Wright writes.....

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Tony,

 

Regarding the SR K Class which I'm building, having looked through all my books on Southern locos (I have quite a few), the type does seem to have a number of variations, including tenders (with open coal rails or plated behind), original or cut-down cab, number of domes, different heights of domes and chimney, positions of clacks, styles of buffers and positions of Westinghouse pump, not to mention styles and positions of lamp/disc brackets. Quite a detailed minefield! The parts do seem to cater for most variations. 

 

The kit is from Nu-Cast and partners, ex-? Didn't Jidenco do a K? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

Many of the alternatives will be period-specific more than loco-specific, but it will need careful planning.

 

All received the cut-down cab, at least, to allow them to work off the former LBSCR, and reverted to single domes, too. All done by 1930 IIRC. 

 

Plating of coal rails was a widespread Southern-era thing and was applied to most locos; on such a small class, it may have become standard quite quickly.

 

  

Edited August 18 by Dunsignalling

[Tony Teague]

I have a couple of K class models built from the Ace Products kit; they are 'OK' but probably not up to today's standard; surprisingly - to me anyway - Rails / Sonic Models have just announced a RTR K class and they seem to be saying that their tooling will cater for every option: https://railsofsheffield.com/blogs/news/exclusive-sonic-models-oo-lbscr-k-class-announcement

Tony

[Nick Holliday]

10 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

Many of the alternatives will be period-specific more than loco-specific, but it will need careful planning.

 

All received the cut-down cab, at least, to allow them to work off the former LBSCR, and reverted to single domes, too. All done by 1930 IIRC. 

 

Plating of coal rails was a widespread Southern-era thing and was applied to most locos; on such a small class, it may have become standard quite quickly.

 

  

Apart from a couple that received cut-down cabs in 1929/30, but kept their full height domes and chimneys, the rest of the class had their cabs reduced between 1935 and 1939. It would appear that the lowering of domes etc. was a separate exercise, as there are several photos of the squat boiler fittings combined with the original cab.  What with the changes in liveries and numbering, the thirties was a complex period for the modeller of a K to untangle, BR days being relatively simple!

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, Nick Holliday said:

Apart from a couple that received cut-down cabs in 1929/30, but kept their full height domes and chimneys, the rest of the class had their cabs reduced between 1935 and 1939. It would appear that the lowering of domes etc. was a separate exercise, as there are several photos of the squat boiler fittings combined with the original cab.  What with the changes in liveries and numbering, the thirties was a complex period for the modeller of a K to untangle, BR days being relatively simple!

Thanks.

 

The origin of my note is lost in the mists of old memory; it or my copying must have been in error. My juvenile scribble could have easily made 1939 look like 1930, but subsequent jobs in banking and on the railway forced me to clean up my act.

 

Fortunately, my interest in one of the forthcoming r-t-r models is confined to the 1950s. The K's seem to have become much more uniform by then, and the maker seems to be doing some assiduous research!

 

John

[Tony Wright]

14 hours ago, Nick Holliday said:

Bit confusing in that you quoted Tony Teague’s comments regarding the LSWR H15, rather than the LBSCR K, by mistake. 

Thanks for pointing out the buffer changes - I hadn’t noticed that some received square bases from, it would seem, the forties. The Westinghouse brake pump didn’t change position, it was the larger Weir pump on the nearside of the boiler that was removed in the early fifties.

It was Mallard who produced an etched brass kit for the K, thankfully I think Jidenco passed on that one. Purely for the sake of completeness I should mention that there is currently a 4mm brass kit available from Ace Products.

Thanks Nick,

 

I often confuse and frequently get confused. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Atso]

On 17/08/2024 at 16:27, Pebbles said:

I haven't measured up the wheelbase of a Hornby S15. However, if the S15 coupled wheelbase is to a scale 6ft 3inches by 7ft 6inches it would be physically impossible to fit the 6ft driving wheels of the H15. Similar to the GWR Castle problem, but possibly even more acute.

Another locomotive with this problem is the GNR C1. My N gauge version ended up having a slightly stretched wheelbase (7' compared to 6'8) and slightly under size driving wheels (6'3" compared to 6'8"). The end result doesn't look odd to my eye and the overall dimensions of the locomotive were kept within 0.5mm of the prototypes.

 

Perhaps such juggling of scale dimensions would produce an acceptable S15 on day...

[Jack P]

On 17/08/2024 at 01:17, Tony Wright said:

Apparently, there's to be an RTR model of this class. What's left?

