Eastleigh

Apologies for not responding earlier - I have not been on this site in a while.  In fact I rather wish I had seen it before now as I have just this afternoon completed the sides for our forthcoming SR-type EPBs!  Your illustration and dimensions are very helpful and I will correct the window radii accordingly.  Back to the drawing board!

On 18/09/2021 at 18:29, Nick Holliday said:

The LBSCR  was not an all non-smoking railway! It was, back in the mists of time, as, at the time of the start of railways, according to 

Simon Bradley in 'The Railways' The habit (of smoking) was widely considered eccentric, rather foreign and mildly disgusting ..... regarded as a bachelor habit.  No surprise that the Liverpool and Manchester Railway in 1831 used its first by-law to ban smoking in first class carriages 'even with the consent of the passengers present', on the grounds the lingering effects would annoy those using the vehicle afterwards." Most other lines had similar bans, and there was a forty shilling fine, with the additional punishment of ejection from the train without a ticket refund, although some guards were open to persuasion! Even the Prince of Wales was  caught, allegedly, for transgressing the ban. 

In the early days smoking was not only uncommon, but fairly pungent, but gradually more sophisticated smoking experiences were developed, and cigarette smoking began to grow after the Crimean War.  Some lines did introduce smoking compartments from around 1854, whilst the Railway Regulations Act of 1868 included a section decreeing that smoking compartments were to be designated on any train consisting of more than one carriage of each class.

By 1905, if not much earlier, the railway companies' (including the LBSCR's) by-laws contained details of fines and punishment for smoking in non-designated carriages and station areas. The Brighton Appendix to the WTT for 1922 notes: The proportion of smoking accommodation provided in Main Line Trains should be 50 per cent. and in Suburban Trains 75 per cent. of the total seating for both 1st and 3rd classes.

The LBSCR used a  number of methods to indicate the smoking/non-smoking status of a compartment, as this photo shows.

As can be seen there is a notice (etched?) on the window glass and, above the head of the door, is an enamelled sign. However, both indicators were not always present.  In addition, a Brighton smoking aficionado could tell by the ventilator bonnets:-  Smoking compartments generally were fitted with a more open ventilator, whereas non-smoking had the less draughty 'louvred' type, so it was possible for the keen-eyed to spot where the smokers were, from a distance, although it was always possible that the designation had been changed without modifying the ventilators.  The company also tended to install more robust seat coverings in smoking compartments, more resistant to burns, such as leather in first class.

The problem with the South London electric units is that, for some reason, the company, for some reason, failed to place any external notification, and used the same type of ventilator bonnet throughout.  Notwithstanding this lack of identification, there were, indeed, smoking and non-smoking areas in both motor brakes and the first class intermediate coaches.  The carriages were opens, with low partitions and a gangway on one side, so to separate the two areas there was a full height partition, presumably with a door, between the zones.  There were four of both in the driving cars, and four smoking (with leather seats) and five non-smoking in the first class trailers.  These figures don't quite match up with the target percentages noted above, but I suspect the average was made up by the vast number of workmen's carriages still extant which probably were considered as mainly smoking.

That's a fascinating piece of social history and also the first explanation I have seen of the two different types of door ventilator that were often to be found on the same LBSCR vehicle.  Roof mounted torpedo vents also seemed to be fitted - or not- in a random manner.  Could this too have been associated with smoking vs non smoking compartments?

On 18/09/2021 at 11:13, SteveCornford said:

Hi Stephen,

I have sent Tim a request for a 2-WIM kit and a motor bogie housing assuming it is ok to use with the 2-WIM.

The 2-WIM was not listed on the order form so I just put the request in the query box.

By the way, the tick boxes are more or less invisible on the order form screen, and so is the tick itself.

 

Would it be possible to be able to design an optional internal end part for those of us who do not have to negotiate curves as tight as radius 2 with the internal buffers?

Or details of the the correct buffer centres so that I could add them myself?

Would I be right in assuming that Markits SECR oval sprung coach buffers would be suitable?

   

 

Hi Steve

Thank you for your order!  The Hornby motor bogie housing is universal and fits all Eastleigh Southern Electric motor coch underframes.

Thanks also for your feedback on the ordering process.  We are just starting out and feedback of this kind is very helpful for ironing out any problems.

On Eastleigh kits the buffer beam forms part of the underframe rather than part of the inner end of the coach body.  All you would need to do to fit buffers to the inner ends of the 2 Wim would be to drill suitable diameter holes 22.5mm apart and 14mm above rail level (that is exactly half way up the bufferbeam itself).  The Markits SECR/LBSCR oval sprung coach buffers look right to me, judging by the RCTS photos referenced by others in this thread and by the attached image of an LBSCR 54ft coach on the Isle of Wight Steam Railway.  The LBSCR also used round headed buffers but these were confined to 48ft and shorter rolling stock.

