swan / "Plastic Locos" book. Not seen any articles (yet) on building the 9F, N2, J39 or A1 chassis kits. Pretty sure Ivan's got it right here: I've never seen an article on the Bradwell J39 chassis. Iain Rice built a Wills (SE Finecast) one back in MRJ34. I seem to remember Don Rowlands briefly described a Bradwell Austerity build in Scalefour News a couple of years back. One thing I forgot to mention re. my J39. If I were doing another one (which I might at some point if I can find another body), I'd look into whether any of the relatively recent Exactoscale boxes would fit without any modification: I suspect they would and, me being fundamentally lazy, they're slightly easier to put together than a High Level (but more expensive). __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:21 pm A miniscule amount of prgress on the J25 today: first time I've done anything on it in weeks. You may remember (part way down page 2) that I was debating whether to do something about the smokebox door casting, and also thinking how to make the smokebox door hinge. I ordered an alternative door casting from Dave Alexander, which I think was probably a slightly better overall shape than the LRM one provided, but the hinge strap positions didn't allow space for the smokebox numberplate between the upper strap and the door dart base (or whatever it's called). It did have the advantage that the hinge itself was part of the casting, but by that time I had figured out a way of doing it and was quite pleased with it (Alan GIbson shoulderless handrail knobs together with the hinge straps from the kit). So, all things considered, I decided to stick with the LRM door. Inspired by gr.king's P1, I replaced the smokebox door dart with a piece of wire and two Gibson shoulderless handrail knobs (useful things ), but I also flattened them a bit to make them more 'handle-shaped' and so that they fit closer together. The base of the dart is a 16BA washer: it may be slightly on the small side, but a 14BA was definitely too big, and I thought it may be difficult to reduce the diameter of one neatly. I'm afraid I don't actually know what the thing on the side of the smokebox is (some kind of injector?), but I fabricated this from a turned down (in a mini-drill) 7mm handrail knob and a 16BA nut. A bit more shaping with a burr in a mini-drill is called for I think, but I'm fairly pleased with it. The front end of this thing shouldn't have a hole in it, so one conundrum is how to fill this but still make the handrail removable (sudden thought: make a hole in the cab front and put handrail in from that end: surprising how writing it down gives you ideas ). I can't believe how long these few changes have taken , but I took some comfort from Mike Anson's Western Road article in the latest MRJ, where he says that he often thinks for hours about how best to do things before actually doing them. I think I'm definitely from the same school! Anyway, here's what it looks like now: Compare this first view with the picture part way down page 2: I think the dart is a definite improvement. This also shows the hinge quite well. I'm quite please with the loco's profile: the smokebox front detail looks suitably delicate. (Top lamp bracket needs straightening) __________________________________________ Comment posted by 10800 on Sun Mar 15, 2009 10:30 am timlewis wrote: I can't believe how long these few changes have taken , but I took some comfort from Mike Anson's Western Road article in the latest MRJ, where he says that he often thinks for hours about how best to do things before actually doing them. I think I'm definitely from the same school! Me too - I think I've been using that excuse for years! All very well provided that when you do stop thinking and do it it all works! __________________________________________ Comment posted by Captain Kernow on Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:39 pm 10800 wrote: timlewis wrote: I can't believe how long these few changes have taken , but I took some comfort from Mike Anson's Western Road article in the latest MRJ, where he says that he often thinks for hours about how best to do things before actually doing them. I think I'm definitely from the same school! Me too - I think I've been using that excuse for years! All very well provided that when you do stop thinking and do it it all works! I do this as well, sometimes, only to find that the long-thought out solution fails due to some unexpected problem I should have forseen!... .... and then the instantly thought-out replacement solution is the one I end up going with, and which usually ends up being made to work (after the obligatory blood, sweat and tears, of course!). So, my conclusion is that it sometimes pays to just get on with it.... (although I do often have 'thinking time', due to it being enforced due to other committments).... __________________________________________ Comment posted by Captain Kernow on Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:42 pm Meant to add, Tim, that your work is very good indeed. I do admire your perseverence in slogging away with old kits particularly. I've built one or two dodgy examples in my time, I think the worst was probably a ropy old K's Black 5 I built for a friend many years ago. I do like your methods of overcoming a problem - using the 16BA washer for example, it's similar to the kind of solution I've adopted myself in the past! Edit - typo __________________________________________ ??? posted on Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:42 pm Captain Kernow wrote: Meant to add, Tim, that your work is very good indeed. I do admire your perseverence in slogging away with old kits particularly. I've built one or two dodgy examples in my time, I think the worst was probably a ropy old K's Black 5 I built for a friend many years ago. I do like your methods of overcoming a problem - using the 16BA washer for example, it's similar to the kind of solution I've adopted myself in the past! Edit - typo Thanks Cap'n. I've only done the two 'old kits' so far, namely the J25 and the J21. The Nu-Cast J21 is definitely a 'best of a bad job' contender, but I'm attached to it because it's the first loco kit I ever built. I wouldn't build another one of those. I have got another J21 (LRM, ex-George Norton, ex-Connoiseur, i.e. same lineage as the J25), but I'm not in any hurry to start it because a) the J25 was a bit of