Portchullin Tatty

I have designed the cab roof and much of the cab interior to be a separate assembly, that can be secured by a series of screws. As can be seen below, there are two screws at the rear that locate into a tool box that sits on where the bunker projects into the rear of the cab. As the screws are somewhat lost in the bunker, I have come up with a little dodge where these are retained by an initial nut that traps them in place but still allows them to twist and thus engage in the cab roof assembly. The other screw comes through the top of the boiler, just inside the backhead. The roof is connected to these fixing points with some inner liners to the cabs which can be seen here; the nuts for the rear piece are hidden in the toolbox and to the front within the false top to the boiler. You can just rebate in the rear spectacle plate that will take the glazing material. The actual cab roof has a double skin, to aid its strength, include the lamp irons and also to assist with locating it on the cab. The outer skin includes the ribs that appear on the real roof, including a grove to allow brass wire to be used to form the seam to this. To the perimeter of this, there is a valance. And this is what it looks like on. I find that I just can’t make roofs sufficiently well to sit perfectly on the body and nothing shouts “its a model” more than gaps where there shouldn’t be any – be this under buildings, roofs or between parts that have to be joined to structurally stand up! This is my solution, which I have used on other builds that I have done but it is so much easier when it is designed in.

The next stages of the test build were to do the footplate/tank sides/can exterior. My initial design for the footplate is not particularly radical, but the test build has shown up that until the boiler is put in place (which comes some way into the build process) the front is somewhat delicate, irrespective of whether the footplate valences are fitted or not. Thus, in addition to the temporary stiffener that can be seen to the front of the footplate in the picture below, stiffeners will be provided to the front half of the footplates. The idea of these can be seen in the following view which shows the rear of the cab. By folding these over at 90o during the build, they give strength to the more delicate parts of components. Some will be incorporated into the finished article, others will simply be discarded when their job is done. The two tanks, along with the sides to the cab/bunker, are conceived as a single piece (if you go back to my previous posting, you can see this in the flat in the etch). The two halves are separated by temporary spacers to both assist in locating them but also to give strength to the assembly prior to the fitting of the boiler which is where it will get its strength from. It was when I tackled this part, I reached the first disaster – the etchers had failed to half etch from behind so I was missing some fold lines. This was pretty frustrating as it entirely negated the intended efficiency of the design and even though I now have a corrected etch, I had to solder on by cutting the parts at the intended line of the half etch and soldering them together in the more traditional manner – exactly what my design was intended to avoid. As a result of this, there are no neat photos of the tanks being folded up and secured in place, we have to jump on a bit to see this. The cab fronts that were constructed earlier were no slid into place and I was pleased to find that it all fitted very snugly and in exactly the correct location. I did find that I could put in a further pair of fold up tabs on the running plate that meant that it was essentially impossible to put this in the wrong location, so this is another little refinement that will make its way into the production batch. The rear of the cab was a similar fold up unit to that to the front, which was pretty easy to build but did have one dimensional error at its base that needed cutting away – well that is the purpose of a test build! All of this, has been created from one piece in maybe three minutes! And this is what it looks like with the cab rear in place. If you look carefully, a couple of 12 BA screws are just visible in the cut out to the rear of the cab – the purpose of these will become apparent in a future posting but it is another one of my little ideas to make this easier to build/better when built. And this is what the cab bow looks like from above, after the addition of the splasher tops and backs. One of the issues this illustrates is that this kit, as it stands, will only work for EM or P4 modellers. There is insufficient room to get the narrower gauge/wider wheel treads into the splashers. Next up will be the cab roof………….

Oh dear; that will be spill chucker and I did have a bit of abuse on another forum (thanks Paul......). Now corrected.

