Adam

And now for something substantially different. Regular readers - and there seem to be a few if the 'read' count is anything to go by - might have noticed that I enjoy mucking around with wagon brakegear. Less exciting that the vagaries of the class 37, perhaps, but in my view, much more fun. Until now, BR clasp brakegear has not been easily available in a form where the amount of detail I would like to incorporate has been easy to achieve. Red Panda’s underframe parts make quite a good start, but provide only the bare bones and working out what was going on between the solebars has proved beyond me, but not beyond Justin Newitt who has brought a range of the things (in both 10’ and 9’ wheelbases) to market. The full Rumney Models range (and the instructions for the available kits) can be found on Justin's website or there is a preview in the smaller suppliers section of RMweb: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/72373-rumney-models/. The chassis are designed to be sprung which is nice to have, but not essential in EM (or even in P4) and, if I’m honest, I cannot usually be bothered to go to the trouble unless it’s designed into a kit. Since it is, I’m prepared to try it. In this instance, I'm building a vacuum fitted, clasp braked 16 tonner. These were not, compared to the common or garden 1/108, all that common, but one of the earliest kitbashes I tried was to turn an Airfix kit into one of these. Paul Bartlett, as ever, has an extensive gallery showing may of the variations: http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brmineralclaspvb I was never all that happy with my early kitbash and thus far, it's the only wagon I've ever scrapped, though the components were reused. What follows isn't quite blow-by-blow, isn't a review but will show, more or less, what I did. The body is Parkside, and has only a few minor modifications - the corner reinforcements were modelled properly from 5 thou' plastic together with a representation of the floor plate at the bottom of the sides. Being a fitted vehicle, there were also a couple of lamp irons and I've replaced the commode handles with wire simply because I can. Then to the chassis. The first impressions were very favourable, the instructions (downloadable from the website - needless to say, I've deviated from the order of action suggested) are good and the parts fit well. I especially like the way in which the chassis base plate which also forms the top flange of the solebar channel, an approach shared by designers like Dave Bradwell and others who understand that forming a channel from a flat etch is really very awkward and makes the process of building a wagon square unnecessarily difficult. The following picture shows where I got to at the end of the first hour of building; the next one (and there are a couple of 10' wheelbase versions in the drawer) will be quicker. I deviated from the order suggested in the instructions here by adding the bottom of the T section which supports the ribs on the bodysides and by adding the brakeshoes. The brakeshoes, which are quite ingenious, went on at this point in order that I could set up the springing - not that springing a 9' wheelbase wagon in 4mm makes a lot of difference - and I can report that there is enough clearance to allow the wheels to go up and down. Assuming that people are interested, there is more to follow. It may look complicated, but I can assure you that this folds up very simply and is largely self-jigging and given the amount of research that Justin has put in you can be confident that the bits are in the right place and are the right size. An hour for a basic underframe only seems a long time if you've never tried to work out and model what seems to have been there from photos without a proper drawing... Adam

Something a bit more out of the ordinary just posted on the CCMV gallery: http://ccmv.aecsouthall.co.uk/p543686158/h149bdf26#h7025c1a6 A BR(Sc) Unimog, with blue light... and another, without: http://ccmv.aecsouthall.co.uk/p543686158/h149bdf26#h76586433 Adam

Having been doing other things over the last week or so, I've come back round to my clayliner tank which is now complete below the solebar (the label clip needs finishing) which is a relief because all that remains to be done can be seen relatively easily in photographs or, failing that guestimated from known details of similar wagon types. The air pipes are from Hornby, intended for a class 50. I'm not convinced how long they'll last in use but time will tell. Adam

Cheers Brian - It was the reference yo fitted minersls that surpised me, and I didn't have any reference material on hand this morning, possibly the Coil J, but the Coil C were the ex-pig iron types (I think, I'm on the train home so can't check) which, going on Paul's pictures, seem to have had moveable cross baulks located with multiple holes and long pins to locate them. Reading to do then... Adam

