Here We Go... The Layout

Armchair Modeller
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: Here We Go..........

Postby Armchair Modeller » Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:55 pm

Many thanks for the encouragement :thumb

Everyone works at a different pace and many have lots of other distractions. I am fortunate (or sad, maybe?) in having few other things to think about than work, model railways and walking. Also, I mostly work at home, so no commuting to endure. I can do little bits in breaks from work - and even plan my work around model railway tasks much of the time - especially at this time of year. If I take too long, I will quickly get other ideas and distractions.

Having said that, I have done pitifully little this week. I spent a lot of my spare time out walking and pushed myself a little too hard, leaving no energy for anything else. The weather forecast for the coming few days will no doubt force me to stay indoors a bit more.

I should have some more progress to report on this time next week.

User avatar
Tim V
Posts: 2168
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: Here We Go..........

Postby Tim V » Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:31 am

Armchair Modeller wrote:One of the dangers of P4 modelling is that people tend to compare what they can do with the very best. If they can't match it either feel very frustrated - or just give up altogether. Personally, I am all for encouraging people to do what they are capable of at the time. Only through lots of experience can most people attain great feats of modelling. For people like me it might never happen, but it won't stop me modelling. My cunning plan is to try and model interesting and unique things that no one else does. That way, no one will be able to compare my work with an exact same model built by someone who knows what they are doing - and the novelty value will hide my shortcomings. At least it was a cunning plan, until I just revealed it to all and sundry ;)


An excellent summary there. No one says that P4 modelling is easy, but I get the impression that it is easier than it is perceived and used to be. Though I will probably be charged with "well he would say that".

Finding a level of modelling which is comfortable for you - and sticking to it through thick and thin and criticism, is where, to me, you get the essence of a hobby. It is your own hobby. My model gets slagged off for no trains, or looking crude up close, but at least for me it represents what I want. I'm comfortable with it. Some of the modelling I see in MRJ is way beyond what I could achieve, and if I did, would show up the rest of the model.

I think what I'm saying is don't get distracted by close up views of 7mm masterpiece models in the MRJ. Yes they look stunning, but what about the rest of the model railway? I have seen too many models (in all scales) that look cracking in pictures, (probably because of the angle the photographer has chosen, or photo fiddling) but in the flesh look fairly ordinary.
Tim V

Armchair Modeller
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: Here We Go..........

Postby Armchair Modeller » Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:46 am

Thanks Tim :thumb

Your formula clearly works, judging by the cup you won at St Albans.

Terry Bendall
Posts: 1566
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:46 am

Re: Here We Go..........

Postby Terry Bendall » Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:30 am

Armchair Modeller wrote:One of the dangers of P4 modelling is that people tend to compare what they can do with the very best.


Some people may well do this, but if you don't try to do something, you will NEVER get better. :) There will be lots of people who will do some sort of sport or play a musical instrument at their own level. Most will never reach top class status but that does not stop them enjoying such things and getting pleasure from it. What I do now is a lot better than what I was doing even 15 years ago, let along 30 years back. You get better by practising. :)

Tim V wrote:An excellent summary there. No one says that P4 modelling is easy, but I get the impression that it is easier than it is perceived and used to be


I agree. We can now get the kits and bits for track construction and use drop in wheel sets to convert good quality locos and stock so that bit IS easier, and all the rest is the same as working in OO.

Terry Bendall

User avatar
Jol Wilkinson
Posts: 753
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:39 pm

Re: Here We Go..........

Postby Jol Wilkinson » Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:03 am

For me, modelling in P4 made it easier to produce satisfactory models than I ever did when I modelled in 00.

Perhaps that's because there are consistent standards I had to adopt and there was a wealth of good advice and guidance readily available. Add to that, I found compensation/springing provided better pick up and adhesion, jigs made accurate building of track and locos easier and I could buy kits and products from a wide range of kits produced by suppliers who are usually modellers and understand modelling to P4 (and EM) standards.

