Edwinstowe Station... LNER 1930's (ex-LD&ECR, ex-GCR)

[gingerangles]

13 hours ago, Worsdell forever said:

There's this too,

 

http://www.stationcolours.info/london-north-eastern-railway/

 

Vallejo 70872 Chocolate brown and 70916 Sand yellow could be good matches, sand yellow might be a bit dark, not sure.

 

 

Perfect 👍 

Thank-you

[t-b-g]

This is my cream of choice at the moment, along with a signalbox showing it applied, with a light wash of dark grey weathering. I don't want to open the usual can of worms about GWR building colours! This has been done to match an existing model, which may or may not be the correct colours.

 

 

Edit to add that it is about £1 a bottle from "The Works" and it dries with a lovely matt finish.

Edited August 27 by t-b-g
To add content

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

This is my cream of choice at the moment, along with a signalbox showing it applied, with a light wash of dark grey weathering. I don't want to open the usual can of worms about GWR building colours! This has been done to match an existing model, which may or may not be the correct colours.

 

 

Edit to add that it is about £1 a bottle from "The Works" and it dries with a lovely matt finish.

The "correct colour" depends on who painted it, how long ago and what the weather is today.

[gingerangles]

That looks good @t-b-g 👍

 

I'm not sure it's creamy enough compared to what I imagined but then my imagination isn't being influenced by much in the way of prototypical accuracy or real-work experience! 😂

 

The other thing to factor here is that what flipping screen you are looking at these things on can make all the difference.  🤷‍♂️

 

That being said I knocked this up last night in an effort to help me decide, thought it might be 'fun' (😂) to see what you good folk thought before I share my opinion....

[if not my opinion is below]

 

There are 4 different browns (rows) and 5 different creams (columns). 

 

 

I think the 'creams' in columns x.2 & x.3 are too drab and depending upon how 'stone' the colour was would dictate either x.0, x.1 or x.4.  Personally looking at pics of from what I would imagine the colour would be more creamy than stone and more like something x.0 or x.1.

As for the 'browns' you read them described in different ways, 'chocolate' has stuck with me though.  Also the pic in 'The Big Four in Colour' seems to be a brown-brown, rather than say a reddish brown.  With this in mind I think row 2 is probably too red.  There is almost something mahogany to the colour of the timber in that same pic so I'm thinking maybe row 1.x.

 

This is Vallejo 872 chocolate brown:

 

 

which I'm not sure is browny enough 🤷‍♂️

 

Opinions much appreciated 👍

 

[Worsdell forever]

2 hours ago, gingerangles said:

That looks good @t-b-g 👍

 

I'm not sure it's creamy enough compared to what I imagined but then my imagination isn't being influenced by much in the way of prototypical accuracy or real-work experience! 😂

 

The other thing to factor here is that what flipping screen you are looking at these things on can make all the difference.  🤷‍♂️

 

That being said I knocked this up last night in an effort to help me decide, thought it might be 'fun' (😂) to see what you good folk thought before I share my opinion....

[if not my opinion is below]

 

There are 4 different browns (rows) and 5 different creams (columns). 

 

 

I think the 'creams' in columns x.2 & x.3 are too drab and depending upon how 'stone' the colour was would dictate either x.0, x.1 or x.4.  Personally looking at pics of from what I would imagine the colour would be more creamy than stone and more like something x.0 or x.1.

As for the 'browns' you read them described in different ways, 'chocolate' has stuck with me though.  Also the pic in 'The Big Four in Colour' seems to be a brown-brown, rather than say a reddish brown.  With this in mind I think row 2 is probably too red.  There is almost something mahogany to the colour of the timber in that same pic so I'm thinking maybe row 1.x.

On this screen 3.0 looks right to me.

 

2 hours ago, gingerangles said:

This is Vallejo 872 chocolate brown:

 

 

which I'm not sure is browny enough 🤷‍♂️

 

Opinions much appreciated 👍

 

That looks nothing like the pot of paint in front of me! very grey!

[t-b-g]

The problem of looking at photos of colours on a screen includes so many possibilities of the colour changing that it is almost useless as a method. I once took a photo of my genuine sample of LNER Apple Green paint and posted it on here and it looked awful, nothing like the actual sample.