The first comment is interesting Brian - partly because I like building the things of course - but mostly because I hadn't heard of those. Given the large number of different types of simple 'conversions' (i.e., pop some baulks in the bottom of a wagon, maybe reinforce the tops of the sides for wooden vehicles), that isn't altogether surprising.The small selection of RTB wagons on Paul's site can be found here: http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/p66368710 By way of an aside, these wagons tended to be of the earlier varieties of 16 tonner so things like pressed end doors and bottom doors were quite common at a point where they were (generally) vanishing from the BR fleet either by withdrawal, replacement or the early stages of the re-bodying programme. Adam

Thanks Colin - I suspect that there have been several articles in that line (but, given the way the modelling press are, I'd be truly amazed if any were published in the last 25-30 years), and I suspect I'm thinking of something in dad's collection of back issues of Model Railway News/Model Railways or, perhaps, an early issue of MRJ. It's possible that I've retained something of the technical drawing skills I was taught at school! Martin Wynne, I know, can do remarkable things with oblique photos of track and GIMP software but I'm more a 'back-of-an-envelope'/'stray piece of A4' type. It's a really useful skill to develop as a scratchbuilder in any event. Knowing that a wagon wheel is 3' nominal (in use rather than as manufactured) and that buffer centrelines are meant to be roughly 3' 6" from the railhead can get you a long way fast. So far as the model is concerned, your comments are very kind but the AB rigging on the tank is representative at best - as I mentioned in your thread, these 'modern' 4 wheel tanks share roughly the same sort of brake arrangement but use a multitude of different ways of doing that and mounting the components. What I've done looks about right in elevation - and sort of concurs with the detail that emerged in this thread http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/75743-air-brakes-what-goes-where/ - and that's what matters... Adam

An all round update of current projects assuming people remain interested. The first picture shows the current state of my Coil J fleet. The Hornby pair have benefitted from a little extra work; number and data panels in the case of the first with some patch painted grey based on a Paul Bartlett picture. The second has received its cradle, while the third - the original one has come in for more work; compared to the others, it transpired that I'd made the sides too high by about 1mm. This could have been left alone, but the three wagons are intended to run together and leaving the 8 shoe wagon a different height would look odd in the extreme as well as being unprototypical. I should have realised earlier - looking at the prototype photos, it's clear that the sides of the original tipplers were cut down to about twice the height of the solebar. This is a useful point when bashing and scratchbuilding wagons without a properly dimensioned drawing. You can relate unknown dimensions to what Donald Rumsfeld would call ' ' - things like solebar channels, wheelbases and the size of wheels. It's best to use dimensions in the same plane of course to minimise distortion. None of this is foolproof but you have to start somewhere. More painting beckons and then they'll be on the home stretch. The Bowaters' tank has also moved forward very slightly with a bit of brakegear knitting; most of which you can't see of course, and what I've modelled is represenative rather than wholly accurate but the impression of business apparent in the real thing needs to be there for the model to convince. You don't need to put everything in... The remaining bits are a few safety loops which, unusually for someone used to 'traditional', 'steam era' wagons, were made from strip rather than rod - http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/stsclaylinertta/h1f314987#h19475b8e - and then I can finish the discharge pipes. Adam

I sometimes wonder whether plans can be more trouble than having nothing at all beyond a few basic dimensions. This is often the case when I'm building wagons from scratch though that's generally helped by the average British goods wagon being quite a small beast built to a number of relatively standard sizes. This makes things relatively easy to scale or position relative to 'knowns' like wheels, buffers, etc., should the need arise. Coaches are harder for a whole host of reasons - not least because their relative size brings perspective into play and because of the potential for differences in construction and detail. SR EMUs must be the most awkward of the lot; smallish batches, recycled components, few preserved vehicles... It makes the problem I currently have in understanding where the bits go on more modern vehicles than I'm used to pale somewhat: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/37002-adams-em-workbench-clayliner-taking-shape/page-8&do=findComment&comment=1169203 I know what bits were present, but the order in which they were put varies quite a bit between similar wagons.... If it weren't for Paul Bartlett's pictures (and the like of Dave Smith and 'Ceptic for EMUs), we'd likely be cheerful enough, in our ignorance, to guess or to stick to what we can actually prove. As an aside, I have a theory that, rather too often, Hornby reach for a plan or an existing kit rather than a measuring tape and a detailed survey of an extant prototype - the VEP and the BIL are possibly the most glaring examples of this; the forthcoming LMS CCT and LNE Fish Van suggests something similar. It just serves to make Colin's work all the more impressive (despite his protests about the minor imperfections - every scratch builder knows about these...). Adam