 

Heaps Tony! Being of 'Southern' persuasion and looking at it through that lens, there are certainly more locos not produced RTR, than there are RTR (not a gripe).

 

Do you have details of which K the one you're building is going to be, and in what time period?

Edited August 19 by Jack P

[t-b-g]

Problems with wheel sizes, flanges almost touching and wheelbases hasn't stopped models of 9Fs, GNR/LBSCR Atlantics and probably some others being produced RTR. Minor adjustments to dimensions, such as making the wheels right size over the flanges rather than the treads, or stretching the wheelbase slightly get around it, as has been illustrated. Of course the P4 and S7 folk have an edge over the rest of us in such matters.

 

So it may make producing a true to scale RTR model impossible but that has not stopped the RTR firms providing models of these more tricky classes. 

[Tony Wright]

34 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

Problems with wheel sizes, flanges almost touching and wheelbases hasn't stopped models of 9Fs, GNR/LBSCR Atlantics and probably some others being produced RTR. Minor adjustments to dimensions, such as making the wheels right size over the flanges rather than the treads, or stretching the wheelbase slightly get around it, as has been illustrated. Of course the P4 and S7 folk have an edge over the rest of us in such matters.

 

So it may make producing a true to scale RTR model impossible but that has not stopped the RTR firms providing models of these more tricky classes. 

Good morning Tony,

 

Very true.

 

The 'problems' with tight wheelbases have also emerged in the kit ranges. Things like DJH A1s were originally designed for (and supplied with) pre-RP25 26mm Romfords (which scale at 6' 6" rather 6' 8". Even then (though it's not mentioned in the instructions), filing of the brake hangers is necessary to give clearance. Later Markits equivalents give no trouble in this respect.

 

I was once handed a K's P2 with the request (almost pleading!) to 'make it run properly, please'. It was fitted with K's 'D' driving wheels, which were hopeless. Despite their 'D' centres (which fitted on an axle with a section removed to give quartering and prevent movement), the drivers had shifted on their axles under load, despite the inadequate power of the HP2M motor/gearbox (who ever thought this combination could drive a P2?). Easy, I thought, chuck the drivers and the drive away, and substitute Romfords. Hmm, the Romfords' flanges were too big, and I had to turn the second and third sets down for clearance (these were older Romfords, but Markits would probably fit, and certainly Gibsons).

 

I had the same problem with a K's C1; not only that, the only way I could get it to run round curves was to fit smaller-than-scale bogie wheels.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited August 19 by Tony Wright
clumsy grammar

[t-b-g]

4 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Tony,

 

Very true.

 

The 'problems' with tight wheelbases have also emerged in the kit ranges. Things like DJH A1s were originally designed for (and supplied with) pre-RP25 26mm Romfords (which scale at 6' 6" rather 6' 8". Even then (though it's not mentioned in the instructions), filing of the brake hangers is necessary to give clearance. Later Markits equivalents give no trouble in this respect.

 

I was once handed a K's P2 with the request (almost pleading!) to 'make it run properly, please'. It was fitted with K's 'D' driving wheels, which were hopeless. Despite their 'D' centres (which fitted on an axle with a section removed to give quartering and prevent movement), the drivers had shifted on their axles under load, despite the inadequate power of the HP2M motor/gearbox (who ever thought this combination could drive a P2?). Easy, I thought, chuck the drivers and the drive away, and substitute Romfords. Hmm, the Romfords' flanges were too big, and I had to turn the second and third sets down for clearance (these were older Romfords, but Markits would probably fit, and certainly Gibsons).

 

I had the same problem with a K's C1; not only that, the only way I could get it to run round curves was to fit smaller-than-scale bogie wheels.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Morning Tony.

 

These problems can usually be solved with some minor adjustments. I haven't seen what Bachmann did to their Atlantics to get clearance round the front bogies and cylinders but I can pretty much guarantee that some compromises had to be made.

 

I spent the weekend at EXPO EM at Shipley and I was very honoured to have the opportunity to see and handle some locos and other bits from the Manchester MRS archives. These included locos built by Alex Jackson, Sid Stubbs and John Langan, along with samples of Sid's home made gearboxes and some display boards showing how they made their own wheels, giving them complete control over sizes, shapes and profiles.

 

It made me realise that 75 or so years ago, these good people were already miles ahead of where we are today in terms of their skills and understanding of the mechanical side of model making. I took some snaps on my phone and will post them later.

[Atso]

28 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Morning Tony.

