Traeth Mawr -Painting Season, (mostly)

[ChrisN]

Jonathan, Don and Mike,

Thank you for your comments.  Yes I understand that the LNWR had running powers if the Cambrian could put up the motive power which in practise they always did.  However, in this case they do not have any locomotives so both the GWR and LNWR will have to use their powers.  Even in this case I am not sure I fancy a coal tank, with a price tag I think around £100.00 even though I bought a J15 which as nothing to do with what I am building.

 

The traffic discussion is interesting.  As I will know which train originates from where, I can have full loads going one way and empties the other, vans of course excluded.

[ChrisN]

On EBay a day or so ago a Peter K kit was advertised of the Cambrian 29ft tri-composite.  It said it was marked '29ft Lav Third'.  I looked at the etches that I have and what I thought I had bought as a full third was marked like this.  This means I actually have both tri-composite etches, which in one sense is good.  He said there were instructions with it which is more than I got.

 

The day after the full third was put up, this time partially built, but the bidding is already more than the original price.  I will have to contact Peter K for new ones.

[Penlan]

LNWR Goods stock is easy to paint......
The Coaches are a bug***, although in the past on this forum,

both Coachman and LNWRmodeller have offered good advice.

[mike morley]

Peter K loco kits deserve their poor reputation but his Cambrian carriage kits are rather better, if extremely basic.

Their only serious shortcoming is the six-wheeled underframe, which in using the same parts for 00, EM and P4 is both simple and clever in concept but falls flat on its face in the execution.  The problem is the guides for the sliding assembly for the centre wheels, which fold down from the carriage floor.  They are not only much too high but they are also far too wide and if built as intended they result in a 4mm scale see-saw.  The height problem comes to light quite early in the build, when it is still rectifiable, but once you've dealt with that the width problem becomes apparent and by then you've passed the point of being able to do something about it without causing as many problems as you are trying to solve.

I've only built the all 3rd so far and used the Brassmasters Cleminson underframe (a superb piece of kit!  Capable of sub-2' radii in EM and probably 18", if not less, in 00)

Still to be built is the Lavatory 3rd and when I eventually get a Round Tuit I have already decided to challenge myself to make the original Peter K chassis work.

[ChrisN]

Peter K loco kits deserve their poor reputation but his Cambrian carriage kits are rather better, if extremely basic.

Their only serious shortcoming is the six-wheeled underframe, which in using the same parts for 00, EM and P4 is both simple and clever in concept but falls flat on its face in the execution.  The problem is the guides for the sliding assembly for the centre wheels, which fold down from the carriage floor.  They are not only much too high but they are also far too wide and if built as intended they result in a 4mm scale see-saw.  The height problem comes to light quite early in the build, when it is still rectifiable, but once you've dealt with that the width problem becomes apparent and by then you've passed the point of being able to do something about it without causing as many problems as you are trying to solve.

I've only built the all 3rd so far and used the Brassmasters Cleminson underframe (a superb piece of kit!  Capable of sub-2' radii in EM and probably 18", if not less, in 00)

Still to be built is the Lavatory 3rd and when I eventually get a Round Tuit I have already decided to challenge myself to make the original Peter K chassis work.

 

Mike,

Thank you, again that is helpful.  I did not receive any instructions with the kit and must check if any are downloadable.  I have ni idea how the chassis goes together so I have opted for the Brassmasters Cleminson.  I have one, which looks ok, so I will get two more on Saturday at Expo.  I am glad to hear about the ability to manage tight corners as my layout is full of them.

 

According to the EBay advert the 29ft Lav third is in fact a tri-composite.  There are only 4 Cambrian coaches advertised on the website, two of which are tri-composites, the third and a full brake.

[mike morley]

 I did not receive any instructions with the kit

 

I am reliably informed that Peter K rarely built any of his kits so was not in a position to write any instructions.  That might also explain why none of the many errors and shortcomings with his kits were ever addressed or corrected.

[ChrisN]

I am reliably informed that Peter K rarely built any of his kits so was not in a position to write any instructions.  That might also explain why none of the many errors and shortcomings with his kits were ever addressed or corrected.

 

Mike,

I was going to say 'Unbelievable!', but I have seen so many things that begger belief I should not be surprised.

[ChrisN]

I was expecting to get two full days over the last two weeks to spend working on the layout.  Life has conspired against me and I have had about a couple of hours so far and maybe a little more tomorrow.  However, the cork is now down.  No pictures but if you would like to see the baseboards with cork on just shout, well post here as I probably will not hear you.  The next job will be to fix the screws at the baseboard joins at places where I know the track will be and then tin then ready to solder track to them.  The screws are brass, the track is nickel silver.  I will need to find the article on soldering so that I know how to solder onto brass.