I have been rather remiss and have not updated my workbench for rather too long and I have been fairly busy of late too. So, I will do some catching up over the next few days but for those that can not wait and want to see more of what I have been upto (as I won't repeat everything), I suggest you have a look at my blog page) at http://highlandmiscellany.com/ I took the weekend off the other week and attended the Spring Railway Modeller’s Weekend at Missenden. It is great to spend two full days just modelling away from the distractions of life and amongst people who are all doing exactly the same. I find it a form of therapy and it is well worth going if you have been thinking about it (and even if you haven’t!). I took with me the etches that I have had delivered by PPD for the Scrap Tank; with a view to doing a test build using them. The origins of this class are some of the earliest locomotives built for the line; the Raigmore class. In an attempt to increase the life of these new enlarged boilers were fitted to them. Unfortunately for the Highland Railway the boilers were too heavy for their frames and consequently these cracked. This left the Highland with a number of new boilers, wheels and many fittings but no locomotives! Ever the frugal, they recycled these parts into a series of three shunting locomotives which were designed by Peter Drummond and these inevitably quickly picked up the name of Scrap Tanks. These were rather brutish looking locomotives for the time, characterised by surprisingly large wheels for a shunting locomotive – something compelled on the Highland due to them reusing these from the Raigmore class which were mainline passenger locomotives with 5′ 3″ wheels. For those of you who don’t know what these looked like, this is what we are aiming at: And this is what we are starting with: Whilst this may (well has!) got me into some trouble, I have sought to design the kit to be easier to build than the average etched brass kit and certainly easier than the Falcon Brass kits that are the staple in 4mm for many of the Highland’s locomotives. I have sought to do this in a number of ways and the first area tackled, the cab front/interior, illustrates one of these; the use of fold up assemblies to assist not only in creating the shapes but also the laminations. Many of the modern etch designers are using these (especially the 2mm boys/girls) but I have sought to do rather more than most (which has made the preciseness of the design rather more challenging, more of which anon). The bulk of this assembly starts as a single piece, that is folded up to form the cab floor, splasher sides and the bulk of the cab front. To assist the lamination process, jigs either side of the cab front have been used. Wire rods are slipped through the small holes in these to ensure that they are registered on top of each other properly. The view below shows the laminations now sweated together and illustrates the square cut outs behind the cab front which are to enable glass/Perspex to be slotted in to represent the spectacle glazing. The view also shows the boiler backhead which is made from three layers of etch (not with a folding jig – yet!). I am pretty pleased with this as this is only 13 * 15mm in size, so the wheels on the backhead are only 2mm in diameter. To be continued…………(soon too!)

Lots has been happening on both my layout and my workbench and I have been rather slack in updating my RMweb threads. Don't worry, I am not joining the RMweb sulkers............. However, whilst I will probably put a few things over here, most will not and I suggest that a visit to my blog at http://highlandmiscellany.com/would be worthwhile if you want to see what has been going on. Anyway, just prior to Portchullin’s last two exhibitions, Tim of S&T Joinery brought around the last couple of boards so that all of the scenic boards are now back at home. Obviously, this meant that we had to do a test erection! And very pleased I am too, especially with how flat they are. A rear contrast to the rolling hills affect that I managed on Portchullin. I am obviously hoping that this is going to result in much better and more reliable running. The design of the leg and the supporting beams can now be seen more clearly. it does take a bit of time to get these level (caused I believe by the absence of levelness in S&T’s workshops! However, once the beams were level, it was a matter of moments to place the boards on them and connect them up. So I think we will do some setting out at the weekend. In some respects the photos don’t quite do justice to these boards and also how large they are collectively. The width in the top view is 1200mm and overall the length of the boards together is 5250mm. As will become apparent in future posts, I am going for the “railway in the landscape” feel and I don’t want it to fee cramped either. And if anybody wants an electric loft ladder, this is where you go http://www.st-joinery.co.uk/

Thanks for showing the removal of a the curve in the resin casting. I had heard it was possible but was a bit sceptical. No more!

Hi Jamie, The intention is that they will be used as masters for subsequent production either in lost wax brass or white metal; Ian was going to deal with this end I was just the draughtsman¬ Having said that, there is nothing to stop you using the 3D print source material. For one coach it would be the economic approach; for a train it probably won't. Keep in touch with Ian or myself. Ian's real interest is in 4mm, so I suspect 7mm is a bit further down the line. Thus, if you are pressing for them, I can easily set up a shop in Shapeways and let you order them from there. Mark

Mea Culpa........... ........at least as far as one aspect of Ian's product development delays............some gas lamp masters. So having had this thread prick my conscience today; issue rectified. Masters ready to send to Shapeways - Ian, you have an email via more normal routes. 15no at 4mm, 5 no at S gauge and 4no in 7mm. Both Jamie and Ian's kits look rather fine; well done gents.

Jim, Great to see this thread; railways when owners, employees and the public appreciated them, neither motorised biscuit tins nor public sector neglect on show!!

Adam, I think there are some issues between Slaters and their 4mm distributer (Cooper Craft), which may mean this is going to prove difficult to source. Therefore, keep you eyes open at exhibitions for various retailers who retail these (it seems many do) and also ebay / similar. As an alternative, Mousa Models do a number of other NER brake vans.

The Bill Bedford sprung bogies are much better than compensation (in my view anyway). The coach moves so much more realistically and smoothly.

Thanks Paul and Mike, that little list is useful. I would add new footsteps to this list and poitentially thin down the specticle surrounds. Where were you sourcing replacement chimneys/safety valve covers from. It lools like the the London Road rather beautiful cast version for the latter which strangely I have used (cut down) on a Highland loco! Cooper Craft/Slaters did do an etch that allowed the kit to be converted to an end brake version (so must have been used to make the model in the picture). I could not get any though, which prompted me to make my own etchings. I don't know whether they have any spare transfers.

That would be helpful to me at least, although it may not be fair to clutter Paul's thread with it as it is a tad off track - open a fresh one and just note where it is here?

