Ravenser

On 14/04/2024 at 09:21, Mikkel said:

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).

Thanks for this.  It did prompt quite a bit of morbid introspection at first - it made me very conscious of how much I de;pend on sight for most of my interests like reading and modelling, never mind personal independence. I perked up quite a bit when the first specialist told me it wasn't what the optician said, the other eye was totally fine, and there is a treatment with a decent success rate (even if it doesn't totally fix the issue)

It's just that like everything in N I seem only to have achieved a tiny scrap...

I believe "good enough" was a philosophy floated by a prominent US modeller (can't remember the name..) , and very influential in the States . Basically his view was that chasing detailed perfection in individual models was a mistake, because the real model is the whole layout. If the big picture is right, using all the right things made to a decent standard (but not an ultra high one)  then that is the way to go. You are modelling the Redneck Subdistrict in your basement, not an individual boxcar - life is short. It doesn't matter if every boxcar has exactly the right number of rivets so lon g as you are running the right trains with decent models of the right boxcars through a decent model of the right scene. Whereas thanks to P4 and the finescale movement we've sought detailed accuracy - but sometimes the layout assembled from these exquisite models is completely unrealistic:  I think of the classic D+E TMD layout , where the fact is that small diesel depots used by 4 freight operators have never actually existed. (Nobody is interested in modelling Ilford, or even a small DMU depot like LN  or CA)

Broadly speaking, everything tooled up in OO in the last 20 years is "good enough" (ok, we'll exclude Dapol's attempt at a Pendolino...) That's why I'm a lot more optimistic about the medium term future for the hobby than I am about the medium term future for OO RTR manufacturers. Unless you can bring something new to the table, and that's getting rather difficult unless you announce the Paget loco or a Johnson Spinner, it becomes increasingly difficult to persuade people to "upgrade" at an ever rising cost.  I can't be bothered replacing my Bachmann 158s with a new W Yorks 158 discounted to a mere £340 - I can't remember anyone saying anything much against the original  models, they run well and have had decoders in them for 15 years... 

I'm very much with BlackRat here - if I want extra DMUs for the layout I'd do better building the DC Kits in my cupboard, which costs very little at this point and doesn't require me to find any more space in the flat.

Also there's a certain satisfaction in recycling your old models into something pretty decent, as here Mk2a BFK and Mk1 TSO . OK, you can see a difference with a Bachmann Mk1 at a distance of 18" (mainly around the glazing) but with new OO coaches hitting £80 and more a go, here's a decent set that cost me pennies because I had the bits, using two coaches I bought when I was 14 and 15... (The NBL loco isn't Dapol either ...)

The absolutely critical thing is to ensure that the vehicle has all 4 feet on the floor. A mirror is useful as a dead flat surface to check that there is no twist /rock whatsoever on the chassis. A chassis where only 3 wheels are in contact is liable to derailment

Unfortunately the longer the wheelbase , the greater the  precision in assembly has to be to ensure the chassis is dead square. Hence a vehicle like this is much more likely to cause trouble than a 9' wheelbase wagon.

Hence some folk fit compensation - a rocking etched axleguard unit at one end - to avoid the problem on long wheelbase vehicles like these

It's most unlikely crimson /cream clerestories would represent ex GE stock, because one large-scale official anomaly was that pre-Grouping stock on the GE Section continued to be painted LNER brown at Stratford after nationalisation. As I understand it , the rationale was that the coaches concerned were not long for this world and therefore didn't merit the new livery. The Saffron Waldon push-pull sets were still in brown in the summer of 1956 (colour photo ) and presumably remained so until the stock concerned was withdrawn the following February...

GE 50' corridor stock seems to have been painted brown, too

Thanks for those comments. One point I forgot to make is that all the bits were from stock , and had been there for years, so the project cost me a Tamiya spray can. The current RRP for the Bachmann equivalent is £70 (although Kernow are offloading their last BFK for £25), and while mine doesn't have the same finesse and crispness of finish, at a distance of 18" it still looks a pretty decent model

Discounting the cost of stuff already long in stock, that whole train in the picture cost me under £50 . Go out and buy the equivalent new RTR - assuming it's available -and you'll be paying £325 . Consumerism is getting seriously expensive

As a total outsider - this concept does seem to tick a lot of boxes and include potential for shorter trains . Seems like something to run with and see how far you get. The worst case scenario is a half built layout - the best case is  a completed  that really satisfies your aspirations.