 

I thought though that I had better prepare some track for laying and so spent a happy while firstly taking off the little round pips and then cutting the sleeper spacers.  I now have one piece of track ready.  I decided to follow Anotheran's advice on his thread, Doxey End, and I made a spacer.

 

 

This is made from card from a shirt insert.  I tried thicker card but decided that it would be too much effort and then decided to only make it ten sleepers long as every tenth space has to be narrower.  You will notice that I have two sizes so I can try them out and see what is best.

 

I have laid a piece down and sorted out the spacing and what a faff it was.  I took the first picture and it looked like crazy track so back I went to redo it.  I think it looks better now and I have learnt something about spacing and not disturbing the sleepers although I assume when you have PVA going off underneath it might be easier.  So here is what it looks like.

 

 

Unaltered track to the right, new spacings on the left.  I am not saying what the spacings are.  So, what do you think?

 

If you have been, thanks for looking.

[Simond]

to my eye, the respaced track looks way better than the unaltered stuff, but the spacing looks just a little too wide to me.  That said, if you ballast it, it will look different again.

 

for the cost and time, I'd make a couple of paketo-cornflako panels with different spacings, maybe two panels on each, ballasted, and then decide. 

 

Would be a right b if you laid it and then thought "ooooh noooooo!"

 

best

Simon

[ChrisN]

to my eye, the respaced track looks way better than the unaltered stuff, but the spacing looks just a little too wide to me.  That said, if you ballast it, it will look different again.

 

for the cost and time, I'd make a couple of paketo-cornflako panels with different spacings, maybe two panels on each, ballasted, and then decide. 

 

Would be a right b if you laid it and then thought "ooooh noooooo!"

 

best

Simon

 

Simon,

Thank you for your comments.

 

I am using this image as my reference.  When I took my photos I realised that what I needed was a shot from the same angle which I duly did.  The shot proved nothing which is why I have not put it up because, I) it is difficult to know you have the same angle, and ii) the contrast between the sleepers and the cork is not the same as the sleepers and the very pale ballast.so it did not help at all.

 

I trawled through the first part of the book and found that when the lines were built the sleepers were on average 9ft x10" x5" with a spacing of 3ft between them.  This would mean that Peco sleepers were the right width, and if you scale the narrowness of the gauge then the sleepers are the right length, although having said that they appear to me to be too short.  I do not think at the time of the photo the sleepers are 3ft apart but they are probably wider than at present.

 

I will have to have a play with track and ballast, although I may do it on the board dry and sweep up afterwards.  To add to the fun I have seen a photo of Towyn in 1906 where the sleepers are almost covered so the ballast will have to be pretty deep.

[Simond]

Chris,

 

I wouldn't get too hung up about it. I'd definitely make a test piece before glueing the baseboards. I'd glue up the test piece too, so you can take it to your club/mates and ask their opinion, and view it from all angles, etc.

 

Best

Simon

[Mikkel]

Hi Chris, good to see track underway. Since you ask, I personally agree with Simon that perhaps the spacing is a little wide in places - though a bit hard to see as the camera and perspective has its say. Eg at the bottom of the photo it looks a little wide to my eyes, but better higher up in the photo. 

 

With that 3 ft spacing (12mms) of the Cambrian it must be extra hard to avoid a narrow gauge look with 00, so maybe there's a need to compromise a little and go for 11 or even 10? Although with the latter, you'd be working to GWR standards - the horror!    

[Anotheran]

Unaltered track to the right, new spacings on the left.  I am not saying what the spacings are.  So, what do you think?

 

It's good to see the track coming in Chris.

 

Although a big improvement on the original I'd agree with the previous posters that it looks a little too wide. For two reasons... firstly I think even on its own the ratio of gap to sleeper seems a bit large. Secondly, and this is where it's all about whether it looks right rather than actually is right, the difference between your modified track and the sleeper spacing of the points (which you can't change) is very large. I know sleepers were closer under pointwork, but I think the contrast is a bit too much. Even if you reduce the spacing as you approach the end of the rail section at the points I think you'll see too big a contrast,

 

When I compare your example above to the track I have laid I think I have less of a contrast. So I suspect you've made the gap a bit wider than I did. Having said that it should be done to what you think looks best. I didn't reduce the spacing at the ends of track sections. As you are planning to do that it may look even better as it will be more obvious that you have done that. So when you're trying it out on a sample, I'd include a point and the transition to it as that, I think, is what will either make it look right or wrong.

 

Cutting out all those little bits of plastic is fun isn't it 

 

Kind regards, Neil

Edited May 15, 2015 by Anotheran

[ChrisN]

Hi Chris, good to see track underway. Since you ask, I personally agree with Simon that perhaps the spacing is a little wide in places - though a bit hard to see as the camera and perspective has its say. Eg at the bottom of the photo it looks a little wide to my eyes, but better higher up in the photo. 