The lettering comes from the Slater's transfers that come with the kit. I bought a multipack of ten kits, so I have a fair few lettering sheets to use and they do include a full alphabet. It does take several sheets to do each full "North Eastern Railway" - "A" is the problem letter! It also takes a long time and is difficult to get them neatly lined up due to the number of letters in the legend. I will go back and adjust one or two of them as I am not totally happy with some but I was starting to go potty looking at the lettering so put it to one side for the moment.

Like the wagons; I have been doing a batch of P7s - see here http://highlandmiscellany.com/ I also have a J72 to do; can you talk through the adjustments and detailing you are doing to the body. I am going Highlevel for my chassis.

I am not sure that I would bother with the laser cut plastic prototype. Metal does behave slightly differently and if you design the kit well you will want to fold up components and/or use jigs to enable them to be fitted with each other. This can't be replicated in plastic for the most part. I would simply spend the little bit of money to have the etching done. As it is a smallish prototype, my guess is that the set up fee would be £20 and the metal another £20, per thickness that you use (possibly less if you go for a good proportion of resin).

Nestor, There are a number of 21mm gauge modellers in the S4 Society and a couple of topics running on their forum; so there is support and experience for you. There used to be an area group based in Plumpton but they are only semi-official now. It was based on Barry Luck's house and he still accomodates visitors. Announce yourself on the S4 forum and I am sure he will offer with a slight prompt. The support you will get from visiting and talking to active finescale modellers will be invaluable. Mark

Having had a chance to read the whole thing now, I thought it was pretty good and a little more substance than the usual RE for me. As I understand it, the sales are going fairly well and the Rail Express crew either did or nearly sell out of the supplies that they took to Warley. Simon was hopeful this is not the first and last RE Yearbook!

Guys, These standards are the standards applicable at the time for the construction or reconstruction of platforms - ie it was not a standard that applied retrospectively unless the station was undergoing a rebuild. Platform heights at the time of the construction of many (maybe most) platforms were unregulated because the stations were built in the Victorian era. They would have been left to the individual companies or their contractors to determine. They would have then stayed like that until the station was rebuilt and BR did not have a policy (that they pursued with much vigour anyway) to rebuild platforms simply to get them closer to the carriage floor height until the 1980s. Admittedly out in the countryside, but on the former Highland section there remain a small number of platforms that are only circa 1'10" / 2'0" from the railhead. As you are not modelling a prototype situation, you can effectively make up your own history and set the platform height anywhere upto 3 feet as you wish. Your other option would be to look up some pictures of Spalding and make a judgment as to what height these might have been. Love the station buildings by the way and enjoying the rebirth of Eastwood Town.

Sounds like WH Smiths have a computer glitch and have over charged you. Keep the receipt, pop back to them and I would imagine there will be no problem sorting this out.

There is a 13 page article on Portchullin, which I can vouch is all new including its photographs becauase I wrote it! I have not seen the rest yet, but I will be keen to do so.

And a slightly revised version, this time substituting a load of the arms with a route indicator. I appreciate it may be possible to push even more of these onto the route indicator but I am concerned that I would not be able to make more than three boards operable in 4mm! Still OK?

Thanks for the advice. This is what I think you were saying? Although it may be that in practise the splitting signal for the shed will be placed on the gantry. The gantry will be on the bridge, which is a tad uncomfortable construction-wise - it will need a dollop of thought!

Apologies for the photos not being in the text, I am having a lot of issues loading photos on RMweb at the moment (which is why my workbench etc has not been updated for sometime - see www/highlandmiscellany.com if you want updates on this). Hopefully, which photo was to go where is fairly obvious!

Can I have some assistance please? A friend, Peter Bond, is underway on a fictitious terminus based on a projected line to Aultbea, in the northwest highlands. His trackplan is below, along with a couple of pictures of where things stand building wise. He is asking as to the correct signalling and on the trackplan, I have put down my thoughts. The logic of the quite large terminus is inspired by Oban; namely an original arrangement being enlarged by adding an additional phase of platforms to one side. In his plan, platform 1 and 3 are the main arrival/departure platform with platform 2 being parcels and specials. It is intended that the run round loop to platform 1 is the main goods arrival but goods trains could also be received direct into the goods yard above the station/on the harbour branch. The engine shed area is accessed by way of the run round loop or the main station, but would need to be signalled. This generates the first question. If I put a further signal on the bridge, splitting the route to the main line out or the shed, the second arms of all the starting signals could be avoided. This is desirable as Peter is keen to model the starting signals as per Oban and visible in this picture by Ben Brookshank (and show here under a creative commons licence). The next question is the main line descends on a steep gradient; basically think Ilfracoombe. It strikes me that this ought to be protected by an outer home and thus an advanced starter? Finally, might the harbour branch be independently signalled from the goods yard. Such that a engine can work at the harbour and a further one in the yard. This would need a signal at the start of the goods yard loop? Other comments of course welcome!