a pain and B) I've got lots of other locos to finish off, or start! (If only Dave Bradwell or similar made kits for ALL the prototypes I need!) The J39 chassis was much more enjoyable to build, because it all fit together, and didn't need lots of modification or additions. I must admit I'm feeling fairly smug about how the 16BA washer looks (a rare success) I try to look for 'solutions' that mean I don't have to try and cut any sheet metal to shape, because I'm useless at it. I'm happy putting together fiddly kits, but making my own components, forget it! __________________________________________ Comment posted by ArthurK on Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:43 pm That 'thing' on the side of the smokebox is the blower valve operated from the cab through the hollow handrail. Lets see someone do that in 4mm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Most NER locos had this arrangement __________________________________________ Comment posted by rob2 on Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:54 pm That chassis employs the most fiendish ingenuity Tim .....and now I know what that thinner pipe that comes out of the handrail is! Excuse me for hijacking the thread Tim but while pipework is under discussion- on some Q7's the RHS handrail divides about a third of the way along from the cab and a pipe comes out,ducking under the boiler...?Any takers? Rob __________________________________________

On Tim L's P4 Workbench: (old RMWeb topic page 2) by timlewis original page on Old RMweb __________________________________________ Comment posted by Hamilton on Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:34 am That's very useful and I appreciate you taking the time to explain the massive list of upgrade parts you have used. Cheers for that Tim. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Fri Jul 25, 2008 8:02 pm I wasn't going to post these just yet (wouldn't want you to get the very mistaken idea that I'm prolific: far from it), but after a PM prompt by James here's a couple of pics of my J21. As alluded to earlier, I built this a loooong time ago (about 20 years), originally in EM, then converted to P4 around 15 years ago, and it's looked like this ever since. One day it'll get completed. It's an old Nu-Cast kit which, to be honest, wasn't very good. Boiler halves didn't match, chassis was a lump of white metal with 3 approximately parallel holes in it etc. To be fair, mine is a very old kit, and I think they have since redone the tooling (maybe) and you now get something like a proper chassis. Anyway, after lots of gouging of whitemetal and some additions, it doesn't look too bad, although I'm not convinced about the boiler diameter. The smokebox plate (which I've just noticed isn't central!) is a temporary version: in the drawer I have the proper one (which had curly 6s and 9s, at least in the period I'm modelling it). Can't remember where the Westinghouse pump came from, but the bracket is scratch built. It has a Mashima 1224 and Brachlines 67:1 Multibox. Runs OK, but not as well as the J25 (see above). This will end up on Coldstream, probably on a through goods. Tim __________________________________________ Comment posted by James on Fri Jul 25, 2008 8:19 pm timlewis wrote: I wasn't going to post these just yet (wouldn't want you to get the very mistaken idea that I'm prolific: far from it), but after a PM prompt by James here's a couple of pics of my J21. Thank you for posting these Tim! It does look very good indeed! My J21 sounds like it was new tooling; the boiler was a one piece casting iirc and the whitemetal chassis block was gone, replaced with an equally dubious thick and heavily cusped etched version! I'll update you with what I'm doing with mine soon! __________________________________________ Comment posted by micklner on Sun Aug 31, 2008 8:39 pm Hi Excellent models, what period are you modelling ? Mick __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Aug 31, 2008 8:48 pm micklner wrote: Hi Excellent models, what period are you modelling ? Mick Thanks Mick. Early post-Nationalisation, around 1950, but with a few minor anachronisms/modellers licence to cover the period c. 1947-1955 or thereabouts, so I can have some BR-designed wagons, a few Mk.1s, or some locos that didn't quite make it to 1950 etc. For exhibition purposes (which is a looong way off ), I'd try not to have these anachronisms 'on stage' at the same time. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:06 pm Today, for a change, I've actually managed to do some modelling! , instead of working or some other tedious thing. I've done a bit more work on the Stanier Brake Van shown a while back: as I wanted a fitted example, I've fabricated a representation of the buffer packing pieces, like so.. which, after a bit of careful cutting and filing, end up looking this when in place... Before anyone mentions it, I meant to 'break through' to the drilled hole, it's not a mistake (makes a change). I think it was worth it, although it took a while. I tend to fit sprung buffers to just about everything: AFAIK nobody makes sprung rolling stock buffers with the thick shanks, hence the faffing around here. A friend turned and cut the brass tube for me. While I had the camera handy, I took a few photos of some wagons I made earlier in the year... These are a couple of Chivers LMS Long Lows, more or less straight out of the packet, though I did spring the buffers and used Bill Bedford sprung W-irons behind the moulded one. Lovely kit, which is more than can be said for the transfers: can't remember whose they were (POW sides from an LMS cattle wagon kit I think), but they broke up and floated away all over the place: very frustrating). The livery is supposed to be unpainted wood with bauxite number panels (prototypical), weathered as though it's been in service for a few years. I'm not convinced it really looks like this (I always find wood hard to do: I know the 'recipe' but somehow it never seems to come out quite right), but, strangely, I think they look OK anyway. This is a (very old) D&S ex-NB 16T mineral, looking a bit the worse for wear. Today, I've also started fitting alignment dowels to the baseboards for Coldstream, and I've been doing a bit on the Templot plan as well. I should start a layout thread soon. Cheers for now. __________________________________________ Comment posted by rob2 on Sun Oct 05, 2008 11:12 pm Tim, What a super job on that Nu-Cast J21!Equally the wagons,particularly like the NBR jobbie,not a kit I am familiar with-there are really not enough of the workaday NBR wagons around at the moment,so many seem to be from lost manufacturers.I've been running a one man campaign for a "Jubilee" wagon with on luck for some time now!I don't think theres even a brake van now though 51L,now at Wizard/MSE ,still have some interesting stuff. Look forward to the layout thread,I am welded to 00 but find EM and P4 layouts full of inspiring stuff! Rob __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Oct 07, 2008 6:46 pm Thanks Rob. I rather like the 'chunky' look of the NB minerals. I've got an unbuilt 18T one in the drawer for a rainy day. I was lucky enough to pick up both these D&S kits at the Bring & Buy at Scaleforum a couple of years back: ??????