Of course it all relative and depends on what you think of as modelling. If it is putting RTR models onto Peco track using a Cyril Freezer layout plan populated with ready painted cast resin buildings, then P4 modelling isn't easy. But if you are into 4mm railway model making, then P4 isn't that difficult.

Jol

User avatar
Will L
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Here We Go..........

Postby Will L » Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:14 am

Jol Wilkinson wrote:For me, modelling in P4 made it easier to produce satisfactory models than I ever did when I modelled in 00.

Perhaps that's because there are consistent standards I had to adopt and there was a wealth of good advice and guidance readily available. Add to that, I found compensation/springing provided better pick up and adhesion, jigs made accurate building of track and locos easier and I could buy kits and products from a wide range of kits produced by suppliers who are usually modellers and understand modelling to P4 (and EM) standards.

Of course it all relative and depends on what you think of as modelling. If it is putting RTR models onto Peco track using a Cyril Freezer layout plan populated with ready painted cast resin buildings, then P4 modelling isn't easy. But if you are into 4mm railway model making, then P4 isn't that difficult.


I personally don't normally go on for "me 2" posts but that is my view to the letter. Well said

Will

Armchair Modeller
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: Here We Go..........

Postby Armchair Modeller » Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:58 pm

Will L wrote:
Jol Wilkinson wrote:For me, modelling in P4 made it easier to produce satisfactory models than I ever did when I modelled in 00.

Perhaps that's because there are consistent standards I had to adopt and there was a wealth of good advice and guidance readily available. Add to that, I found compensation/springing provided better pick up and adhesion, jigs made accurate building of track and locos easier and I could buy kits and products from a wide range of kits produced by suppliers who are usually modellers and understand modelling to P4 (and EM) standards.

Of course it all relative and depends on what you think of as modelling. If it is putting RTR models onto Peco track using a Cyril Freezer layout plan populated with ready painted cast resin buildings, then P4 modelling isn't easy. But if you are into 4mm railway model making, then P4 isn't that difficult.


I personally don't normally go on for "me 2" posts but that is my view to the letter. Well said

Will


Although it is very early days for me, I tend to agree! I seem to find it much easier to produce smooth running pointwork in P4 than I ever did in any other scale or gauge. Experience certainly helps, but the tight standards also make it easier, I am sure.

Having messed around in 2FS, with their relatively fine flanges, uncompensated chassis and very little weight, the flanges in P4 never really frightened me as much as they might for someone moving from OO.

Many thanks for the encouragement, gentlemen. :thumb

Armchair Modeller
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: Here We Go..........

Postby Armchair Modeller » Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:56 pm

Those checking this topic regularly for signs of progress will probably have guessed by now that progress has been somewhat slow, so far this year ;)

Christmas was a bit like half-time at a football match, when a team is on fire in the first half, but can't string two passes together after the break. I have also been distracted by other interests - mainly walking, which has taken up huge chunks of my spare time - even in the snow we had a week or two ago.

In truth I was quite unwell for much of last year. One of the reasons I appeared to be doing so well on the layout was because I had neither the energy, nor the will to do very much else. I was eventually diagnosed as having a severe thyroid problem (no messages of sympathy, please!). The first few months of taking pills was a very strange experience, but things have now settled down very well. I feel an energy and vitality that I have not had for several years. Just to illustrate how bad I felt, I had the illusion that I had applied to join the Scalefour Society and had been accepted. I even believed I was in the middle of building a layout and had part-built a loco. How much crazier could it get? Needless to say, if I report further "progress" here, it must be that I am forgetting to take the pills - or just maybe, the illusion has a life of its own. ;) Back to the walking, I am already up to the kind of fitness levels I wouldn't normally reach until early summer. My last walk, on Saturday was around 40 miles. At this rate of progress, I feel I could walk the 112 miles to Scaleforum by September.......