 

These problems can usually be solved with some minor adjustments. I haven't seen what Bachmann did to their Atlantics to get clearance round the front bogies and cylinders but I can pretty much guarantee that some compromises had to be made.

 

I spent the weekend at EXPO EM at Shipley and I was very honoured to have the opportunity to see and handle some locos and other bits from the Manchester MRS archives. These included locos built by Alex Jackson, Sid Stubbs and John Langan, along with samples of Sid's home made gearboxes and some display boards showing how they made their own wheels, giving them complete control over sizes, shapes and profiles.

 

It made me realise that 75 or so years ago, these good people were already miles ahead of where we are today in terms of their skills and understanding of the mechanical side of model making. I took some snaps on my phone and will post them later.

I can't speak to what Bachmann did but the N gauge C1 has under scale carrying wheels and the rear bogie set had to be moved forward slight to stop the flanges fouling.

 

There are some bits on the Web about Sid Subbs' wheel making methods - incredible work by those pioneers.

Edited August 19 by Atso

[Michael Edge]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

Problems with wheel sizes, flanges almost touching and wheelbases hasn't stopped models of 9Fs, GNR/LBSCR Atlantics and probably some others being produced RTR. Minor adjustments to dimensions, such as making the wheels right size over the flanges rather than the treads, or stretching the wheelbase slightly get around it, as has been illustrated. Of course the P4 and S7 folk have an edge over the rest of us in such matters.

 

So it may make producing a true to scale RTR model impossible but that has not stopped the RTR firms providing models of these more tricky classes. 

We supply two alternative sets of frames and coupling rods in our Consett A long boiler kit, correct for S4 modellers and slightly expanded for 00/EM - otherwise two pairs of the driving wheels would overlap, even with Gibson wheels.

[t-b-g]

29 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

We supply two alternative sets of frames and coupling rods in our Consett A long boiler kit, correct for S4 modellers and slightly expanded for 00/EM - otherwise two pairs of the driving wheels would overlap, even with Gibson wheels.

 

My personal preference has always been to use slightly smaller wheels but it is very much a personal choice in such things. An altered wheelbase, particularly on a loco like the GNR Atlantic with very obvious and large splashers, can show in the bodywork. I would rather have the splashers right size and in the right place. Full size wheels with oversized flanges can need oversized splashers too.

 

As real wheels did get turned down over time, by around a couple of inches if I recall correctly, using undersized wheels just seems more "correct" to my mind.

 

My "Valour" has 6ft 6ins wheels rather than the full size 6ft 9ins as that has the same problems. They are the correct scale size over the flange and as the real things may have been turned down to around 6ft 7ins, I am not going to lose any sleep over a 0.333 (recurring) mm error! If I had used correct scale wheels over the tread, being oversized over the flanges, I would have had to alter the wheelbase and make the splashers higher and longer. Although the flanges don't look too close together, there is a mounting for a brake hanger between the flanges of the leading two pairs of wheels.

 

 

[ecgtheow]

5 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

My personal preference has always been to use slightly smaller wheels but it is very much a personal choice in such things. An altered wheelbase, particularly on a loco like the GNR Atlantic with very obvious and large splashers, can show in the bodywork. I would rather have the splashers right size and in the right place. Full size wheels with oversized flanges can need oversized splashers too.

 

As real wheels did get turned down over time, by around a couple of inches if I recall correctly, using undersized wheels just seems more "correct" to my mind.

 

My "Valour" has 6ft 6ins wheels rather than the full size 6ft 9ins as that has the same problems. They are the correct scale size over the flange and as the real things may have been turned down to around 6ft 7ins, I am not going to lose any sleep over a 0.333 (recurring) mm error! If I had used correct scale wheels over the tread, being oversized over the flanges, I would have had to alter the wheelbase and make the splashers higher and longer. Although the flanges don't look too close together, there is a mounting for a brake hanger between the flanges of the leading two pairs of wheels.

 

 

 

I have often wondered how fine scale HO model locos rum on almost exactly scale 1:87 OO gauge track. I have a few Swiss Lemaco & Fulgarex locos which look very good to my eyes. Could anyone enlighten us & what compromises are made to permit this? Perhaps the wheel tread angle is greater than the 3 degrees on most OO locos as discussed in MRJ 305? It looks like it to me but the flanges seem bigger than RP 25.

 

William

[thegreenhowards]

I’ve been working on the 6-PUL O gauge EMU which I showed on here about 10 days (and many pages!) ago. I’ve tried two of the options for inter coach coupling:

 

the goalpost method;

 

and a longer bar working off the headstocks and pivoted at both ends.