 

The cream I illustrated is a lovely deep cream. It looks much paler on the screen.

 

Edit to add that having the colour samples on screen too, the cream I have is about the colour of sample 1.0.

Edited August 28 by t-b-g
To add content

[gingerangles]

Thanks for the points of view @Worsdell forever & @t-b-g and I guess we're all on the same page re the difficultly in looking at colours on screen... further more even if we reach a general consensus on the samples above I've then got to convert that somehow into something I can buy 🤦‍♂️😂

Guess I'll get a order in for some different shades and paint samples on a bit of plasticard - I think I know what I'm aiming for now.  Interesting you've both chosen the same cream colour so that's something and there isn't much difference in the browns either.

 

 

 

 

[Andy_C]

Blimey - I was right - we both have OCD.😳

 

On a serious note, it’s really difficult to judge the right paint and colour to use….

[St Enodoc]

4 hours ago, Andy_C said:

On a serious note, it’s really difficult to judge the right paint and colour to use….

It was a lot easier when all we had to decide was Humbrol gloss or matt...

[gingerangles]

On 28/08/2024 at 19:35, Andy_C said:

Blimey - I was right - we both have OCD.😳

 

On a serious note, it’s really difficult to judge the right paint and colour to use….

 

On 28/08/2024 at 23:45, St Enodoc said:

It was a lot easier when all we had to decide was Humbrol gloss or matt...

 

It certainly doesn't help not having access to the original... or even memory of it!  As long as I'm somewhere near and it looks 'right' to me I'm OK with it - I'm just conscious of making some sort of horrendous balls up so feel the need to validate things here! 😂

[gingerangles]

Hello folks!

 

I keep looking at my packs of MSE Somersault Signal parts and pondering... anyone any useful hits, tips or links to guides on soldering absolutely tiny parts together?  Particularly tiny parts that I need to not get gunked up with solder as they are required to move!

 

One of the 1st things I need to do is "cut a 1.75mm piece of0.7mm tube" - OK then 😂 

Tips on this ☝ gratefully received as well!!!

[88C]

Hold the tube in a pin vice and use a piercing saw to cut what you need.
 

Brian

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

Roll the tube under a scalpel whilst applying a little downward pressure.

 

Mike.

[gingerangles]

Thanks @88C & @Enterprisingwestern I'll give both of those a go!

 

Any soldering advice?

[jrg1]

To avoid distorting small bore tube when cutting-or bending, thread plastic rod of suitable diameter through.

When soldering small components in moving assemblies, signalling mechanisms or valve gear, layer with aluminium cooking foil.  Using 145 degree solder and a very hot iron in-and-out should see no problems.  Good Luck with your project.

[gingerangles]

Thanks @jrg1! 

 

I'll get my hands on some 145 solder 👍

 

Could you expand on the "layer with foil" bit please?

[90164]

One way of not sodering up moving parts is to chemically blacken the bits that need to move (or you could use a permanent marker). Easy enough for me modelling in 7mm, but maybe not so much in 4mm.

[Andy_C]

5 hours ago, gingerangles said:

I'll get my hands on some 145 solder

Let me know where you get that from, plz. 😉

[D-A-T]

Try Hobby Holidays. 

[lezz01]

Both eBay and Amazon have low melt solder 70, 138 and 145 deg there are other melting points as well. Both lead free, leaded and paste are available.  

Regards Lez.

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

Avoid lead free.

 

Mike.

[jrg1]

On 31/08/2024 at 22:50, gingerangles said:

Thanks @jrg1! 

 

I'll get my hands on some 145 solder 👍

 

Could you expand on the "layer with foil" bit please?

For our purposes, aluminium foil will not join with dissimilar metals.  So, using foil as a barrier when assembling moving parts is convenient.  Fold over the foil to the clearance required, drill a hole in the foil to fit the crankpin, assemble the part, tear out the foil and clean up. 

[lezz01]

6 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Avoid lead free.

 

Mike.

Oh hell yes. At all costs I would say.

Regards Lez.

Edited September 1 by lezz01

[gingerangles]

More track painting this weekend, just the same sleeper grime colour.  I've also mocked up a little of the ballast I'm thinking will do the job.