......... only to find (quite likely) that they won't let me in, because I have a large rucksack on my back and don't smell quite as sweet as when I started the journey, 30-odd hours earlier ;)

Anyway, back to serious matters! Not much progress doesn't mean no progress at all. I have done a little more work on the track, completing the remaining pointwork in the fiddle yard. I have also decided to complete the fiddle yard wiring and get these latest turnouts operational, something I was originally going to leave for a while. This work has only just started though, so there is still a lot to do. I found that these little, simple tasks were a good way to get me back into the mood again!

130204a.jpg
130204a.jpg (12 KiB) Viewed 5457 times


I have also started work on my J72 loco chassis. This is the Mousa Models version. So far, I have assembled the mainframes and soldered the coupling rods up, all using a soldering iron. Everything has gone very well. In truth, I suspect I could have got this far in just a few hours if I had really got stuck in.

I have also assembled a Comet 38:1 gearbox and attached it to a motor. I haven't a clue what make of motor it is - it has been lying in my scrapbox for many years. As with the gearbox, I saw no point in splashing out on anything extravagant for my first chassis. The gears have now been run in and seem to work very smoothly with the motor.

130204b.jpg
130204b.jpg (5.12 KiB) Viewed 5457 times


The red paint on the coupling rods was a preventative measure to ensure that solder didn't stray where it shouldn't. Next, I need to clean up the rods. I can then begin to assemble the remaining parts of the chassis. I will be using Gibson wheels.

The only sad thing to report is that the wagon I have been using for track testing had a fateful encounter with a soldering iron and now has a long hole in one side of the bodywork. My fault for having two soldering irons on at the same time - but only one stand to keep them safe in. :(

Please don't hold your breath waiting for the next installment - thankfully Knuckles is keeping you all entertained though, so I won't feel too guilty, even if it does take a while ;)

User avatar
Tim V
Posts: 2168
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: Here We Go..........

Postby Tim V » Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:32 pm

Sorry to tell you this, but the motor looks like a DS10. If it is, it's very high revving, and not much torque. Iain Rice's book gives some details about bearing failures, in the load situation you have built it into.

38:1 will also be far too low for this motor which revs at 20,000 rpm. Peak torque at 10,500 rpm

My recommendation is not to use this motor for the model you are building.
Tim V

Armchair Modeller
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: Here We Go..........

Postby Armchair Modeller » Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:33 pm

Many thanks for your comments regarding the motor, Tim. Due to my inexperience, I had really not given the motor speed and torque much thought. I guess my feeling was that if I got it to run at all, I would be happy. It just shows the value of the forum that people can be so helpful.

I have briefly tested the motor and gearbox with a very old H&M Clipper controller. On high resistance and half-wave DC it does run very slowly. When I increase the power and hold the axle tightly in my fingers, it also runs slowly, but is difficult to stop entirely.

On that basis - and as it is my first chassis - I think I may as well just carry on for the time being. I value your opinion and expertise very highly - but this really is just a quick way to see if I can get something running at all.

If I do exceed my own expectations, then it should not be too difficult to swap the motor and/or gearbox for something more refined - at worst I should only lose one wheel set and axle, so the cost is quite small. There is plenty of room in the body for a variety of combinations, if I do decide to install different components.

Many thanks again for your helpful observations. I will keep a close eye on the chassis as things progress to see just how bad it is for myself. I should have a good idea from personal observation, well before the loco is finished, just how bad this one will be.

Armchair Modeller
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: Here We Go..........

Postby Armchair Modeller » Mon May 06, 2013 12:58 pm

Just a small note to say that I am still very much in business! Much of my spare time is now spent out walking, but I am still finding a tiny amount of time for modelling.

Experiments with tiebars proved a little disappointing. I had the idea of a TOU directly under the sleepers, rather than under the baseboard. This worked very well, but the constant rubbing as the TOU moved from side to side inevitably produced bare patches exposing the copper on the PCB I was using for the TOU, which gradually became very noticeable.