I hope the kit building goes well!

Stephen

7 hours ago, NIK said:

Hi,

 

Would it be possible to make the sides thicker and have a series of recesses where rectangles of glazing would be glued in after the body is painted?.

 

Regards

 

Nick

Eastleigh sides have a lattice structure to strengthen the thin sides.  Counter-intuitively, experiments showed that this works better than solid thick sides above and below the window line.

The lattice is also useful for locating and glueing in glazing.

Stephen

On 16/09/2021 at 10:28, SteveCornford said:

Hi Stephen,

Any chance you could let us know the make and colour detils of the various paints you have used on the 2-WIM?

 

Also what size and quantities of the various glazing bits needed for the 3-WIM?

I thought that you had mentioned this info and a suitable supplier for the HAL and SUB but now I can't find it.

 

I believe the locosnstuff.com universal spud replacement bogie is a non-starter as it is only suitable for wheels with diameter up to 12mm according to supplier.

 

The Branchlines 35mm wheelbase bogie is suitable but does project above the floorline.

 

Regards Steve

 

 

Glazing for the 2 Wim:

Doors 7mm wide x 15mm deep (36 needed, plus a few contingency spares for mishaps)

Double windows 17.5mm x 17.5mm (22 needed, plus spares)

End windows and MBC motorman's droplights 8mm x 17.5mm (10+)

Cab windows 10.5mm x 14mm (4+)

I use Deluxe Materials 'Glue n Glaze' as it does not affect the plastic and is not too runny (avoid cyanoacrylates, which can cause fogging)

York Model Rail offer a bespoke laser cutting service that certainly saves a lot of time and repetitive effort.  I specify 0.5mm clear acrylic when ordering.  Don't do what I did and complain that the supplied windows were not very clear - there is a protective film on both sides to be removed before assembly!

On 16/09/2021 at 10:28, SteveCornford said:

Hi Stephen,

Any chance you could let us know the make and colour detils of the various paints you have used on the 2-WIM?

 

Also what size and quantities of the various glazing bits needed for the 3-WIM?

I thought that you had mentioned this info and a suitable supplier for the HAL and SUB but now I can't find it.

 

I believe the locosnstuff.com universal spud replacement bogie is a non-starter as it is only suitable for wheels with diameter up to 12mm according to supplier.

 

The Branchlines 35mm wheelbase bogie is suitable but does project above the floorline.

 

Regards Steve

 

 

I use Phoenix Precision paints for most things.

In this instance the bodysides are painted P78 SR post-war malachite as that would have been what was in use when the units received their final overhaul (according to the late Laurie Mack, an expert on Southern rolling stock, Selhurst 'varnished' its intermediate overhauls by applying a single coat of paint, which would have worked well enough as the units had previously had a general overhaul in pre-war malachite.

From memory, the roofs of the model are painted with Precision Paints 'Roof Dirt' and the underframes in 'Dirty Black' with a dilute wash of 'Frame Dirt', which picks out the rivet detail on the units' characteristic massive plate frame solebars.

This model was one of my first attempts at using an airbrush.  Consequently the paint is too thick and I was spraying too close, resulting in the visible 'orange peel' effect.  I now dilute sprayed paint 20% with Phoenix Precision PQ9 airdrying thinners which seems to work better but I am still far from an expert!

Southern green is an elusive thing!  Some say that the shade of green darkened slightly in early BR days, others that SR post-war malachite continued in use on Southern multiple units until about 1959 when the shade certainly did darken.  The Phoenix Precision range offers:

P78 SR post-war malachite

P114 BR multiple units to 1954 (or 1959 for Southern EMUs)

P119 BR multiple units 1954-1959 (but not Southern Electrics)

P124 Southern Electrics from 1959 

They also offer yet another shade of green for Southen Region locomotive hauled stock post 1956

I have followed their framework for my own model railway, not least because it profides me with subtle variations of shades but a small voice in my head questions whether Eastleigh, Selhurst, etc. would really have kept stocks of paint in all of these similar shades or was it more a case of paints fading and weathering over time?  Also, was the science of mixing paint as precise then as it is now, or rather was it a case of 'a bit of this, a bit of that and stir well'?

Photos are not all that much help as the shade of green in a 1950s colour photo had as much to do with the film used as with reality whilst distance, atmosphere and sunlight also affected the colour.  One thing I can't see is any obvious difference in the shade of green on loco hailed stock and on multiple units!

I would be interested to hear what the experts on this forum think.

Bécasse

You may be right about the proportion of smoking to non smoking accommodation in the early 1950s.  Going from photos of the Southern Electric fleet in general at that time, non smoking accommodation seems to be about 25%.  Photos of the actual 2 Wim units are few and far between and not always very distinct but JH Aston's shot of 1812 at West Croydon clearly shows the first three bays (nearest the cab) of the driving trailer with No Smoking triangles.  I could not find a clear shot of the motor coach but would assume that it least one of the first class bays was originally designated no smoking.  Did it stay that way when suburban first class was finally abandoned post-war?  I don't know but maybe someone out there does!

Likewise, frosted glass 'smoking' signs.  The original 1909 South London Line stock was built by outside contractors and was quite unlike any other LBSCR stock of the era.  I cannot see any evidence of smoking designations on the windows in the few photos that survive from then, nor of the 1930 2 Wim rebuilds but that does not mean they weren't there.

21 hours ago, SteveCornford said:

Thanks for the update.

Just to let you know on the EastleighModelRail website, the 2-WIM "what's in the box " section refers to the 2700 2-HAL unit.

 

The 2-WIM really captures the look of the real thing.

Is the 2-WIM unit in your picture produced with the new translucent smooth material?

Would the 2693 2-HAL units have the same smoothness?

Steve

Firstly, thank you for the alert on the website glitch - that will teach me to check when doing a cut and paste!  Needless to say, what you get in the box is the same in both cases.

I’m glad you like the look of the 2 Wim - in fact I can remember riding on them as a small boy en route to visit my grandmother.  Even as a four year old their Edwardian interiors made an impression, though by then they were very run down and war-weary.

The unit in the picture is a pre-production prototype.  We have since made a few changes to the way parts go together but these do not affect appearance at all.  The model is actually printed in an earlier materiall - the kits themselves are even better!

If you let me have your email address I can send you some videos of the unit on test.

On 06/09/2021 at 17:23, autocoach said:

Bravo...

 

Unfortunately the 4 SUB's it will have to await my very highly unlikely impending lottery win....

I do appreciate that the kits are far from cheap!

Tim (CW Railways) and I have gone over the costings really carefully and we just cannot do them for any less whilst covering production costs, overheads, etc.  The alternative would be to go in to volume production but that involves a big upfront cost in  the hope that there are enough potential customers out there.  Not a risk we can afford to take!

We have benchmarked our prices against other sources such as Shapeways and we seem to be in the same ball park (note how headline prices on some other sites increase at checkout!).  Some of these other kits are body only which is why we offer the option of parts as well as complete kits.

In the final analysis these models are a niche interest and the prices reflect the costs of very small scale production as well as the parts count for a 4 car unit.

If the Sub is not for you, take a look at our latest offering, a 2 Wim, on eastleighmodelrail.co.uk

Stephen Grant

On 06/09/2021 at 16:34, SteveCornford said:

Hi,

Have you any photos of a 4-SUB or Tin Hal body that you have painted and constructed in the flesh yet?

Steve

The prototype Sub was 3D printed in a different material and was also designed around re-using Hornby Bil/Hal underframes.  That didn’t work as well as I hoped so I went for a complete redesign and a 100% bespoke kit instead.  Also Tim (CW Railways) is now using a new translucent material that is something of a game changer in terms of smoothness and crisp detail.

 I have assembled the new kit’s underframes, bogies, etc. and they are running nicely on the test track (the close coupling works smoothly on #2 radius curves whilst being pushed and pulled by motor bogies at both ends) but I have made rather slow progress with the bodies due to various interventions of real life.  I should be able to crack on over the next few weeks and will post progress on the Eastleigh website (eastleighmodelrail.co.uk).

Hopefully the final result will be well worth the wait!

Stephen Grant

Thanks for pointing that out - duly noted.  And sincere apologies for my slow response - real life intervened!

Stephen

I am currently working on a range of 3D printed Bulleid/Lynes EPBs to expand the Eastleigh Model Rail range of Southern Electrics.

Looking at photographs of SR-type 1951 stock, the layout of underframe equipment on the motor coaches seems to be broadly similar to that on the post-1936 suburban/semi fast stock.  If this is correct, can anybody tell me where were the motor generator set and the battery box were located on SR-type 1951 stock?  Are there any other significant differences in underframe equipment layout that I need to take into account?

All help and advice gratefully received!