I don't see why not Dava; the industry was agriculture for the most part albeit with elements of the common carrier. All counts in my view (though others may disagree, of course). Adam

I haven't kept up with PHD though I know about the bits for the silver bullet, I'm not sure whether they're anywhere near the right size. I'll have to check the website. S Kits do a couple of different TTA walkways and I've used them before; not bad, could be better. Basically, the real thing was angle and mesh (I've lots of signal ladder) so it might be a scratchbuild job, assuming I can find suitable mesh. I've still got the original Tri-ang job and that looks more or less in proportion so I can use that as a template but first there's some detailling to do. Watch this space. EDIT: checked the PHD site and that shows nothing for any form of TTA and that the silver bullet walkways are (unsurprisingly) completely different. Based on the pictures it seems that I need some reasonably fine diamond mesh from somewhere and some 1mm angle (got plenty of that) and a jig of some sort. Hmm. Adam

Thanks Brian. I knew that the tanks were built for the Burngullow-Sittingbourne run and tended to run as a block train. I was a little confused about the caption myself; what made me wonder about that was that via Bath seems an odd route to get anywhere in the south east from Cornwall given the option of the Langport cut off. I wasn't sure about the Western on the front either since the other pictures I've seen of that service have a Brush type 4/class 47 on the front (although at introduction, they wouldn't have been able to work these tanks at any great speed since the tanks were AB only and the Westerns were only converted a year or two later). Adam

Nice work Mark and thanks for the reference to my Coil J. I must get round to posting an update on that particular saga. These more extensive conversions are a bit out of my modelling timeframe but are interesting to me nonetheless. I know that you have a rake of Clayliner opens for BCB on the go. Did the tanks ever get up that way? I know that they made the West Midlands from the comments to this picture: http://www.flickr.com/photos/robmcrorie/5397305662/ and, of course, I have a fairly extensive conversion of the Tri-ang one on the go; I would't fancy doing a rake of these without a custom etch, but it should make a nice model. Adam

That's the right choice I think from a pragmatic as well as a presentation point of view. If nothing else it makes observers take in the whole scene rather than simply gawping at the trains (and Gordon should know, Ditchling Green was a classic example of this). I'll let others judge whether the back of a cinema is a more appropriate/'picturesque' backdrop than the Bristol Channel! Adam

Southampton you say? How convenient Assuming I can work out the walkways on the top and don't get too distracted, eminently doable. Adam

Haha! Your's presumably Andrew? If I were to configure the safety loops under the brakeshoes so that the wheels could be removed that's possible I suppose and there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to loan you the vehicle to sit on a siding 'as is' of course. I could always do a "Goodall" (i.e., use EM wheels at P4 spacing) and push the wheels out a bit... When's Wheal Elizabeth next out? I could do with a target to get this one finished. Adam