Fortunately, recent articles about tiebars in the Scalefour News have filled my head with alternative ideas! I particularly like the most recent one. My next step is to try one of these - though I will probably replace the etched bits with something else, so I can use materials immediately to hand. I want to prove this works for me and make all the pointwork on the scenic section operational before I install them on the layout. If all goes well, I should quickly be able to finish laying the remaining track on the first two scenic boards.

Another reason for the pause was reading stories about plywood track bases stuck onto foam being very unstable and likely to warp. The earliest bits of ply I laid are now 6-7 months old, surviving winter cold and relative warmth, without showing any signs of warping. I am now hoping I will get away with it - at least as long as I don't dampen the ply too much when I add ballast.

On the locomotive front, the J72 chassis went together very easily and works fine. It is just a little lively, as Tim suggested, but with a decent controller it's performance is more than acceptable. I have also resolved to finish off the Nonnmeinstre shunter chassis I started ages ago. That shouldn't take too long (a statement I may live to regret ;) ).

No photos this time, but I promise to get some done when I have a bit more to show. After all, one J72 chassis looks very much like another!
Last edited by Armchair Modeller on Tue May 07, 2013 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Armchair Modeller
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: Here We Go..........

Postby Armchair Modeller » Mon May 06, 2013 9:46 pm

Just to whet my own appetite, I rose to the challenge of drawing a half-decent diagram of the layout. Stage one is well under way. Knowing my reputation for finishing things, phase two may yet turn out to be just a dream..........

neversay1-web.jpg


....... we shall see!

I did the basic diagram in Templot, which I must admit I am finding hard going :cry:

The lettering and other artwork was done in Photoshop, which I am far more comfortable with, but is hopeless for drawing trackwork.

Terry Bendall
Posts: 1566
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:46 am

Re: Here We Go..........

Postby Terry Bendall » Tue May 07, 2013 6:33 am

Armchair Modeller wrote:Experiments with tiebars proved a little disappointing.


Armchair Modeller wrote:Fortunately, recent articles about tiebars in the Journal have filled my head with alternative ideas!


I thought the the ideas for stretcher bars in the current issue of the News were good. However I still prefer the Masokits strether bars with a functional crank operated by a rod pasing hrough the baseboard to a motor underneath. On Elcot Road, where Exactoscale TOUs have been used under the flat bottom turnouts one of the wires from a blade to the TOU became detached and caused great difficulty in trying to repair it. In the end the TOU was replaced with a Masokits stretcher.

Terry Bendall

Armchair Modeller
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: Here We Go..........

Postby Armchair Modeller » Tue May 07, 2013 4:37 pm

Agreed Terry, if you want a modern tiebar.

Mine are for a seriously neglected "tramway", so need to look far more fragile and decrepit in appearance.

Armchair Modeller
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: Here We Go..........

Postby Armchair Modeller » Wed May 08, 2013 11:55 am

Just to explain further the kind of look I would ideally like for my turnouts, this extract from a photo shows a reasonable example.

ex-a.jpg
ex-a.jpg (9.24 KiB) Viewed 4989 times


Rather like Howard said in his S4 News article, I don't like wibbly-wobbly wires sticking up through obvious holes from a TOU under the baseboard. Apart from anything else, it doesn't solve the problem of how to represent the cosmetic stretcher/tiebar in a robust way. Masokits stretchers look nothing like, either.

I suppose, being a P4 newbie, I should not worry too much about things like this. After all it will be a major achievement just to get a layout built - never mind worrying about fine details that many people won't even see from the other side of an exhibition barrier. It should perhaps be a case of getting things alright, rather than all right.

If you believe everything they say on RmWeb and other places, then my stock will be more off the rails than on. Add to that the hazards of track cleaning. Robustness has to be a serious consideration. ;)

allanferguson
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:27 pm

Re: Here We Go..........