It seems more positive than acquiring different bitsfor different possibilities that don't quit gel, with nothing being built....

Just a thought , but was the bright idea behind the raised ends to provide a form of wind protection when running, the shelter preventing the passengers' hats being blown off? (That the feature did not become common suggests it was an idea that didn't work.)

The original 3rd class coaches would have given a view forward . Those with raised ends wouldn't. We take it for granted that you can only see out of the side of a railway coach. Early passengers may have had a different expectation - are we seeing some daring passengers kneeling on the seat to get a view of the approaching tunnel over the top of the end , such as passengers in the other open coaches would get anyway?

If the platforms had fouled the stock , then you would not have worn a groove in anything: the coach would have come off with a jolt and a bang. The normal rule is to check clearances using the longest vehicle you possess. DMUs may well be 57' underframe units (low-density DMUs normally were) . therefore if a Mk1 at 64' goes round you should be fine with a DMU

Quite a few platforms in days gone by were below standard height, so it is arguable that you have simply modelled an example

Interesting comments which do perhaps go some way to explaining why we don't seem to see many small terminus/fiddle yard in N. Mind you you may have a posse after you for saying it, as I've found that any suggestion that there might weaknesses or limitations to the scale is unacceptable in a number of quarters, even though anty scale has its inherent limitations and practical issues.

A common reaction to these kind of issues seems to be that you shouldn't want to shunt in N : "it's not what N is for". My own feeling is that such a situation IS a significant limitation in a scale , and saying it's bad form to raise the issue only means that nothing is done about models like this 

That fixes are possible is worth documenting .

My own two diesel 0-6-0 shunters run a LOT better than you have described, but they are still not as good as we've come to expect in 4mm

I get the impression that the limitations of Poole-era Farish may be casting a very long shadow , by having permanently depressed expectations for N gauge running

On a more cheerful note: closer inspection has revealed that it is possible to get a frog feedwire onto the Vee of the frog of the points either side of the broken point.

This I've done, using some fine green wire stripped out of a bit of ribbon cable salvaged from an old computer. While it doesn't exactly improve the look of the points, it's no disaster and not much worse than any other feedwire.

I've now fitted and wired up a Peco polarity switch on the most distant point in the first picture. The point in front of the camera will follow - that's got a SEEP motor and I need to find the wiring diagram. 

The plan is now to cut out, lift and replace the broken point and to provide a buried frog feed on the replacement . That will mean the first 3 of the 4 points in the works siding fan will have proper frog wiring , and I should be able to shunt with a degree of confidence.

The three points on the left hand board are another matter: here a mixture of SEEP motors without switches and awkward locations may rule out retrofitting feed wires. But these points are somewhat less critical.

This should be sufficient of a fix to justify carrying on with the N gauge layout. I will keep the replacement tiebar I fabricated from PCB in reserve, in case any more points fail. Some of the other points could be got at for replacement in the event of a failure, but a further point failure that can't readily be resolved might well signal the end of the layout....

While I'm about it , I might as well finish my N gauge Bill of Complaint with the saga of the Farish 57. This was bought years ago in the local model shop's closing down sale. When I tried running it on this layout it derailed at every point. Further investigation revealed that something was fouling on the tiebar lugs on the points, and these had to be clipped away. (I'm trying to imagine a RTR Class 47 or 57 fouling on Peco Streamline points in OO: I think there'd be a firestorm about the issue. But this is N - people seem just to accept it without comment)  The loco then ran. 

But it doesn't have NEM pockets . I have a hazy recollection I might have been warned about that when I bought it, but now I've been driven into Dapol Easi-Shunts this is a serious problem. I don't know how to convert it for Easi-Shunts , so I can't use it....