After something of a hiatus, one evening last week I got back to grips with my Clayliner tank. Aside from actually doing other things this was partly because I'd reached the difficult bit - mounting the ta-nk on the chassis. On the prototype the tank was let into the frame but the thing that stopped the tank parting company with the wagon - and this was true of all monbloc designs, including the 4-wheel tanks known to modellers as the TTA - was length of angle iron welded or riveted to the tank and in turn mounted to a fabrication built onto the chassis forming a sort of pedestal. Now there was one moulded as part of the tank but was far too shallow and left the tank too close to the solebar so it had to go; there's not a lot of the original wagon left now... Anyhow, first I built up the 'tray' inside the top to the chassis with plstic sheet and then with a bit of Miliput to match the height of the solebar and giving a nice flat surface to bond the pedestal onto. The angled sides and ends of the pedestal are challenging to do in plastic (they'd be a fiddle in metal too) so, not being sure whether plan A would work, I assembled it away from the wagon. Basically, I made up a sort of picture frame from layers of plastic sheet - the number of layers and the approximate thickness were gauged from the height of the solebar; this game of modelling without drawings is all about proportions - which was crudely shaped using files and the edge of a knife followed up with a bit of wet and dry paper. This seemed promising and, compared to photos, looked about right so I offered it up to the tank and then blu-taked the whole to the chassis. This looked fine so the pedestal was popped on with some medium thickness cyano'. I realise that some pictures of this might have been nice but I got rather carried away in the making so you'll have to make the best of it with your imaginations. Amazingy, it still looked right so I returned to the tank and gave it another flash of primer to see how the filling was getting on before assembling it to the chassis and pedestal. It bacame very clear that the filler needed another go and a dose of Halford's filler primer (thanks to JWealleans for the tip on this stuff) to get everything nice and smooth (but only on the tank, I masked everything else off). Anyway, here it is. I think it looks about right so the detailing can proceed when I'm in the mood. It may be a little while. Adam

The LT wagon looks very good Robert; it's not smething I actually want or need but it looks nicely executed. It's also good to see progress on the Sentinel which looks very promising. I do wonder, however, whether the front cab windows are rather too tall and the cab cut out a bit too low? Assuming that the 'bonnet' is about right (and I think it probably is, proprtionately) then the bottom of the cut out should line up with the point where it bends inwards. As it is it stands the cab side sheet is about 1mm too high and the same applies to the top of the bunker. http://www.flickr.com/photos/12a_kingmoor_klickr/5817227641/in/photolist-9S3P7i-9SYzGk-c4n4q7-9VFFDu-9TyoSW-9Typ49-9SYzNz-9Sbsz7-9LQB7B-9LroYc-c3QeJQ-bMLD8R-9PJRZK-bbndtp-aH9X7r-aXVKiD-bztNfY-c3QeZY-9MMYkx-9T5dEd-c3QerY-9MQM6S-cNqkUE-9LQCQD-dS18EP-9Rn1tR-9LrHVg-c4n4Hh-9LNzPy-9Wjnh4-bqv1Mu-9VwWbU/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/12a_kingmoor_klickr/5753735035/in/photolist-9S3P7i-9SYzGk-c4n4q7-9VFFDu-9TyoSW-9Typ49-9SYzNz-9Sbsz7-9LQB7B-9LroYc-c3QeJQ-bMLD8R-9PJRZK-bbndtp-aH9X7r-aXVKiD-bztNfY-c3QeZY-9MMYkx-9T5dEd-c3QerY-9MQM6S-cNqkUE-9LQCQD-dS18EP-9Rn1tR-9LrHVg-c4n4Hh-9LNzPy-9Wjnh4-bqv1Mu-9VwWbU/ What a huge pair of URLs... The rear cab windows seem to have slipped too far down the cab backsheet (though they are about the right size I think). The shutters and electric lights seem to have been optional fittings btw: http://www.flickr.com/photos/12a_kingmoor_klickr/5791092345/in/photolist-9S3P7i-9SYzGk-c4n4q7-9VFFDu-9TyoSW-9Typ49-9SYzNz-9Sbsz7-9LQB7B-9LroYc-c3QeJQ-bMLD8R-9PJRZK-bbndtp-aH9X7r-aXVKiD-bztNfY-c3QeZY-9MMYkx-9T5dEd-c3QerY-9MQM6S-cNqkUE-9LQCQD-dS18EP-9Rn1tR-9LrHVg-c4n4Hh-9LNzPy-9Wjnh4-bqv1Mu-9VwWbU/lightbox/ Promising, however, and the really tricky bits, the bonnet and the roof line look right. Adam

What's really nice about this layout is the impression it gives of being part of a wider system; there's a purpose to the movements of wagons about the place and the photo I've attempted to quote really shows this well and I do like a model that isn't wholly flat... Adam

Than the rather strange shade of green (lighting permitting of course) the NRM one currently wears? Possibly. Looks a bit like the weird shade Bachmann used to do the Bulleids in. Adam