Postby allanferguson » Wed May 08, 2013 4:42 pm

I have to agree about the difficulty in representing the rodding associated with early switch mechanisms. The prototype uses rodding with a flexible attachment at each end, which takes care of the angular displacement between the two switches. We, of course can't solder the "rods" to both rails. The early Studiolith stretchers got over this with a soldered joint at one side and a glued joint at the other, but I don't think it lasted very long in practice. There is a stretcher consisting of two wire ends connected by a plastic tube, which does work, and looks better, but is a bit prone to failure if used functionally for long. I think it's available from the stores, or it may be C & L. Perhaps the most imaginative solution was proposed, I think, by John Wright, who used these same tiebars, but arranged to be fixed at one end and in compression between the two switch rails. The switch rails were arranged to ensure that their natural "lie" kept the stretchers in compression; only one switch blade then needed to be connected to the rodding.

I'm afraid, however, that I have not found these solutions visually convincing, nor, in the long run mechanically reliable, and I remain convinced that for those of us who model older railways the best solution is something along the lines of the old Studiolith TOU, or it's more modern derivatives. Then any representation of the stretcher bar can be purely cosmetic.

Just to complicate matters further, I note that the example you show is of a loose heeled switch. Now representing them in the model is a whole new can of worms.......

I commend Templot to you. I use it for layout planning, and find it indispensable for showing what can or can't be done in trackwork terms. Good luck with your project>

Allan F

Armchair Modeller
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: Here We Go..........

Postby Armchair Modeller » Thu May 09, 2013 2:15 pm

Many thanks for your encouragement, Allan.

I am trying to pick up Templot, but don't really have a serious application for it at the moment, as I had already designed the current layout in all but its very finest details. Paper templates served this purpose very well, as the pointwork was really quite straightforward and easy to build. I wanted to draw things up full-size in 3D on the baseboard, because even a subtle change in the curvature of the plain track in such a confined space might ruin the whole look and feel of the project. In fact, the track, the baseboards and the position of all the buildings were all worked out in 3D. That is probably not how I would approach most prototypes. Basing my model on Wantage does create some interesting and unique problems though. I felt that my touchy-feely approach was entirely appropriate in this case. Anyway, this really is just a test piece, to see how I get on with 4mm scale and P4. I hope no one is taking it too seriously.

If I ever do start to take P4/4mm scale seriously then I will probably choose something far more mainstream for my next project - and almost certainly approach it in a much more 'respectable' and 'proper' way. ;)

As for stretchers, I doubt if a mere mortal like me could ever come up with a perfect answer to a problem that has occupied so many great minds for such a long time. I am definitely forming an idea now though, following the recent article in S4 News. My idea is to use functional strips of PCB on edge, immediately below rail level, as per the article. Dummy stretcher rods could be placed just above them, disguising the upper edge of the PCB. I might even use the ends of Masokits stretchers to attach the PCB to the rails, as I have a few in stock, discarding the middle part of the etch altogether. Only time will tell if this works, but I definitely think it is worth a try.

I probably should be modelling loose-heeled switches but as I hinted above, this is just a light-hearted jolly jaunt into the fun side of P4, not an attempt to prove that I can build a layout better than anyone else.

Maybe next time ;)

Armchair Modeller
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: Here We Go..........

Postby Armchair Modeller » Wed Jun 12, 2013 10:45 pm

Another month has gone by with very little progress! The recent improvement in the weather has resulted in even more, longer walks than usual, plus a bit of gardening. My longest walk now is around 55mls, achieved a week yesterday. I was out for 15.5 hours. With dedication like that, I am afraid modelling doesn't get the attention it deserves. The only mitigating factor in my "crime" was that the walk followed trackbed of the Mansfield to Southwell railway line for some distance, as well as seeing odd bits of live railway.

Progress has been more meditative than practical. A big stumbling block in my crazy scheme has always been how to disguise the fiddle yard at the back of the layout. Wantage, the location I am basing the model on, is very flat. The best I could do if I followed it closely would be to use a painted backscene, more or less from rail level. Never one to let the real world get in my way, I wondered how it might look if the land rose immediately behind the goods shed, to make back of the scenic area a little more 3-dimensional.