One comment - the "fiddle yard" appears to have capacity for a dinner plate and a mug.

I'm not sure that's necessary or sensible - food and a layout don't really mix. 

If you didn't need to do that , (and further, could cope with your cup behind the cassette) then access becomes less restricted

Looking good so far. 

Getting a few kits finished should help shift the paralysis of "what do I do next???"  After you've got a few completed, you'll start to know what you do next in some cases...

I would suggest the Chivers SSA ought to be a fairly easy win too

Possibly the loco is a little too uniformly grey? It might need some darker highlights - small patches of dark rust , perhaps, or black soot on the top of the boiler and maybe the cab roof? Even the coal seems to have gone battleship grey - though that may be a trick of the photograph.

"another of those projects where the end result isnt really needed, but seeing as I had all the bits I figured I may as well build it."  I have a few of those in the cupboard. And a GWR layout can never have too many pannier tanks. (We tend to overlook the fact that the prototype had classes in squadron service, not just one of everything like modellers)

It's entirely prototypical to have more than one 31 . the real thing generally had a few classes , but in bulk . A quicl look at a 1984 OPC spotters book suggests Thornaby had 25 x Class 31 that year....

I can't see why a TTS decoder wouldn't work in an Accurascale 31 - so long as it matches whatever socket Accurascale fit

It's drastic, but not insane

Option 1 amounts to "buy a bogie diesel" and is probably the easiest resolution

Option 3 probably amounts to "build inglenook Mk2"

Private owner mineral wagons were requisitioned by the Government on the outbreak of war in 1939 and never handed back. By 1952, none of them had been painted for at least a dozen years and they were getting pretty faded. "Modernisation" at this date meant breaking up wooden chassis 13T minerals with grease axle boxes and replacing them with all-steel 16T minerals with oil axle-boxes. The replacements were still unfitted... Quite a few wooden PO mineral wagons built on pre-grouping days , often to 10T capacity , were still in traffic in 1948

Wooden PO minerals were fading fast in the 1950s (literaly! )- quite a lot of our knowledge of the liveries comes from those chasing the survivors with camera and note book to record examples that were still fairly clear

It was BR policy not to repaint wooden minerals. Ever. They were on their way out, everything was scarce - why waste paint on them? The ironwork was probably given an occasional lick of paint - the wood simply weathered to unpainted (There was a brief period where policy was relaxed and minerals were painted grey - but it was very brief)

PO vans were pretty uncommon. Vans were almost entirely the prorogative of the railway companies. I'm pretty sure Fyffes did not have their own vans - pre-nationalisation the ships came into Hull, then Southampton or Avonmouth and were moved in LNER or SR banana vans.So the Fyffes and Colmans vans are pretty certain to be inauthentic (Banana vans were special vehicles, fitted with steam heating, fitted underframes, XP , for fast perishable traffic. And they generally moved as trainloads from the ports to stores). Bass probably did have their own vans but they probably didn't venture outside Bass' own internal railway network.

So my first step towards a more authentic fleet more in period involves a paint brush (a fine one as it's N). I would put Fyffes and Colmans into BR fitted bauxite (a bright orangy shade in the 1950s) and BR unfitted grey (in the 1950s a pretty light shade, very different from your dark grey van).They will still be quite distinctive in colour. Bass and OPCM can be left

The minerals are a weathering job. Bullcroft is an entirely authentic PO livery for a major S Yorks colliery . But it needs fading with a thin pinkish wash (including the white letters) and then a light application of a dirty wash . Dombey ~& Sons has more to do with Dickens than the coal trade I suspect. That might be a target for repainting as weathered unpainted greyish wood

Some prototype reference  PO mineral 1950s   replanked PO mineral  Stanton mineral NRM per/post restoration

and my search turned up this gem You tube - Coal and the War (1941)  though the date means that the wagons seen are still pretty pristine

Delayed action is the toughest nut to crack with auto-couplers. Uncoupling on any curve is less than ideal with all uncouplers - delayed action on tight reverse curves is extremely challenging indeed.