‚??3 each, bargain! I don't really need anymore of them, so I'm OK , but sadly, I don't think they are available now (certainly not from D&S), although didn't 51L/MSE take over at least some of the D&S whitemetal kits? __________________________________________ Comment posted by micklner on Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:09 pm Nice work on the wagons. ABS have some D& S whitemetal I believe in their range . I have a LNER Fish Van which still uses the D&S drawing on the instructions Mick __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:48 pm Took these pictures a couple of weeks back, but forgot to post them! What we have here are various hopper wagons that I've been building for a good many (too many ) years now. As frequently happens with my stock, none are really finished: I need a mass final detailing, painting and weathering session! First up are 3 LNER 21 tonners: (very) old Airfix RTR (I think) bodies on Bradwell underframes: fiddly but superb. Next a couple of Slaters NER 20T P7s: these were originally built in EM years ago, but I've changed them to P4 now, adding Masokits W-irons, sprung buffers, weight etc: haven't painted the W-irons yet. I've got 5 more of these on the go somewhere. Greenhouse in background provides weathering inspiration Next, Dave Bradwell BR-built 13T: as usual from DB, fantastic kit. One of the spring carriers has come loose: must put it back. I replaced the cwm buffers with sprung ones that I turned down (OK: filed ) from some LMS loco buffers: I've made the point before that no-one makes sprung rolling stock buffers for the 'wide-shank' varieties, which is a real pain). If I leave this one long enough it looks like it might weather itself! This is a scratchbuilt ex-NER P6 (IIRC) 15T, later uprated to 17T. Basswood body with plasticard details, Slaters plastic brake gear, lots of lead! LNER part-slope-sided (can't remember Diagram) 13Ts, scratchbuilt (plasticard) and David Geen kit (which of course became available just after I finished the scratchbuilt one): DG one not got a brake lever yet And finally, a slope sided LNER 13T, again scratchbuilt from basswood/plasticard and some brass and cwm bits: also not yet got a brake lever It looks as though the plasticard/wood bond may be beginning to curl on this one (it's exaggerated by the photo, but it is there): might have to do something about this. These, and others, will form the hopper train for Coldsteam: I've got rather more hoppers than I should have , but I like 'em and it's my layout . Cheers for now. __________________________________________ Comment posted by 10800 on Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:55 pm Nice vehicles Tim - what's basswood exactly? Is it the sort of stripwood model boat builders use? __________________________________________ Comment posted by micklner on Sun Oct 19, 2008 6:23 pm Top work , you cant beat a nice hopper or two How do you make the rivets on the scratch versions? Mick __________________________________________ Comment posted by Flying Pig on Sun Oct 19, 2008 7:28 pm timlewis wrote: This is a stunning model and despite your earlier comment about doing bare timber, you've captured it superbly here. To my eye it actually looks more convincing than the real basswood hopper pictured below it. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Oct 19, 2008 7:32 pm 10800 wrote: Nice vehicles Tim - what's basswood exactly? Is it the sort of stripwood model boat builders use? Thanks Rod. I was worried that you might say "Are these the same hoppers that were running on Kerrin Basin at Scalefour North 2003?" To which the answer would be yes, and they look exactly the same Basswood: could well be used by boat builders, and aero-modellers as well I think. I don't actually know. The stuff I have is branded 'MidWest' and comes in various Imperial thicknesses: 1/16" and 1/32" are most useful for our purposes, but also comes much thicker. Usually 3" by 24" sheets. They used to sell it at Shrewsbury Model Centre before they moved out of town and became a mail order box-shifter Maybe they still sell it, but I rarely go there these days. No doubt you can get it other places, but off-hand I don't know where. It's quite nice to work with: much nicer than the very thin ply that you can get. Cuts and scribes easily, although it's fairly delicate. I bonded plasticard to it with Mek-Pak which seemed to work OK, although there is a suspicion of some bonds 'curling' as I mentioned above. It's better if you have plasticard overlays both sides, but if the prototype doesn't and it's an open wagon then this isn't really an option (and of course weakening the wood by scribing it doesn't help ). HTH __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Oct 19, 2008 8:15 pm micklner wrote: Top work , you cant beat a nice hopper or two How do you make the rivets on the scratch versions? Mick Thanks Mick. I agree, you can never have too many hoppers I've used a variety of methods for doing the rivets and bolt heads. I've used various Grandt Line HO-scale mouldings, most often 5045 1" NBW (i.e. Nut-Bolt-Washer) and 5046 1 3/4" square NBW, plus a couple of other sizes that I don't have the reference for to hand. If you're not familiar with these, they come on a plastic sprue of around 30-40: cut them off near the main sprue and insert into a pre-drilled hole (usually around 0.3-0.4mm). If you leave the sprue long enough, it will poke through to the inside to represent the bolt-head (depends on what you're actually modelling of course). These are