Eventually, I stumbled on a photo of the old Glebe Street station building in Glasgow. A mental leap made me think of a mirror image - and hey presto, we have what I think is a better idea , incorporating a stone goods shed and an embankment. I think it looks very atmospheric.

Glebe-008.jpg
Glebe-008.jpg (15.15 KiB) Viewed 4746 times


There are plenty of photos on-line and a 1:500 map, so I can get fairly accurate dimensions. The loco shed would be in front of this - possibly more a lean-to than a building in its own right. Older photos show a platform along the foot of the embankment on the left of the image - just where the goods platform needs to be. My only reservation is that the building looks a bit big. I am used to 2mm scale though, so everything in 4mm scale looks big ;)

Meanwhile, I have made limited progress with tiebars. I had a fair number of Masokits etches, so in the end I thought "what the hell!" - let's make one up and see what happens. Mine is purely functional. Dummy cosmetic tiebars will be added later, to make the turnout look more like it should. Having read some people's concerns about strength, I cut my PCB to double depth. The insulation gaps were scraped with a Stanley knife to avoid making the unclad portions too thin. I also avoided using separate flux, relying solely on the flux in the solder. I suspect, from previous experience, that liquid flux can cause insulation problems. Otherwise, there is not much to say. Everything seems to be working OK so far. I will now make the remaining Masokits tiebars and add them to all the turnouts for the scenic area. The plan is to make them operational and test them before installation on the layout.

I want to make the turnouts on the scenic area operable from front or rear. With this in mind, I am thinking of using some Blue Point mechanisms - a kind of Tortoise without a motor. I have these lying around from a previous project, long abandoned. They use plastic tubes to pull and push the mechanism, making it easy to add fixtures both to the front and back of the baseboards.

Armchair Modeller
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: Here We Go..........

Postby Armchair Modeller » Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:50 pm

It took me a while to get any photos of the Masokits tiebar in situ (it is specifically called a tiebar in the product notes, by the way)

Here is the top side

p1.jpg
p1.jpg (34.02 KiB) Viewed 4676 times


.....and the underside.

p2.jpg
p2.jpg (26.78 KiB) Viewed 4676 times


This particular turnout will be well hidden behind the small engine shed on the layout, so is a great subject for experimentation. With that in mind, I have not been as meticulous about my workmanship as I will have to be with the others. To minimise the stresses on the soldered joints, I put the blades at mid-point before soldering them to the tiebar. Spare pieces of the pcb that comes with the tiebars were ideal for this. The assembly is very free-moving.

I do have reservations about the brass tube, planned to accommodate the sprung wire from the Blue Point underneath the baseboard. If it ever came loose, it would be a real pain to solder back in place again. I may reconsider this aspect of the design to produce something more fail-safe.

The assembly has been tested with a wagon and works 100% so far. As this is an interlaced 3-way turnout, I have another tiebar to assemble and install before it is fully operational. I also need to cut insulation gaps in the sleepers.

Finally, I need to install the cosmetic stretchers. My theory is that these will draw attention away from the strictly-functional Masokits tiebar, making it relatively invisible. I have placed a query in the trackwork section of the Forum to try and establish exactly how the dummy operating mechanism and stretchers should look. I also need to work out what materials to use. I have to maintain electrical discontinuity between the rails!

Armchair Modeller
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: Here We Go..........

Postby Armchair Modeller » Mon Jun 17, 2013 5:41 am

Another exhausting walk this weekend helped me to sort out more modelling issues in my mind. This time I walked up the Trent from Gainsborough to West Stockwith and along the Chesterfield Canal to Worksop. To be honest, I have been spending far too long procrastinating, instead of just getting on with some modelling. One of the big stumbling blocks was the stretcher bars for the turnouts on the scenic section. That now seems to be well on the way to solving.