If it is any consolation, you'd face the same issues with any coupler in any scale on an inglenook layout done with minimum radius points

Although I will be using Peco small radius curves , the actual uncoupling magnets should be placed on straight track well clear of the siding fan. I'm hopimng that shoould work

Pastel pencils are probably the best. Felt tips  a second best I wouldn't use black - red/orange on brickwork, grey on stone

somehow I see that loco in a weathered mid kharki-green

As far as TOPS data panels are concerned, I wouldn't worry too much. 

In practice TOPS codes were not commonplace on wagons until the later 1970s . Of Paul Bartlett's three photos , the ULVs both have them (1982 and 1977 shots) but the ex LNER conversion is still branded simply as ALE in 1982.

Locomotives were renumbered from 1972-4 , the first to be done being the Class 76 / EM1 electrics because their existing numbers 26xxx were needed for Class 26. Branding of wagons limped some distance behind that, although wagons were live on TOPS from 1972-4 , as that's the point when the remaining pre-nationalisation wagons were eliminated thanks to the resulting fleet economies

A comment on T305. Is the Hornby unit the original Limby motor bogie?  Specifically - does it have traction tyres? The original releases didn't, and I suspect you have just demonstated why Hornby decided to add them when they started using them on 3 car units. 

My early release 156 and 153s don't have any traction tyres - the 101, sold as a power 3 car, does....

There is an alternative approach to this , which is worth adding as a  coda.

My attempt at modelling Croydon Tramlink in OO stalled a decade and a half ago. I don't think it's even been unboxed in 5-6 years. I only have one serviceable Light Rail unit , which is a Metrolink car, and that derails in one direction when using the cripple siding. The wiring to one board has failed. A replacement point and rewiring is needed before the thing can see any further use.

The boards are 6' x 11" and box up as a pair to form a unit 3' x 11" x 15". Since this is already sitting in the study under a pile of magazines no extra space would be required to store the layout.

If Tramlink were scrapped and the boards reused to build an N gauge wagon works , I would have plenty of space to elongate the headshunt, the run-round loop and  the off stage sidings in order to resolve the issues flagged above, Indeed a layout that will take an FEA twin-set and a 66 should be perfectly possible , meaning that a 57 + 3 wagons is also easy enough to accomodate. Those seem slightly more sensible length trains for arrival and departure of wagons needing attention at the works.

I don't particularly like scrapping a possibly pretty 4mm diorama. But it ought to be possible to salvage the buildings. And realistically, a layout project that hasn't been touched at all in a decade and a half, would need extensive work to complete, and would have relatively little operating potential if finished is going nowhere.  It may well be time to cut my losses with Tramlink

This would solve the "where do I put it" problem, and give me a set of ready-made boards.

Wonderful footage of Mike Sharman's layout

Like the new tender - best wishes for 2022

I am adding an update as a comment because progress seems to be glacially slow.

This is how far I've got....

The odd and apparently unprototypical "blister" below the wings is visible, as is the incorrect slot I cut in it for the display stand, and the actual premoulded slot I have now opened out, further back.

The sparseness of the rear cockpit is obvious . That has prompted a further decision. As supplied the aircraft can be built with the rear cockpit canopy open and the air gunner poking a machine gun out of it, or with it closed and a smoothed cone but no gun. Since the rear cockpit is so miniml, inviting detailed inspection seems a bad idea. And the model will either be displayed on a stand facing forwards - so you won't see it - or posed on a simple diorama on the ground, when it would be inappropriate to have a gun poking out. So the rear canopy will be modelled closed.

The acrylic green paint seems liable to have bits in it. Not a real issue in the obscure depths of the cockpit, but...

A dummy run shows that the two halves of the fuselage line up okay at the top surface - but not especially well at the bottom. On checking the "proper aero modeller's " threat linked above, he found a similar problem . Some filing and filling will be needed, clearly.

Oh and part 14, the engine filter? , is missing entirely from the sprue. I've checked it over and over - there isn;'t even a n umber moulded for it. Clearly I will have to fabricate a rough approximation from styrene sheet, or surplus sprue