the grey-moulded rivets/bolts you can see on the pictures. I also used these on the scratch built 13T part-slope-sided one (now painted): sometimes I think they look a bit big, although it's less obvious 'in the flesh'. More recently I've also been using Tichy Train Group mouldings, which are similar but brown: you can see them on the cattle wagon on page 1. I've only got nominal size rivets from them, which they do in 5 thou increments, smallest is 0.020", but their website says they do lots of other NBWs as well. Apply in same way: drill hole and insert. I tend to stock up on both Grandt Line and Tichy stuff in the US: I go there usually once a year just before Xmas. There may be stockists in this country, or look at websites. I like the sound of the Archer transfers that you mentioned on your workbench, but I've not tried them yet. I have used two other methods: on the scratch built P6, I drilled holes, inserted lengths of (I think) 15thou rod (which diameter is quite difficult to come by), then snipped off the excess: looks OK, but drives you up the wall . Finally, on the cornerplates and strapping of the scratch wooden 13T slope sided hopper, I've simply embossed the bolt heads using a sharp implement: once you get a feel for it, this method is very easy and, as long as you don't handle things too roughly, should last OK: not as robust as mouldings, but a hell of a lot quicker. Another disadvantage is that you don't get any representation on the inside of the wagon, but then again, maybe life's too short HTH. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Oct 19, 2008 9:32 pm Flying Pig wrote: This is a stunning model and despite your earlier comment about doing bare timber, you've captured it superbly here. To my eye it actually looks more convincing than the real basswood hopper pictured below it. Thanks. The 'unpainted wood' doesn't look too bad here: I still think it's a bit too green, but I can live with it. The basswood hoppers are of course yet to be painted: not quite decided how to do this yet: have done some experiments with paint and weathering powders, but staining with inks has some appeal, and there are some interesting posts on an 'Acrylic Paints' thread in the 'Questions and queries' forum. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Sharpwit on Sat Nov 01, 2008 1:29 pm Lovely stuff. -- John __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:56 pm Having not done anything to the J25 for a few months (see earlier posts), today I've made some meagre progress. Removed brake gear and wheelsets, blackened chassis, did some preliminary weathering and re-assembled. Looking promising I think, although clearly the weathering needs more work: I'll do this after final body assembly and painting. Chassis and removable brake gear, all nice and shiny! Tender frames won't be visible when body is on, hence no weathering. The somewhat mottled looking firebox sides need more attention: to be done later. Reasonably happy that this looks like a 'work-worn' wheel, although a few finishing touches and highlights would probably improve it. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Fri Jan 02, 2009 9:38 pm Over the past few days I've been trying to do all those little jobs that I've been putting off, with the aim of finishing the J25 (soon). As usual, these 'small' jobs end up taking a large amount of time (80:20 rule). However, I'm getting there. I've added handrail knobs to cabsides and smokebox front, top lamp iron for smokebox, handrails above steps each side, holes for Ross Pop safety valves and whistle, support for sanding linkage on LHS, sanding linkage on RHS, smokebox door and dart, plus repaired a few dodgy soldered joints. It's beginning to look like a J25. The safety valves and whistle are just balanced in place at the moment, so might be a bit cock-eyed. This also shows the support for the LHS sanding linkage. The RHS sanding linkage disappears under the boiler just behind the smokebox. You can just about see the handrails above the steps in this one. The number plate and hinge straps are just blu-tacked in place while I figure it how to make the hinge itself. __________________________________________ Comment posted by James on Sat Jan 03, 2009 8:22 am That's looking very nice Tim! I cheated and 'borrowed' a smokebox door from an old Nu-Cast kit I think! The one that's inlcuded in the LRM kit seems rather large - definately not the original NER type. For the LRM I have to build I was going to swap it for one from Dave Alexander. Can't wait to see this finished - though it'll make mine look rather poor by comparison! __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:23 pm James wrote: That's looking very nice Tim! I cheated and 'borrowed' a smokebox door from an old Nu-Cast kit I think! The one that's inlcuded in the LRM kit seems rather large - definitely not the original NER type. For the LRM I have to build I was going to swap it for one from Dave Alexander. Can't wait to see this finished - though it'll make mine look rather poor by comparison! Thanks James: if my J25 looks as good as yours when finished I'll be more than pleased. The smokebox door isn't ideal, but I've decided to stick with it. Many NER locos changed from a small to large smokebox door throughout their lives: to my eyes the LRM one (although mine is very old, so maybe they provide something different now?) is somewhere between the two. Just had another look at your workbench pictures: interesting to see the detail differences (apart from the obvious one of livery): yours has clack valves and the 'trumpet' safety valves, with whistle on the roof, whereas mine has no clacks, Ross Pops and whistle in front of cab. We should organise a side-by-side photo: maybe I'll bring mine along to Scalefour North? (assuming I've finished it by then!) __________________________________________ Comment posted by James on Sun Jan 04, 2009 12:37 am timlewis wrote: Thanks James: if my J25 looks as good as yours when finished I'll be more than pleased. You're too kind! The detail differences are quite subtle but all contribute to the overall effect of the models. Certainly what brings each model to life. timlewis wrote: We should organise a side-by-side photo: maybe I'll bring mine along to Scalefour North? (assuming I've finished it by then!) We can sort that - they can both be posed on the section of Botanic which will be