I can report that both improve the situation and I get now get round the curves on my garden railway….sometimes! However the second of these methods still derails sometimes and also has a tendency to come uncoupled so will need longer bolts in the ‘non nutted’ end.

 

As you can see here, the actual coupl8ng used is invisible underneath the corridor connectors, so I think I’m going to use goalposts throughout.

As to John’s point about the orientation of the first class sections, I think the above is right. I have found pictures which show the FC at the far end from the Pullman on one end and all the coaches are lettered underneath (AB, CD etc), so they are definitely the way round the original builder planned. Perhaps a SR EMU expert ( @Bill Bishop?) could confirm?

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Pebbles]

26 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

My personal preference has always been to use slightly smaller wheels but it is very much a personal choice in such things. An altered wheelbase, particularly on a loco like the GNR Atlantic with very obvious and large splashers, can show in the bodywork. I would rather have the splashers right size and in the right place. Full size wheels with oversized flanges can need oversized splashers too.

 

As real wheels did get turned down over time, by around a couple of inches if I recall correctly, using undersized wheels just seems more "correct" to my mind.

 

My "Valour" has 6ft 6ins wheels rather than the full size 6ft 9ins as that has the same problems. They are the correct scale size over the flange and as the real things may have been turned down to around 6ft 7ins, I am not going to lose any sleep over a 0.333 (recurring) mm error! If I had used correct scale wheels over the tread, being oversized over the flanges, I would have had to alter the wheelbase and make the splashers higher and longer. Although the flanges don't look too close together, there is a mounting for a brake hanger between the flanges of the leading two pairs of wheels.

 

 

What was good enough for the late Guy Williams is good enough for me, so he was .5mm out.

As an aside, as far as I can make out, and for some unexplained reason, the Fine Scale A3 has 28.5mm or so between the drivers.

On the other hand the DJH A3 appears to settle on 29.5mm. So much for scale models. 

[Barclay]

My Nasmyth Wilson 0-8-0T cuts it pretty close!

 

[Woodcock29]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Tony,

 

Very true.

 

The 'problems' with tight wheelbases have also emerged in the kit ranges. Things like DJH A1s were originally designed for (and supplied with) pre-RP25 26mm Romfords (which scale at 6' 6" rather 6' 8". Even then (though it's not mentioned in the instructions), filing of the brake hangers is necessary to give clearance. Later Markits equivalents give no trouble in this respect.

 

I was once handed a K's P2 with the request (almost pleading!) to 'make it run properly, please'. It was fitted with K's 'D' driving wheels, which were hopeless. Despite their 'D' centres (which fitted on an axle with a section removed to give quartering and prevent movement), the drivers had shifted on their axles under load, despite the inadequate power of the HP2M motor/gearbox (who ever thought this combination could drive a P2?). Easy, I thought, chuck the drivers and the drive away, and substitute Romfords. Hmm, the Romfords' flanges were too big, and I had to turn the second and third sets down for clearance (these were older Romfords, but Markits would probably fit, and certainly Gibsons).

 

I had the same problem with a K's C1; not only that, the only way I could get it to run round curves was to fit smaller-than-scale bogie wheels.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

I fitted a Ks P2 I built for my father back in the 1980s with 24mm Romfords  - so 0.67 mm underscale but of course I had to reduce the flanges (best to do all 8 for appearances) -  fairly easy task when you fit a wheel to an axle and stick it in a power drill and use files and wet and dry. Just need to take your time and measure regularly. In fact I do this regularly when I need to use older Romfords on any kits I build now just to reduce the flanges.

 

The P2 was fitted with a large Portescap and loaded with lead and will pull anything I care to put behind it - a true layout loco!

 

Andrew

[Woodcock29]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

My personal preference has always been to use slightly smaller wheels but it is very much a personal choice in such things. An altered wheelbase, particularly on a loco like the GNR Atlantic with very obvious and large splashers, can show in the bodywork. I would rather have the splashers right size and in the right place. Full size wheels with oversized flanges can need oversized splashers too.

 

As real wheels did get turned down over time, by around a couple of inches if I recall correctly, using undersized wheels just seems more "correct" to my mind.