Er, yes? Adam

I think you may be right about the general location but not about the motive power; a W was a big 2-6-4 tank! Going on what can be discerned of the tender (straight steps, rear handrail with knobs rather than plain bar), my reckoning is that it's more likely to be an ex-SECR C class. Immedieately before the chap with the gun comes a cropper there is what appears to be a ferry flat, yes; a little before that was a rarity; a 'P' prefixed 5 plank open... Adam

Based on the pictures I've managed to find, the rebuilds seem to have been of differing degrees of thoroughness, mostly dependent on the type of boiler fitted: http://www.lner.info/locos/D/d52d53d54.shtml I don't suppose that the extended smokebox variant would be too much of a struggle but the reboilered, re-cabbed(?) versions might be as might the replacement tenders; are these small Deeley/Fowler types or just 'after the style of? I'm afraid I know very little of the Midland's practise - and still less of Melton Constable's - in these matters. Adam

Somewhat predictably, the 4-4-0 tank was by Falcon Brass I think; you'll have to ask the new owners but it may tell its own story when I say that all of the models I've seen of this - rather comely - prototype (two in 4mm, 1 in S and 1 in 7mm - that's more than you might expect) have been scratchbuilt. I've seen a class A as well - built by John James and he said it was a bit of a pig although a nice model can result. London Road Models also do an ex-GNR J3/J4 - http://www.lner.info/locos/J/j3j4.shtml - and the M&GN had a handful of these but they look rather strange with Midland pattern smokebox doors. The J40/J41 was another pure Midland design (a 2F?) must be adaptable from one kit or another (I think Gibson did one and according the the LNER Encyclopedia says that Falcon Brass did; http://www.lner.info/locos/J/j40j41.shtml). I've always thought that it would be an attractive railway to model in the period prior to Nationalisation with locos which were almost, but not quite familiar in shape. Adam

Thanks Andrew, Colin (and to all those who hit the 'like' buttons). I've popped the bolster to one side for the moment until I get a few more things ready for lettering and weathering. David - I think I just pulled the original bolsters (not great representations if truth be told) off with a pair of side cutters and tidied up afterwards. I established the spacing for the 'new' bolsters based on the weight diagrams found on the Barrowmore MRG website: http://www.barrowmoremrg.co.uk/Prototype.html.There are holes in the deck which need filling anyway and this is a bit of a faff, but not nearly as much as gouging out the insets in the deck for the chain rings; if you're planning on loading the wagons with anything particularly bulky then you may be better off not doing that particular mod'. The Bachmann BDA is certainly the cheaper option - if you feel you need to rebuild the underframe in brass angle - not that there's too much wrong with the mouldings supplied. The key thing with the Cambrian kit is to add suitable longitudinal reinforcement. This is the case with all Cambrian's 'long' wagons - dad has a couple of Salmon reinforced with bicycle spokes and I'll probably go the same way with the Borail I'm building at the minute. That's only at basic assembly stage so no pictures I'm afraid since there's nothing very interesting to look at. If you add the gussets into the equation then the Bachmann version is the way to go. You will still need to go to Cambrian for the bogies however. Adam

Some work on an existing project (which began here), my backward conversion of Bachmann BDA to a Bobol D. Here it is before painting: I'll come clean and admit that I've left off a few of the brake linkages since they really cannot be seen with the vac' pipe and vee hangers that are in the way. The brake levers and guides are more of the CraigWelsh/Scalefour items and look about right in this application. The levers are simply bent about from items intended for 10' wheelbase Morton brakes. Again, these are somewhat over-designed: I see no reason to make the reversing clutch a serperate item. A half etched line representing the gap between the two bits (or etched through with the fold over layer at the back in one piece) would have been much, much easier to assemble for no loss in fidelity in appearance. You would be right in thinking that the guides are somewhat fragile; that's unavoidable even at full size! My dodge is to have reinforced them with a bit of 0.5mm Nickel Silver wire soldered to the back of the guides and anchored firmly in the floor. I can't abide bent fittings and this relatively discreet bodge will hopefully make the wagon durable for layout use. The full thing is a bit of a sod to photograph but here's my best effort: Nearly there, a bit of detail painting and some transfers to go and then it's weathering time. Adam