 

With that 3 ft spacing (12mms) of the Cambrian it must be extra hard to avoid a narrow gauge look with 00, so maybe there's a need to compromise a little and go for 11 or even 10? Although with the latter, you'd be working to GWR standards - the horror!    

 

Mikkel,

Thank you.  The distance is the same down the track, except that at every tenth sleeper they are closer together as per prototype.  I have deliberately not said what the spacing is as I wanted the judgement to be on what it looks like.  The actual spacing is not 12mm or even close to that as I had assumed that the spacings would have come closer over time, and that you would not get ten sleepers per rail length with a 3ft distance between them.

 

I will do a trial.  I have found some old Peco/Hornby set track which has the same sleepers but I have no ballast.  I just need to remember to buy some when I go to the Exhibition tomorrow.  It all looks fairly pale so I will see what I can get.

[ChrisN]

It's good to see the track coming in Chris.

 

Although a big improvement on the original I'd agree with the previous posters that it looks a little too wide. For two reasons... firstly I think even on its own the ratio of gap to sleeper seems a bit large. Secondly, and this is where it's all about whether it looks right rather than actually is right, the difference between your modified track and the sleeper spacing of the points (which you can't change) is very large. I know sleepers were closer under pointwork, but I think the contrast is a bit too much. Even if you reduce the spacing as you approach the end of the rail section at the points I think you'll see too big a contrast,

 

When I compare your example above to the track I have laid I think I have less of a contrast. So I suspect you've made the gap a bit wider than I did. Having said that it should be done to what you think looks best. I didn't reduce the spacing at the ends of track sections. As you are planning to do that it may look even better as it will be more obvious that you have done that. So when you're trying it out on a sample, I'd include a point and the transition to it as that, I think, is what will either make it look right or wrong.

 

Cutting out all those little bits of plastic is fun isn't it 

 

Kind regards, Neil

 

Neil,

I have always thought the weal point of re-spacing the sleepers is that the pointwork stays the same, and yes it does look very different at the join.  I am not intending to gradually bring the spacings closer together as I approach the points but I will have the closer spacing at every ten sleepers.  The only comment about it that I will make so far is that the contrast between the closer ones and the ordinary spacing is not that obvious so I will change that.

 

Oh, great fun cutting the bits, and then I missed one!  I made sure that every piece, every piece mind you went in a bits box, but I still swept up about 8 or 9 today.  Fortunately most of my track is in the fiddleyard, and guess what, it will not be spaced or ballasted.

[Jock67B]

Afternoon Chris,

Sorry about the rash of ratings but I've been on the sick list for a few weeks and only now catching up. I have to say that the amount of research is painstaking to say the least, thank you for sharing it with us!

Kind regards,

Jock.

[MikeOxon]

 

....I have opted for the Brassmasters Cleminson.  I have one, which looks ok, so I will get two more on Saturday at Expo.  I am glad to hear about the ability to manage tight corners as my layout is full of them.

 

 

 

 

I have built several of these 'Brassmasters' chassis and can vouch for their ability to go round corners!  They handle the 15" curves corners on my old Hornby-Dublo track with ease

 

I have written some notes on building these chassis at http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/1405/entry-13324-six-wheelers-wip/

 

Mike

 

[ChrisN]

Afternoon Chris,

Sorry about the rash of ratings but I've been on the sick list for a few weeks and only now catching up. I have to say that the amount of research is painstaking to say the least, thank you for sharing it with us!

Kind regards,

Jock.

 

Jock,

Thank you, glad you are feeling better.  A lot of the research came from others but it has made an interesting discussion

[ChrisN]

 

I have built several of these 'Brassmasters' chassis and can vouch for their ability to go round corners!  They handle the 15" curves corners on my old Hornby-Dublo track with ease

 

I have written some notes on building these chassis at http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/1405/entry-13324-six-wheelers-wip/

 

Mike

 

 

 

Mike,

Thank you for posting that.  I have actually read that posting but like many things I had forgotten but hopefully now it will be cemented in my brain and I will go back again.  Having said that, reading that post is probably why I have got mine out to actually start.  I assume that you will not be at Expo EM this weekend?

[ChrisN]

Just a quick update.  I went to ExpoEM today and came back with lots stuff.  I had taken some money out of the bank yesterday but had made sure it was not too much.  As we know traders at shows only take cash.   Oh no they don't!  Some now take card so I spent all my cash I had allocated, plus quite a bit more on card.  Oh well, I probably have all the Cambrian two and four plank wagons I will need.  My idea at shows is that the entrance price should be less than the postage I would have paid on what I bought.  Looking at it like that I am quids in!