 

My "Valour" has 6ft 6ins wheels rather than the full size 6ft 9ins as that has the same problems. They are the correct scale size over the flange and as the real things may have been turned down to around 6ft 7ins, I am not going to lose any sleep over a 0.333 (recurring) mm error! If I had used correct scale wheels over the tread, being oversized over the flanges, I would have had to alter the wheelbase and make the splashers higher and longer. Although the flanges don't look too close together, there is a mounting for a brake hanger between the flanges of the leading two pairs of wheels.

 

 

Tony your Valour looks like it's coming along very well.

When I kit-bashed mine some 30 odd years ago from a Ks B2 I didn't fit a brake hanger support between the leading and centre drivers but instead supported it from below with the brake rigging. I used Romford 27mm 20 sp wheels on it and have a set put aside for my G Trains B3  - which will be Lord Faringdon.

So maybe they will not fit as I haven't started on it yet and haven't really tested any clearances - I'm quite prepared to turn the flanges down a bit so maybe they will? Fortunately I do have a spare set of Romford 26mm 20 spoke which I could use if necessary.

Andrew

Edited August 19 by Woodcock29

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

My personal preference has always been to use slightly smaller wheels but it is very much a personal choice in such things. An altered wheelbase, particularly on a loco like the GNR Atlantic with very obvious and large splashers, can show in the bodywork. I would rather have the splashers right size and in the right place. Full size wheels with oversized flanges can need oversized splashers too.

 

As real wheels did get turned down over time, by around a couple of inches if I recall correctly, using undersized wheels just seems more "correct" to my mind.

 

My "Valour" has 6ft 6ins wheels rather than the full size 6ft 9ins as that has the same problems. They are the correct scale size over the flange and as the real things may have been turned down to around 6ft 7ins, I am not going to lose any sleep over a 0.333 (recurring) mm error! If I had used correct scale wheels over the tread, being oversized over the flanges, I would have had to alter the wheelbase and make the splashers higher and longer. Although the flanges don't look too close together, there is a mounting for a brake hanger between the flanges of the leading two pairs of wheels.

 

 

This is a very sound perspective, Tony - not least because, when we look at a wheel, our eyes generally perceive the overall diameter across the flange rather than the tread. As you say, the difference between new and fully worn tyres is significant too. In the days before bespoke 00 wheels, when you could only buy them in increments of 1mm (or sometimes more) on the diameter, it was always good practice to choose wheels one size down from the "scale" diameter.

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, Jack P said:

 

Heaps Tony! Being of 'Southern' persuasion and looking at it through that lens, there are certainly more locos not produced RTR, than there are RTR (not a gripe).

 

Do you have details of which K the one you're building is going to be, and in what time period?

Good afternoon Jack,

 

I wonder what the other Big Four locos are like with regard to their availability in RTR form? 

 

Without checking, there can't be many GWR, LMS or LNER types not now available RTR (I'm talking here of classes with several individuals in them or familiar one-offs - the W1, for instance - not obscure types in very small numbers). With regard to the areas of my interest, B16s and J6s represent substantial 'gaps', though I've made what I need of those classes.

 

Is the Southern and Southern Region more badly off with regard to RTR availability? And, if so, what's really needed? I wouldn't know, largely because RTR locos (of any kind) are generally irrelevant to my personal model-making. 

 

The K will be an example in BR livery - much simpler, with fewer variations than before...........

 

 

Progress on the loco so far.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Compound2632]

7 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Without checking, there can't be many GWR, LMS or LNER types not now available RTR (I'm talking here of classes with several individuals in them or familiar one-offs - the W1, for instance - not obscure types in very small numbers). With regard to the areas of my interest, B16s and J6s represent substantial 'gaps', though I've made what I need of those classes.

 

The LMS standard types are very well represented in 4 mm scale RTR - off-hand, I think the only ones not done are the 7F 0-8-0s and 2P 0-4-4Ts. However, a couple of very numerous types - the 4F 0-6-0 and 2P 4-4-0 - are only represented by Hornby's offerings based on the Airfix models of c. 1980, which while a great advance in their time are not really up to modern standards. (The Bachmann 4F represents the Midland-built examples.) 

 

Modelling the Western or Midland Divisions of the LMR in the early 50s, with the addition of the Bachmann G2, is, from a locomotive point of view, falling off a log. Not badly served for coaching stock either, though there were still a good number of late pre-grouping carriages around, especially of LNWR origin. The Central Division still had a good number of ex-L&Y 0-6-0s and 0-8-0s, which are lacking, whilst Scotland still had a good number of pre-grouping types still in service - there is of course the ex-Caledonian 812 class 0-6-0 but that merely highlights the lack of a McIntosh or Pickershill 4-4-0.

