Knuckles's Wagon Building Log

[Noel]

Thanks for the photos, Knuckles. The one of the GWR van has answered an unrelated question for me (probably, anyway). To revert to the roof, it is showing the outline of the planks under the canvas. This may just be its age but may well be because the roof has been recovered at some time since preservation, and the changes in available technology and materials meant that they did not use the same techniques or materials as were used when it was built.

There are other things which should not be taken at face value. To start with, my copy of GWR Wagons says the number belongs to a much earlier van; I suspect that the one pictured is actually a BR 1/502 van renumbered. Later it has had a vacuum through pipe fitted, probably, assuming the buffers with extension collars were fitted at the same time, in 1955-6 [an alteration made to 1/502 vans, but not, I understand, to the pre-nationalisation equivalents]. It has also lost the balcony sandboxes, and, apparently, the seat between them [and presumably the sandboxes at the other end]. The colour is much too light for GWR wagon grey, and the locations of GW/56831 and the tare weight have been transposed.

Noel

[jim s-w]

I am of the opnion that some texture should be present in 4mm scale and definately so in 7mm scale. I'm far from convinced by the print yourself style building kits for our scale as while they look great presented on a forum or in a magazine that's a 2d environment so it's going to. In full real life 3D the difference is obvious.

Bills point about normal viewing distance is valid but also a little out of date. Valid because you can't always see texture from the usual viewing distance of a few feet at a show but out of date because normal viewing distance these days is not at a show at all it's though a camera and is often larger than life. Even if you cant see it it can drastically effect weathering later in the build which you can see.

Keep up the good work

Jim

[Armchair Modeller]

That's certainly true. Editors of magazines seem to love the closest possible shots of models these days - even in smaller scales.

Going back to Knuckles' modelling though - you only really learn by having a go. I get the impression that many people in Scalefour are too frightened even to start modelling anything in P4 because it is unlikely to be up to the standards of the very best. It is great that Knuckles not only is prepared to have a go, but is brave enough to show the results of his endeavours on here.

That is a great example to follow.

[Knuckles]

Many thanks guys.

I was scared of P4 at first and did a lot of research, it was the constant nagging of 00 chunky track and pizza cutter steam roller wheels that eventually tipped me off the edge.

You will be pleased to know then, that my next installment will feature a monumental balls up. A lesson of how to completely fudge something to ruin, and subsequently how to fix it!

I don't mind showing my cock ups - you can avoid my mistakes then.

[Paul Willis]

You will be pleased to know then, that my next installment will feature a monumental balls up. A lesson of how to completely fudge something to ruin, and subsequently how to fix it!

I don't mind showing my cock ups - you can avoid my mistakes then.

Watch out! With that attitude I'll have you writing for No.1 Shop next...

=:-0
Flymo

[Knuckles]

Unsure how you mean, I don't get you. :-/ Probably a joke I should get. I'm a dope at times I know.
The balls up isn't quite as drastic as I may have gave impression, but bad enough.

[shipbadger]

Hi all,

Just to go back to the roof covering business for a moment. Noel has provided one account of how it used to be, if you want to see the problems of covering roofs today http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/blueb ... _roof.html provides a good starting point. I suspect the original paste contained a proportion of white lead. Wagons on heritage railways are usually way down the 'pecking order' for restoration/repairs/maintainance (unless an individual/small group work on stock they own) so the usual response when the rain comes in is to nip down to the diy shed and buy a blue plastic polytarp. If you're lucky it may last a year. Having learned that that doesn't work and still seeking a quick and cheap remedy roofing felt is then nailed on (even sometimes the mineralised stuff. I've just spent the day next to a Shark so treated). If done tidily this may pass for a while (well not the mineralised stuff) and as it fades to a grey can pass muster but if the wagon is moved around the flexing of the body (those tired old joints) cause the felt to split. Even if not moved just like your shed roof it will eventually need replacing. At this point there may be another cycle of blue polytarp etc.. The next stage may be to re-canvas (see the website and links above for possible materials), this may be a proper job or the material applied and given a number of coats of paint after application.

The two photos posted earlier are interesting in that you should not be seeing the planks of the Toad roof. These may be new planks insufficiently prepared or old planks which have been re-covered whilst wet and still swollen. The Queen Mary roof looks much better, but notice how difficult it is to avoid wrinkles. 'Steam era' wagon shops did the job day in and day out and generally but not always managed to avoid this.

And the moral of all this is; looking at photos from heritage railways is not always a good guide as to what the railway of yesteryear did. Sometimes the realities of preservation mean that things aren't what they used to be.

Tony Comber
DFR wagon restoration team

[Knuckles]

Some good points. And a good addition to a previous post regarding the old methods. I've tried to find older pics as a responce. I'll stop soon though otherwise this thread will just end up a prototype archive for van roofs.

If modern preserved vans are done differently, what about this roof...



Not as clear I know but there are still ripples and creases. Above the left door is a bunch of them.

Unsure if this one is a preserved example or an old roof, but much texture is evident. Probably the best found thus far...(cant use img codes for this one)

http://m.flickr.com/#/photos/svr_enthusiast/5494865582/

A prominent ripple to the left and an obvious overhqng crease at the right, plus general textured look.


Again, unsure if it's surviving or done the modern way but plenty of roof detail.

[Knuckles]

OK, Back to 4mm.

The first wagon is actually one you have seen before, only last time it had no numbers and the 'NW' was much much smaller. It was grating at me so I decided to give it a small make over to fit the 'company style' I've invented. Kind of a cross between GW for the lettering and SR for the tare weight and serial number positions, yet, NW. Eeugh.

So, I've re weathered it to look a little newer. Still has my buggered plank that I quite like.