 

I want to thank everyone for the advice as I now have some spare bits of brass, I have a Roxey Mouldings Parry 5 plank PO dumb buffered coal wagon, an ABS Iron Mink, and that nice Mr Bill Bedford sold me a GWR ballast wagon that he said was quite an easy kit to put together. He also has some very nice 3D printed wagons with brass undercarriage, is that the right word, that I desperately wanted to buy but I had to leave it for another time.  I realised as well that I had only bought wheels for the Cambrian wagon kits, my coaches and the 2-4-0 loco.  These other kits have no wheels but I will probably use the ones bought for the Cambrian kits, 8 spoke 12mm wagon wheels, unless someone shouts and says that they are wrong.

 

I looked at the ABS GWR medium cattle wagon, this and the mink were the only ones off the list he had, and it said on it as per 1905 condition.  Shame as I will need cattle wagons although I am not quite sure where the cattle pens will go.  Mostyn Price, the Station Master has had words with me about it, 'If the narrow gauge line can have sheep pens then we ought to as well!'  He is a bit touchy about the narrow gauge railway.

 

I got home and remembered I had not actually bought any ballast.  Fortunately I live close enough to be able to go back.  The pictures seem to show very pale ballast.  The lightest colour there was, was Carr's Dark Grey, which in fact was lighter than the Light Grey.  It is down to the batch and how it is made apparently.  I still think it is too dark but you will have to let me know when I put up the test pieces, probably next week sometime.

 

Finally, it was good to meet Duncan today, and I hope I did not chat so long that he did not see all that he wanted before he had to rush off for work.  It was nice actually going round with someone and discussing the layouts,

 

If you have been, thanks for looking.

Edited May 16, 2015 by ChrisN

[emt_911]

Thanks Chris. I thoroughly enjoyed my time at the show and you certainly didn't chat for too long. I did manage to see the layouts that I wanted to but the idea of today was more of talking with the traders and getting a few ideas. I have posted on HA about the plan for track and a test board after a fairly long discussion with C&L.

[ChrisN]

Question time again while I am waiting to photograph ballast.  I have looked carefully at the larger stations on the Coast line, and I get the impression that around the station buildings they appeared to be paved but the rest of the platform was gravel, or tarmac or something like that.  The later pictures of Barmouth seem to have much more paving but I am not sure whether that was a later addition.  The reason I ask is that as soon as the track is started to be laid I will build the platforms, which when I have finished that means I can build the station building.  Yes lots on the go at once.

 

Some stations seem to have a stone/brick platform one side and a wooden one the other although if I remember rightly both Towyn and Barmouth had stone/brick platforms both sides.  I will probably do that as I am planning to have the platforms permanently attached, although doubts are beginning to creep in, so I want them solid so that they will be less prone to damage.

 

Comments welcome.

 

If you have been, thanks for looking.

[mike morley]

Back in posting 773 I suggested that LNWR trains were diverted via the Cambrian after a blockage on the North Coast line.  I still haven't found my source of information, but in the process of searching for it I learned that at for a period LNWR trains from Caernarvon terminated at Portmadoc instead of Afon Wen to improve connection times.  It's not clear when the arrangement started or ended, but it was going on during the early years of WW1.

[aberdare]

Hi Chris

 

It's been quite a while since my last visit so it is good to see that progress is being made no matter how slowly and I am impressed by all the research that you do to get things right.

 

I can't help much with Cambrian knowledge but I find it interesting as I can use that information to have a few foreign wagons on my own layout, some slate wagons delivering goods to the Culm and Exe valleys at the turn of the century sounds perfectly feasible to me.

 

On the subject of the Cambrian I do have a GWR Rules & Regulations poster from the 1920s which was apparently from one of the stations on the line, It had been used as a general notice board later in its life as the rear has the remains of chalked notices referring to Penychain where the old Butlins camp was.

 

Jim

[ChrisN]

Back in posting 773 I suggested that LNWR trains were diverted via the Cambrian after a blockage on the North Coast line.  I still haven't found my source of information, but in the process of searching for it I learned that at for a period LNWR trains from Caernarvon terminated at Portmadoc instead of Afon Wen to improve connection times.  It's not clear when the arrangement started or ended, but it was going on during the early years of WW1.

 

Mike,

In the 1910 Bradshaws it shows trains from Bangor to Afon Wen which either meet with a train from Portmadoc or Machynlleth, and sometimes with trains going both ways but it also shows trains from Afon Wen to Pwllhelli which start at the time the Bangor train arrives although on the Cambrian timetable it does not show any connection with the LNWR except a reference to the LNWR timetable.  There are similar trains in the opposite direction.

 

It would look as though some trains ran through to Pwllheli although what they were pulled by is anyone's guess although more ikely to be Cambrian engines.