 

But if one goes back to the 1930s - once a very popular period - one will really struggle as there were still ex-LNWR 4-6-0s and 4-4-0s in great quantities, to say nothing of other pre-grouping types. Add to that the need for a good proportion of carriages to still be in fully-lined livery and I think one can see why that period has declined in popularity among those who want realism without making everything themselves. One might as well go full-on pre-grouping.

 

An LNER or BR ER / NER modeller has the same problem in spades, given the infinite variety of long-lived pre-grouping 0-6-0s etc. around - by modelling a rural location on the southern section of the ECML, one cunningly dodges this bullet! The Southern is much the same - many pre-grouping classes surviving well into the BR period. As to the GWR - well, they all look the same, don't they, so lack of a few classes hardly matters...

[30368]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Is the Southern and Southern Region more badly off with regard to RTR availability? And, if so, what's really needed? I wouldn't know, largely because RTR locos (of any kind) are generally irrelevant to my personal model-making. 

 

Hello Tony,

 

I think the SR is fairly well represented with RTR but like all of the "Big Four" there are gaps, the H15 being one and the Urie S15 another. Quite a bit of discussion re - wheel diameters which was an issue with my H15 fleet. I dug out some images of me reducing the flange diameter on the leading and middle driver on one of my H15 builds - 30333 I think. Thought they may add something to the discussion.

 

I used a fine file to reduce the diameter and then cleaned up with emery paper. I can't remember how much I removed. Diameters checked with a micrometer.

 

The clearance is very tight but the loco(s) all run well - The instructions for the PDK H15 kit advises that you may have to reduce the flange diameter. I used Markits wheels in this case and tend to for all outside valvegear types. Gibsons may have had enough clearance.

 

Kind regards,

 

30368

Edited August 19 by 30368
Clarification

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Woodcock29 said:

Tony your Valour looks like it's coming along very well.

When I kit-bashed mine some 30 odd years ago from a Ks B2 I didn't fit a brake hanger support between the leading and centre drivers but instead supported it from below with the brake rigging. I used Romford 27mm 20 sp wheels on it and have a set put aside for my G Trains B3  - which will be Lord Faringdon.

So maybe they will not fit as I haven't started on it yet and haven't really tested any clearances - I'm quite prepared to turn the flanges down a bit so maybe they will? Fortunately I do have a spare set of Romford 26mm 20 spoke which I could use if necessary.

Andrew

 

Thanks Andrew.

 

Valour was completed some time ago but remains unpainted. This is what she looks like now, with the plates temporarily fitted with a blob of glue for photographic purposes. The reversing reach rod isn't fixed in yet either.

 

 

I am determined to have a go myself but need to get some practice in first. Painting and lining is one area where my experience and skill have never really been tested thoroughly. Most of my locos up to press have been black from a Halfords spray.

 

I used the previous photo, taking during construction, as it was the best view of the problem area with the wheels and brakes. The wheels are the ones Markits sell as being for an LNER Pacific. They are close enough to the correct pattern for me, as well as being slightly undersized.

 

I look forward to seeing yours one day. There can never be too many 9P/B3 models.

 

Cheers

 

Tony 

Edited August 19 by t-b-g
typo

[robertcwp]

3 hours ago, thegreenhowards said:

I’ve been working on the 6-PUL O gauge EMU which I showed on here about 10 days (and many pages!) ago. I’ve tried two of the options for inter coach coupling:

 

the goalpost method;

 

and a longer bar working off the headstocks and pivoted at both ends.

I can report that both improve the situation and I get now get round the curves on my garden railway….sometimes! However the second of these methods still derails sometimes and also has a tendency to come uncoupled so will need longer bolts in the ‘non nutted’ end.

 

As you can see here, the actual coupl8ng used is invisible underneath the corridor connectors, so I think I’m going to use goalposts throughout.

As to John’s point about the orientation of the first class sections, I think the above is right. I have found pictures which show the FC at the far end from the Pullman on one end and all the coaches are lettered underneath (AB, CD etc), so they are definitely the way round the original builder planned. Perhaps a SR EMU expert ( @Bill Bishop?) could confirm?

 

Regards

 

Andy

This was the arrangement:

 

6-PUL_ClaphamJ_MAR-66 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

The trailers only coupled together one way round so the corridors were all on the same side. The reason a 6 Pul had a composite on each side of the Pullman car was that when the Pullman was closed, the gangways were locked so there was no passage through. Therefore, each side needed first class and access to lavatories.