The other big stumbling block was what to do with my J72 chassis. I bought the Mousa/Bill Bedford version in order to get some experience of springy beams. Having got it working, the big problem was what on earth to do with it. Originally, it was planned as a quick way of getting a loco up and running. Once I decided to buy a Model Rail Sentinel, that was no longer necessary. I could of course just build it as a J72, but that would limit the location of my imaginary layout somewhat. I was also worried that a J72 would be a bit heavy in real life for a sleepy Wantage-style tramway. I have been looking for an alternative use for the chassis for some time - far too long! I even found a Nasmyth Wilson 2-6-2T for Argentina that I would swear is no more than a J72 with a slightly raised body, extended smokebox and stretched cab. Everything else, including the dome, boiler, chimney and bunker seemed to be pure J72.

Finally, I decided I would never find a perfect match and would have to compromise slightly. I found this loco on a site about the locomotives of Belgium. It was built by E B Wilson & Co, the forerunners of Manning Wardle, so has a good pedigree.

E-B-Wilson-Belg-Loco.jpg
E-B-Wilson-Belg-Loco.jpg (13.55 KiB) Viewed 4595 times


I scaled the photo using the buffer height as a guide. It is near ideal. The wheel diameter and the spacing of the centre and rear axles seems to be spot on. The wheelbase at the front is unfortunately 3mm too short for the J72 chassis, but I am happy to compromise in this instance. A loco that old would more than likely have been rebuilt several times and frame extensions were not unknown, so I hope you will permit me to get away with it on this one occasion. The motor will need replacing with a smaller one and a few cosmetic changes to the underframe will be necessary, but otherwise it should not be too difficult to adapt.

The other reason for avoiding a J72 is that it gives me the opportunity to get a bit of scratch-building experience - something I will definitely need in abundance as I gradually build up a fleet of oddball machines. If I mess this one up, it won't matter too much.

The cab must be a Belgian modification, I imagine. Otherwise I will try to make it as close to the photo as I can. There is information on other E B Wilson locos on the Web. Early Manning Wardle locos followed more or less the same designs. I should be able to find enough to make a reasonably convincing model. Wish me luck!

Edit: I forgot to acknowledge the source of the photo: http://www.tassignon.be
Last edited by Armchair Modeller on Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Will L
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Here We Go..........

Postby Will L » Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:04 am

I'll be interested to see how you set about that dome!

Will

Armchair Modeller
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: Here We Go..........

Postby Armchair Modeller » Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:21 am

Dome't ask me! :o

That is what you experts are for, isn't it? :D ;)

User avatar
Will L
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Here We Go..........

Postby Will L » Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:36 am

Armchair Modeller wrote:Dome't ask me! :o

That is what you experts are for, isn't it? :D ;)


Me, expert... hum

Will

User avatar
jayell
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:20 am

Re: Here We Go..........

Postby jayell » Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:14 am

Will L wrote:I'll be interested to see how you set about that dome!l


It wouldn't be too difficult to scribe those vertical grooves in a lathe fitted with an indexing plate, would have to make a bit of a guess at the number of 'teeth' but the technical aspect of it is typical of the sort of thing clock makers do all the time.

Yet another reason why I am now regretting I sold my unimat about 10 years ago. I had fitted it with an indexing plate at the tail end of the headstock and it would have been perfectly suited to making such a dome :cry:

Armchair Modeller
Posts: 1113
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:34 pm

Re: Here We Go..........

Postby Armchair Modeller » Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:55 am

Will L wrote:
Armchair Modeller wrote:Dome't ask me! :o

That is what you experts are for, isn't it? :D ;)


Me, expert... hum

Will


So the saying "Where there's a Will, there's a way" isn't always true then? :shock:

Thanks for the encouragement, John. Another way might be to scribe something in a flat material and wrap it around a rod. The dome doesn't have to be polished brass, so once a coat of paint has been added, no one would know - provided I hide the join well enough.


Return to “Armchair Modeller”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest