Mikkel

"When I first looked at that 1837 drawing of the modifications, I was confused by the overlapping of the plan and elevation. For a few moments I thought that the ends of the axles were the safety valve covers on North Star! Could a young draftsman have thought the same?"

This thought stuck with me, Mike. It's intriguing. But thinking about it, where would the differences in shape  between the axle ends and drawn safety valve covers have come from? An attempt to make sense of what he was seeing? Or did someone else modify the drawing later?

Some interesting reflections, Keith.

I like your comparative shots with the same baseboard but different stations and trains, quite thought provoking. As you say, it really highlights how different things can appear.

Visually the "Schönberg" and "Kirchbach" versions are pleasing and would make lovely layouts, but if you're looking for a challenge I think it would be quite novel to see if your large grain structures etc could be incorporated in a small space.

Well, the wagon looked fine when you bought it, but the end result is unique!

Can I ask what the red base paint is, please?

An excellent end to a good day on RMweb.

I tend to use some thick rectangular or square styrene rod (Evergreen call theirs "strips").

That's a good find, it looks neatly built.

I just use a block in such situations, but my trains aren't that long so maybe I'll be unpleasantly surprised when I start running longer trains.

18 hours ago, ullypug said:

I was thinking more like the Wurzels...

 

Yes, better! For some reason I remembered Lennon as saying that that there was a connection between their song and W.C. Fields, but searching now it seems not.

They are excellent. Well worth the patient waiting. And two christmases embodied in a model, a nice thought.

It's a good example of how "zooming in" can create results that are just as satisfying and impressive as "big-picture" modelling.

BTW there's a Beatles theme in the blog posts this weekend - the Strawberry line and Norwegian wood 🙂

Wonderful. Nice to see trains on the layout, they blend in well.

I do like the roads. A vehicle would suit them, perhaps belonging to the local company W.C. Fields? 🙂

That mis-diagnonsis must have caused you a lot of stress. Good thing you got it sorted, best wishes for the further recovery.

In that context, two huts and a weighbridge in two weeks seems pretty good. In fact it's good progress in any context!

(BTW, the "like" buttons seem to be disabled/missing in this blog, in case you don't know).

What a great finish, all the modified parts are completely integrated with the original body.

I'm impressed with "Croesnewydd", very neatly arranged, not easy when you're adding each letter individually. I enjoy it though, there's something satisfying about making up the words letter by letter.

Thanks Mike. Good point about the note, maybe I should have left one in there! I should probably also have soldered her in place, rather than just superglueing. If she comes loose there is no way I can get in there, and I dislike loose objects that rattle inside. She may yet get her revenge! 

On 29/03/2024 at 10:59, Dave John said:

Well I just happened to have some old mahogany flooring

Anything for the hobby 🙂

Yes, it deserves the name on it. If you already have one of the HMRS transfer sheets, the name can be composed from the lettering - either the alphabet provided or from bits of the other wording. But it takes a bit of time of course.

Very nice work, David. And all done with basic components, without buying in special items (save buffers and hooks). The L sections for the handrails are particularly impressive. And the lamp irons are ingeniously simple, but effective.

There's a magazine article here, I think.

Very neat. And exclusive - mahogany sleepers are new to me! Is that a traditional approach or are you innovating as usual? 

Very informative, Mike. I find these early engines quite instructive, because they show off more clearly the fundamentals of a locomotive.

And I like those external suspension arms, very stylish actually - especially in your rendering. 

On 26/03/2024 at 18:01, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 I still have the buildings for a US switching layout - add a transload / team track facility and there’s more than enough for a portable Inglenook:

 

 

That's a good idea. Bud's Trucking Company looks very suitable as one of those buildings that both give a purpose to a couple of sidings and at the same time serves as a facto backscene. A good choice by Walthers for a kit.

 Hi Keith, some remarkable buildings to be seen here, the Grain Elevator not least!

I went through a similar downsizing exercise some years ago when we moved to a 91m2 flat, and if by "no space" you mean no dedicated layout running space then that's been my situation for 5 years now. I've been pleasantly surprised by how quickly I adapted. To give you an impression of how it works:  

I have a desk in our living room and some shelves in a cupboard. I can fit a a light (foamboard) layout on the desk and the larger table top layouts go temporarily on the dining table (which can be extracted for greater length). I use water based paints, non-odour glues, plus a handheld vacuum cleaner and a wet cloth to constantly remove plastic dust from filing etc.

We do have a small attic space two floors up where I store the layouts, but for convenience I usually keep one or two of the layouts in one of those plastic boxes that go under the bed. If you keep the structures detachable then they can go in the cupboard and the layout module will be flat enough to fit under the bed. 

It does require a small-layout or modular approach of course. And it probably helps if you're the kind of modeller who likes to work on just one or two projects at the time on your desk. With your interest in structures, that seems to match though. Although I admit it would be hard to fit the grain silos under a bed - and that it's a bit more complicated when there are kids around!

Very nice, Neal. And with well positioned passengers too.

Quote

 I realised that I havent finished adding the door handles!

I know that one, it's particularly bad when you realize that you've forgotten one whole side of the coach.

This is looking very good. The overall roof is impressive, a very substantial kit-bash!

I never know what's next on your blog Mike, except that it's always fascinating and informative.

The prints looks good, I wouldn't have relished creating those domes by hand! I like the door too, looks the part even without painting.

They look good Tim, proper workhorses. They also illustrate how elderly kitbuilt locos can still compete with all the shiny new superdetail RTR locos.

I like your approach to improving them, it reminds me of the Repair Shop where the approach is to retain as much of the original soul and patina as possible (unless the customer wants otherwise). That seems to me a very sound philoshopy.

It's such an interesting van, horseboxes tend to be elegant but restrained affairs, this one has a lot going on - a whole little town in itself! 

The bowing and brittle nature is frustrating but, I hope, just the usual teething problems of a new technology that seems to be progressing fast. I've been carving away at my Bulldog body this week - made (not  by me!) from Siraya Tech 'Build' resin - and it doesn't feel brittle at all.

22 hours ago, magmouse said:

Thanks for the additional info, Mikkel - I'd forgotten about the drawings in Janet Russell's book. I wonder if the 1920 picture of 583 actually shows a replacement vehicle, given the same number (as with wagons). The shape and construction of the 'china box' (the lowest part of the body, between the wheels) is quite different. If they are the same, the rebuild would have been substantial, with few original parts in the new version (also seen with wagons and locos, of course).

 

Nick.

Thanks Nick, I had the same thought but Tony Atkins also says it's the same vehicle - and he knew his GWR cartage. The GWR seem to have been quite free in rebuilding their motor vehicles - some of them extensively and several times - right since the earliest examples. So the notion of rebuilding road vehicles wasn't foreign to them.

That said, the cost/benefit ratio of rebuilding a horsedrawn vehicle isn't necessarily the same as that of a motor vehicle, and Atkins may be wrong of course. His GWR Goods cartage book vol 2 has the fleet list for motor vehicles, but unfortunately not for horse-drawn ones.

Edit: I've just had a look in Kelley's Great Western Road Vehicles, and found on page 255 a 1926 drawing of No. 2079, which has an outline that looks identical/very close to the original outline of 583 above (with upper body panels stepped out above the wheels). So either the original 583 was renumbered 2079 and the number 583 reallocated to another vehicle (but why?); or there was at least one other GWR horsedrawn pantechnicon to that original design, which seemingly survived at least into the 1920s.

I do have some EZ line, but thought it would not have weight enough to drop naturally. Still, worth a try though - thank you!