there! __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:20 pm James wrote: We can sort that - they can both be posed on the section of Botanic which will be there! Will look forward to it! One step forwards, two steps back on the J25 today: finished off the hinges and straps (except for rivet heads which will be added later). Used a couple of Gibson shoulderless handrail knobs, suitably shaped with a file, as the hinge supports: worked quite well (sorry no pic at the moment). Also fitted the front coupling hook and the smokebox 'door knob'. On the downside, during the course of the day the RHS sanding linkage and one of the buffer gusset plates managed to detach themselves: more evidence of my useless soldering ability. Back to work tomorrow, so progress will undoubtedly slow to the usual snail's pace again __________________________________________ ??? posted on Fri Jan 16, 2009 8:56 pm Haven't made any more progress on the J25 but, following a request from ham on another post, here's some pictures of my J39. This is a Bachmann body on a Dave Bradwell chassis, powered by a Mashima 1833 in the tender driving an old Sharman 38:1 box via a cardan shaft. Clearly not finished, haven't done anything to the body as yet, apart from cut away the bits necessary to get it to fit the chassis, and add the whitemetal bottom of the boiler provided with the chassis. Chassis kit was superb, as you'd expect from DB (although the spring 'adjustment' method, essentially by bending a piece of the chassis etch (!) is an early design since improved upon in later kits). Runs well, although the gearbox has developed a bit of a grinding noise when hauling a reasonable load, so may need attention. An overall view: Some close-ups of the (dummy) inside valve gear This view shows how visible the valve gear is, so definitely worthwhile, and it goes together well once you've figured out Dave's sketch in the instructions The (removable) brake gear is made up, but not attached as yet (and isn't in this photo!). As is typical with my models, it's been at this stage for about 3 years, and is still on the back-burner pending completion of my J25 (and J21, and more progress with layout, and..., and... etc.) __________________________________________ Comment posted by OgaugeJB on Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:42 pm Hi Tim, it's great to see another J39 on the build. I am currently building a J39/1 in S7 (which you can see on my workbench thread viewtopic.php?f=8&t=19603), which has paused slightly due to a number of things. I'm yet to put working infernal valve gear between the frames, but the other reason for the delay in finishing the build is that eventhough I have the Yeadon's book for the J39, I still have no idea what the injector pipe runs behind the cab steps are. I was wondering if you had any drawings or better closeup images of that area?? The J25 is fantastic by the way !! JB. __________________________________________

On Tim L's P4 Workbench: (old RMWeb topic page 1) by timlewis original page on Old RMweb __________________________________________ ??? posted on Fri Jul 18, 2008 9:28 am This is my first attempt at posting an image, so let's hope it works. Hopefully, you will see a London Road Models J25, destined for Coldstream (a layout thread will appear in due course). Obviously still some work to do, but getting there. Further progress could be slow : this picture was taken over 2 years ago, and it still looks pretty much the same (actually gone backwards: currently fitting a chip). (edited 4/10/08 to try and change title) (edited to change title again 28/12/08 and 2/1/09 and 16/1/09 and 8/3/09 and 12/7/09 and 29/8/09 and 5/10/09) __________________________________________ Comment posted by Dan Randall on Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:44 am Nice work Tim and welcome to RMweb. Those flanges look quite fine - are you doing it in P4? Regards Dan __________________________________________ Comment posted by 87023velocity on Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:53 am Although I am a diesel/electric modeller, that looks nice! Look forward to seeing some more progress and the layout its going to run on! Simon __________________________________________ ??? posted on Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:42 pm Thanks for the kind comments. Yes, it is P4. Suitably enthused, I took the top off (oo-er) and took some photos of the 'works': hopefully, some of you will find it interesting. Here's a couple of views of the overall thing: The tender is split frame (hence the plastic insulation that the body sits on), and picks up off all wheels. The loco chassis is split frame too, but I didn't bother with split axles and pickups: saves a lot more metalwork underneath, and it runs very well just picking up from the tender. You can see the rather Heath Robinson (didn't he design locos for the GCR? ) springing arrangements and the fusewire hornblock retainers. Looks a bit of a mess, but in practice works well. (I built this about 7-8 years ago (that's nothing, wait till I tell you about my J21!), before the availability of Dave Bradwell or High Level-designed sprung hornblocks). This arrangement requires some lead in the tender to get the springing to work properly and the loco to sit level (if I were doing it again I'd probably use thinner wire, but I'm loathe to change it now). There isn't much space for the retro-fitted chip however, hence the GCR (sorry, Heath Robinson again) plastic cradle you can see in the photos. Having a tender mounted motor also means (big advantage) that you can fill the loco full of lead (so to speak), which should help pulling power. Final drive is via a High Level gearbox (can't quite remember which one: RoadRunner Compact plus I think. It's an articulated two-stage one anyway). The box is prevented from rotating by a suitably engineered(!) piece of wire that sticks through the frames: you can see it on the photo. Hope this hasn't been too boring. Comments welcome! __________________________________________ Comment posted by 10800 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:47 pm timlewis wrote: (I built this about 7-8 years ago (that's nothing, wait till I tell you about my J21!), Bit like my C2X then! Nice pics Tim, when did you go DCC? __________________________________________ ??? posted on Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:13 pm C2X: mythical type of loco kit, once seen in Maidstone several years ago, but now thought extinct. DCC is a relatively recent thing. Several of us in ###### (Shropshire & Herefordshire Area Group, stop sniggering at the back!) started building MERG controllers and handsets. Some are finished (mine aren't). Having said that, one (and possibly more) of us has just got a Lenz system of some kind, mainly because of the additional functionality (specifically, the MERG system is a bit limited on sound). At the moment I'm not sure whether to finish off and use the MERG kits, or go for a Lenz. In the meantime, the one loco I have with a chip in (J39) seems happy enough operating either on DCC or on my test track with my old Compspeed F. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Tim V on Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:17 pm Looking good. Where did you get those UJs? Are they the Branchlines ones? Tim V __________________________________________ ??? posted on Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:31 pm Tim V wrote: Looking good. Where did you get those UJs? Are they the Branchlines ones? Tim V Thanks Tim. No, the UJs are from Fourmil, the people who used to do (maybe still do??) Dyna-Drive. I got them quite a while ago. I seem to remember reading somewhere that they now only do Dyna-Drive fitting and can't supply components any longer, but don't quote me on that, I could be wrong. I believe the Branchlines UJs are pretty similar though (I'm sure I've got some somewhere). __________________________________________ Comment posted by Tim V on Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:48 pm I thought they looked slightly different. How does the loco run? And I can't see how the motor is held on? Tim V __________________________________________ ??? posted on Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:32 pm Tim V wrote: I thought they looked slightly different. How does the loco run? And I can't see how the motor is held on? Tim V It runs beautifully. Very smooth, and good slow performance. (I suspect this was more by luck than judgment). The motor is held on to one of the frame spacers by a high-tech blob of silicon sealant: you can see it in the underside view below. Can't remember where I first heard about this very simple but effective method: possibly Dave Bradwell? Anyway, it holds it firmly, is adjustable for a while, probably cuts down a bit of vibration, and is easy removed for maintenance if need be (obviously you have to re-do the silicon). __________________________________________ Comment posted by James on Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:48 pm Very nice! I considered a tender mounted motor for mine but went with an old fashioned 1224/50:1 single stage Ultrascale set up in the end! However for the J21 I'm intending to start later in the year, I want to use the arrangement you have. Could you post some pictures of the modificiations to the cab interior please? And just post more of your work! I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to see more of it! PS I do have a thing for all things North Eastern! The links in my signature will testify this too! __________________________________________ ??? posted on Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:49 pm Tim V wrote: And I can't see how the motor is held on? Tim V Oops! Thought that didn't sound quite right. Sorry, there is another small frame spacer underneath the back end of the motor (more or less in line with the centre axle). There is a small piece of rubber on here to support the back of the motor to give it a slight angle to minimise the UJ angles. There is a blob of sealant on both spacers. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Tim V on Fri Jul 18, 2008 9:51 pm timlewis wrote: It runs beautifully. Very smooth, and good slow performance. (I suspect this was more by luck than judgment). The motor is held on to one of the frame spacers by a high-tech blob of silicon sealant: you can see it in the underside view below. Can't remember where I first heard about this very simple but effective method: possibly Dave Bradwell? Anyway, it holds it firmly, is adjustable for a while, probably cuts down a bit of vibration, and is easy removed for maintenance if need be (obviously you have to re-do the silicon). I had to look very closely to see the sealant To my memory I heard about bath sealant back in the 70s being used to hold motors. I think I saw it at one of the early Protoforums (shows age ). I've usually used blue tac, as its easier to remove, but is of course, blue in colour. I might have another look at clear bath sealant. Keep up the good work Tim V __________________________________________ ??? posted on Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:18 pm James wrote: Very nice! I considered a tender mounted motor for mine but went with an old fashioned 1224/50:1 single stage Ultrascale set up in the end! However for the J21 I'm intending to start later in the year, I want to use the arrangement you have. Could you post some pictures of the modificiations to the cab interior please? And just post more of your work! I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to see more of it! PS I do have a thing for all things North Eastern! The links in my signature will testify this too! Thanks James. I've just tracked down your thread (I knew I'd seen one somewhere, couldn't remember where). Sounds like you had a similar experience to me. It is possible to build a decent loco from this kit, but it's reasonably hard work. I'm sure this mainly reflects the age of the kit design, which must be 25-30 years old. The biggest fault I found was that there was little in the way of positive location (tab and slot or whatever): too many butt joints, which I find next to impossible with soldered construction . As you noted, LRM do allude to a few 'issues' in their instructions, and I fully understand that they can't really do much about it, given that they inherited the kit. LRM deserve a lot of credit for updating the instructions: you now get 14 pages of typed A4 plus 12 pages of exploded diagrams: pretty good.I don't know whether you had the pleasure of the original instructions: I did, as I got mine form George Norton just before he retired. I think the instructions pre-dated him as well. I particularly like the instructions for the tender, which I will quote in full: "The tender