 

 

 

I've seen plenty of opinions on whether to go to the lengths of touching up the various track parts with different colours so I'm going to leave this for a week or two and see how I feel about it.

[gingerangles]

Hi All!

 

- LONG POST WARNING -

&

- QUESTION(S) ALERT -

 

Right, firstly - sorry 😂

If you make it through this... thank you! 

 

I've been back on giving my signalling layout some thought not least as I want to end up with at least something like the correct rodding and cabling routes that make sense and terminate in the right place.  I've got a slight 'issue' in that my plan doesn't match that of the readily available 1913 signal box diagram - I want to bring back in to service the Bay Platform for passenger use. 

 

Here are the 2 plans I am using for easy reference with the below text:

 

 

 

 

Which are the effectively the same info and I've shared here before.

 

I have been told that it looks like, according to this plan anyway, that the GS 7 looks like a late addition as it is out of sequence and may have originally been a spare along with 6.  I've also seen a version of a map with the headshunt for the bay doesn't exist, this is interesting as, as it stands, point 17 would require a FPL if the Bay was in use for passenger traffic but if the shunt didn't exist this would possibly not be the case(?). 

 

What I want to end up with is a functional and realistic plan which matches my layout scenario.  I'm potentially going to be making a lever frame with interlocking as a project sometime in the future so with this in mind I dont want to do anything silly now which may cock that up.

 

So - I need to do a little rejigging of the plan to:

• Move 41 back to the pole
• Add a FPL to 17
• Combine 13 & 14 as my physical switchblades wont be separate
• Renumber as required as would have been sensibly realistic

I have the following initial questions which I'd be very grateful of folks would let me have the answer / their thoughts...

1. Is the blue colouration on the drawing indicative of track for in-use/occupied passenger trains?
2. Why is 25 [FPL] seemingly annotated as attached to 24 and not 26 - which is the 'facing point' for trains departing the Back Platform?
3. Is it my imagination or are some of the ground signals a different symbol - 15 and 20 for example? Why is this if this is the case?
4. There is a gap/break in all of the platform lines and trackwork running Top-Bottom on the plan - Under the word MAIN if you look - is this indicative of something?  I know between the main platforms there is a crossing point for staff in this approximate location?
5. Why are the signals all at one end of the frame or the other - is this how it was always done? (1-5 Up side and 40-44 Down side if you look)
6. I've wondered why 13 & 14 were separated but as I've looked at it more I think this is to allow access in and out of the headshunt separately to the access to the Up main which is tied with the catch point on Siding No 1.  i.e. if I understand correctly - as it is now, with interlocking you could allow a move out of the headshunt, over point 13 in either direction  and close catch point 14 if 11 was still set to normal.  This way you could shunt from Siding 1 to the Back Platform at the Lincoln end without having to affect the Main lines.  How's that sound - or am I talking nonsense!? 😂

 

I was originally thinking of renumbering the GS's along the Up line to 6, 7 & 8 (which was ignoring #30 which seems to be differently synced), replacing 7, 16 & 8 as follows. 

 

 

 

I (think I) now realise that the above wouldn't have been realistic as it would cause interlocking headaches with adjacent levers being so jumbled on the frame, it was also throwing me off as I was forgetting/not realising the fact that 7 is only where it is as a late addition and is itself out of sequence... 

Which I can live with (or change it) as I know it as a fact.

 

So that made me have a rethink as follows:

• 41 - back on the pole
• 13 - renumbered 14 to match my pointwork
• 15 - renumbered 13 to free up #15, 13 and CP14 still adjacent levers on the frame
• 16 & 17 - renumbered 15 & 16 to go in sequence and allow...
• 17 to be become the FPL

As per this diagram:

 

 

 

Please let me have any feedback on that - is this plausible/possible? Anything wrong or improvements to be had?

Obviously I could renumber the whole thing from scratch but I'm trying to avoid that as much as possible in order to retain as much of 'the original' as possible.

 
One of the other factors playing on my mind was that my mimic panel was very cramped - mainly in order to fit inside a picture frame I had acquired and this has left it a little hard to read, so whilst at trying to sort out the above I thought I'd improve on the panel design by making it bigger and also including colouration and some other bits I'd missed...

 

Here you go, as with my revised numbering scheme above, again - let me know your thoughts...