has a choice of either the etched chassis on the superstructure fret, or the etched nickel silver one on the mainframe etch, and unless intending modifying to mount a motor the assembly is straightforward". Well, thanks very much!! Thankfully, LRM's tender instructions are around 4 pages: rather better! You asked about cab modifications. Well, I didn't make any, because I decided it was impossible to make the cab interior (i.e. rear splasher sides and tops) with the pieces provided, at least for my hamfisted soldering. I see from your thread that you managed it: congratulations. I decided that I would make the cab interior later, probably from plasticard or wood. (Not sure when I'll get round to this but I'll post some pictures when I do). The cardan shaft needs to pass through the cab, but if you get the angles reasonable then it shouldn't be too obtrusive: there will be a bit of a gap in the floor and backhead where they join, but not really noticeable in service. When I get chance I'll take a couple of pics of what it looks like at the moment. I've used a similar method in a J39 (I'll post some pics one day): this is even less noticeable because of the bigger more enclosed cab. Hope this is useful for when you do your J21. I've built a Nu-Cast version (not the best of kits), but that was before I 'discovered' tender mounting, and I have an LRM one in the cupboard, but not in a rush to make it: too many other kits in the queue. __________________________________________ Comment posted by 10800 on Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:18 pm timlewis wrote: C2X: mythical type of loco kit, once seen in Maidstone several years ago, but now thought extinct. no just dormant! __________________________________________ Comment posted by John B on Sat Jul 19, 2008 7:52 am Lovely work, Tim. As James will attest I've got a bit of a thing for matters North Eastern too, and I'll look forward to seeing more. __________________________________________ Comment posted by Horsetan on Sat Jul 19, 2008 10:14 am timlewis wrote: Tim V wrote: Looking good. Where did you get those UJs? Are they the Branchlines ones? Tim V Thanks Tim. No, the UJs are from Fourmil, the people who used to do (maybe still do??) Dyna-Drive. I got them quite a while ago. I seem to remember reading somewhere that they now only do Dyna-Drive fitting and can't supply components any longer, but don't quote me on that, I could be wrong. I believe the Branchlines UJs are pretty similar though (I'm sure I've got some somewhere). Formil only fit complete packages, as far as I know. However, you can still order some individual components (including the centrifugal clutches) direct from the makers: Brimalm in Sweden...... __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Jul 19, 2008 8:00 pm James wrote: Could you post some pictures of the modificiations to the cab interior please? And just post more of your work! I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to see more of it! Bit difficult to photograph this, but this shows the current absence of cab interior (bit of lead sheet acting as makeshift floor). As noted in above post, I intend to make the splasher tops/sides (which essentially form the seats) from wood or plasticard later. Should also show how relatively unobtrusive the cardan shaft is (this is a 2mm one: people say 1mm is fine). The blu-tak stops the lead from dropping out of the firebox! (Not a permanent arrangement). The nifty little lifting rings are from Martin Finney. And, since you asked nicely , a few pictures of other stuff will appear in a few minutes. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Jul 19, 2008 8:21 pm Here's a couple of wagons that have been slowly evolving for some time now. And a Parkside LNER Cattle Wagon (with a fair few alterations/additions) These are part of my cattle train (no! ) for Coldstream: there was a big auction market there, operating into the 1960s I believe (certainly into the 1950s anyway). I have 5 of these Parkside wagons built (all modified into the 10ft wheelbase version), which will be joined by 3 LMS, one Southern and one NER (for the time being: I have another dozen or so Parkside kits in the drawer, but I can't face them just now !) __________________________________________ Comment posted by Rannoch Moor on Sat Jul 19, 2008 10:12 pm Tim, Lovely modelling, absolutely exquisite stuff. I must get my hands on one of these Connoisseur Stanier brakevans. I built their BR version ages ago as one of my first EM projects and it was a great fun build although setting up the wheels was a pain as I recall - I overcame it by using come MJT or Comet rocking units I think, and was sold on compensation from then on as an easy way out! Look forward to seeing more, Gus __________________________________________ ??? posted on Sat Jul 19, 2008 10:56 pm Rannoch Moor wrote: Tim, Lovely modelling, absolutely exquisite stuff. I must get my hands on one of these Connoisseur Stanier brakevans. I built their BR version ages ago as one of my first EM projects and it was a great fun build although setting up the wheels was a pain as I recall - I overcame it by using come MJT or Comet rocking units I think, and was sold on compensation from then on as an easy way out! Look forward to seeing more, Gus Thanks Gus. It's a while since I built the brake van, but yes I seem to remember that, without replacement W-irons of some kind, getting the wheels square might have been tricky. I tend to spring things, usually outside bearing W-irons either from Masokits or Bill Bedford, but in this instance it wouldn't have been possible to fit these in without destroying the cast axlebox/spring. So I fitted Masokits inside bearing W-irons to this one. Don't like them as much as the normal outside bearing ones, but still runs well. Unfortunately Connoiseur are no longer producing 4mm kits: a great shame, as they had a nice range and were fairly straightforward to build. Thanks again for your interest. Tim __________________________________________ Comment posted by DougN on Tue Jul 22, 2008 2:37 am Tim, Lovely J25 . I have been batch building 3 of the J21, J25's for about 2 years now. I liked your set up for the motor to the tender. I have been trying to find a set up I can live with out of 1224's and single and double stage boxes from Comet. I have yet to find a compromise that I am happy with So I currently have the J21 and J25 with tenders but without any under pinnings siting in a box. I have gone down a slightly different route though in that of the 3 loco's only one will be the LRM Kit the other 2 are scratch built! Cheaper for the motive power and it builds up my skills with building things. I will say that mine are all going to be built to P4, with Dave Bradwell suspension on the loco and Dave Bradwell inspired tender springing. After the J27 I built (which unfortunately needs additional work as I am no longer that happy with my standard of building at the time as it was 10 years ago) showed the DB meathod for the tender. As the tenders roll so beautifully smoothly it is the only way to fly! __________________________________________ Comment posted by Hamilton on Tue Jul 22, 2008 3:31 am timlewis wrote: .... I particularly like the instructions for the tender, which I will quote in full: "The tender has a choice of either the etched chassis on the superstructure fret, or the etched nickel silver one on the mainframe etch, and unless intending modifying to mount a motor the assembly is straightforward". Well, thanks very much!! Gee that's exactly what I just experienced last night when reading the instructions on my old Wills Finecast kit for a Fowler 4F - and I quote "Assembly of the tender is straightforward and it can be readily seen from the drawing where to put the individual components." Fantastic work there my friend. Can you enlarge upon your cattle van a little for me. What, where, who is the underframe kit for that? I really enjoy it and look forward to knocking up something similar. The cast buffers - Gibson? Sprung? Three links - from where? Just learning myself so excuse the questions. Just love what I am seeing in your work and thanks for sharing the excellent quality photos. __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:39 pm DougN wrote: I have been trying to find a set up I can live with out of 1224's and single and double stage boxes from Comet. I have yet to find a compromise that I am happy with Depending on what kind of drivetrain you're considering, have you thought about the (relatively) new Exactoscale gearboxes? They do 1:1 and 2:1 'drop-down' boxes that would allow you to have a motor in the tender, but with the cardan shaft entirely below footplate level and therefore virtually invisible (I've not tried this, but it should work OK I think). Not cheap, but beautifully engineered, and you can take them apart easily. DougN wrote: I will say that mine are all going to be built to P4, with Dave Bradwell suspension on the loco and Dave Bradwell inspired tender springing. After the J27 I built (which unfortunately needs additional work as I am no longer that happy with my standard of building at the time as it was 10 years ago) showed the DB meathod for the tender. As the tenders roll so beautifully smoothly it is the only way to fly! As a general point, if you follow Dave Bradwell's methods, you won't go too far wrong. I've got a J39 with his chassis which goes together superbly, and I've also built a few of his wagon chassis. Tim __________________________________________ ??? posted on Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:52 pm Hamilton wrote: Can you enlarge upon your cattle van a little for me. What, where, who is the underframe kit for that? I really enjoy it and look forward to knocking up something similar. The cast buffers - Gibson? Sprung? Three links - from where? Just learning myself so excuse the questions. Just love what I am seeing in your work and thanks for sharing the excellent quality photos. Thanks. No problem with the questions: that's what this place is for. The cattle wagon is a Parkside body, with a few improvements and modifications to make the 10ft fitted version (see Steve Banks article in MRJ87 and some more useful photos in Geoff Kent's 4mm Wagon Vol.2). The underframe is a Dave Bradwell LNER 10ft AVB etch (with springing designed in) which, as usual with Dave's stuff, goes together superbly: I didn't use the solebars or headstocks from the etch as it's designed for 17'6" body and the cattle wagons are longer, but this is a very easy modification to make (just cut them off with a piercing saw). The change of wheel base means you have to change a lot of the bolt heads on the solebars: these are a combination of Grandt Line (the grey coloured ones) and Tichy Train Group (brown coloured) 'rivet' mouldings: sorry, can't remember which precise ones off hand. Other bits and pieces are as follows: axlebox/springs (MJT), buffers (ABS LNER 4 Rib F508 with the heads/shanks cut off, drilled and sprung with MJT heads (not yet fitted)), vacuum cylinder (ABS), screw couplings (Masokits), wheels (Kean-Maygib), spring stops (cut down D&S castings). Still to fit: vac pipes (MJT or 51L), roof (maybe the Parkside one which isn't too thick, otherwise curved plasticard), tethering rings (twisetd wire). Think that's about it. Hope this is useful. Tim __________________________________________

As I haven't yet made my mind up about the whole blogs v. topics thing, I'm transferring my workbench thread from the old RMWeb to here, and will continue to add to it as a topic, at least for now. I'll also take the opportunity to add this introductory post, which I can update to serve as some kind of contents list. So, here goes... Each of the old RMweb pages becomes a single (quite lengthy) post on here, so these links should take you straight to each of these 'posts': Contents list (this post) Old RWMeb topic page 1 Old RMWeb topic page 2 Old RMWeb topic page 3 Old RMWeb topic page 4 Old RMWeb topic page 5 Start of new RMWeb posts Thanks to Martin for this linking idea. I'll make this contents list a bit more useful later on. Edited 13/11/09, start of a more useful contents list. (not got the hang of text formatting yet!!) Contents by subject: Locos J25: page 1 page 2 page 3 page 4 J21: page 2 J39: page 2 page 3 Wagons LMS Stanier Brake Van: page 1 page 2 Cattle Wagons LNER: page 1 page 5 LMS: page 5 LMS Long Low: page 2 NB 16T mineral: page 2 LNER Plate: page 4 RCH 5-plank: page 4 Hoppers 21T LNER Dia.100: page 2 20T NER P7: page 2 page 5 13T BR Dia.1/140: page 2 13T LNER Dia. 137: page 2 page 5 17T NER P6: page 2

I believe the image problem should be sorted in a day or two? In the meantime, clicking on 'Attached image' does bring up the image: and very nice they look too. What's the source of these models Mick?