This other one is a new one, this time fitted with one fixed axle per instructions and the other with a Bill Bedford unit. The van I did like this runs well so I thought I'd try a straight build like it also. A SR prototype this time and weathered a lot. I can imagine 'Cond' ' being chalked on soon. Apart from plain excuse there is actually a fair reason why a SR wagon is in fictitious NW livery, but I won't go into that here. The first wagon is plain grey with black under frame iron work, and the second is the same but with black strapping. I model both styles.



The rear of them both at the most interesting side. At the left wagon is some severe rusting complete with paint crazing (Learnt a new word, thanks Flymo )
This effect also to my eye gives a rust effect that is probably way out of scale, but I like it. Varnish sprays and too much glue sometimes give similar effects and I haven't perfected a perfect job yet. On wagons however, I don't mind and sometimes do it on purpose.

To the right is the new build wagon. Here I scribed some plank detail in two of them because I've seen this before on the prototype and rather like the visual contrast it gives. Also, a 'new' plank has replaced an old one, or rather I've painted it in. Really easy to do by the way. Couplings are yet to be added, but that isn't going to interest you so for the sake of this upload, it's complete. There is a pip on the buffer I see, must file that off.

[Noel]

Knuckles, you may wish to consider what happens to the wagon brakes on 59172 when the lever is pushed down... I assume that it has morton brake, given the lever you have used, so it should have a cross shaft; I am not sure from the photo if it does? The lift-link brake on 54102 should also have a cross-shaft.

Noel

[BorderCounties]

Knuckles

By "applying" the brake, the cam on the lever will cause the cross shaft to rotate anti-clockwise therefore the brakeblocks will move away from the wheel tread. This side of the wagon requires the plain lever. No doubt we've all been there at some time.

[Knuckles]

Bugger is the word.

Why did the kit give me it then if it cant be used? To my recollection I only had one of each although I may be wrong.

I have some spare levers luckily. (EDIT: Brake lever removed and replaced. EDIT2: Painted it black then rubbed some powder into it whilst wet. Sorted. )

I have fitted a cross shaft thing as I thought all wagons had them? I admit my knowledge here is lacking.

[billbedford]

Why on earth would anyone want to use one fixed axle and one sprung?

With such an arrangement the body will follow the fixed axle over any track irregularities, thus negating most of the advantages of using springs.

[Knuckles]

Because Bill, I like to experiment and re-invent the wheel if nessasary. I asked a question on a thread and no one answered, so I thought I'd answer it myself.
I trust nothing and no one easily, no matter how well established a method may be. I do listen and take advice, but only when I'm convinced of it. Sometimes that means doing things the hard way.

My experience lacking verdict so far:
Fully sprung - Great.
One sprung one fixed - Fairly good.
One fixed one compensated - Ok.
All fixed - Apart from some rare exceptions, naff.

I don't always want to go the whole hog, it depends what I'm doing. Pragmatism and time cutting is involved, especially being a one man band.
It's clear by reading almost every post you make you have the clear agenda of, 'buy my spring units', and to be honest I like them very much, but other methods are liked by some also. As it happens, one sprung and one fixed is working out for me currently,

[Noel]

Knuckles, I'm not sure when your layout is set, so please excuse me if some of what follows is irrelevant or already known to you.

Early wagons had wooden brake blocks, often only one, sometimes two, rigidly attached to an arm pivoted on the solebar. There would be a brake lever on the side with the brake block only. Later cast iron blocks were introduced, with a central attachment point for a push rod and an end point for pivotting on the arm attaching them to the underframe. Since they blocks matched the wheel coning they were handed. Later the blocks were given another pivot point at the other end so they could be used either way up, so did not need to be handed. Older wagons with earlier versions stayed in service for quite a long time. Your wagons show the last type.

Brakes on one side only were responsible for many accidents to staff, so around the end of the 19th century wagons started to be fitted with brakes on both sides. Existing wagons were often fitted with a lever and single brake block on the unbraked side, which might be to a different design from the existing brakes. New wagons were fitted with a considerable variety of designs, which eventually were limited to two principal types.

The either side brake [also known as independent or traders' brakes] has two identical sets, reading from the outside in, plain lever, v-hanger on the outside of the solebar, v-hanger on the inside of the solebar, brake blocks [repeat on the other side]. There is no cross shaft, as the brakes act in opposite directions on the two sides. The other approach used the morton brake. Reading across the wagon, this used a plain brake lever, v-hanger inside the solebar, cross shaft, brake blocks, v-hanger inside the other solebar, brake lever with a clutch to reverse its action, so that both brake levers made the cross shaft rotate in the same direction. The brake blocks are normally on the side with the clutch. The lift link lever is an alternative way of reversing the action of one lever. The early version of this type of brake had levers which both pointed to the same end, so that one was left handed as you looked at the wagon side; with this both levers were plain as both rotated the cross shaft the same way. The Board of Trade didn't like this and eventually insisted on right handed levers on both sides.

The GW, as usual, did its own thing, with various varieties of Dean-Churchward "DC" brake. I will spare you the complications resulting from the introduction of power brakes, except to note that there were, pre-grouping, two completely incompatible types, vacuum and air. Long wheelbase and bogie vehicles commonly used further varieties of brakes.

I hope this makes sense; I have greatly simplified some areas to be as brief as possible [!]. If someone doesn't beat me to it I will try and post some illustrations later.

Noel

[Paul Willis]

It's clear by reading almost every post you make you have the clear agenda of, 'buy my spring units', and to be honest I like them very much, but other methods are liked by some also. As it happens, one sprung and one fixed is working out for me currently,

Hi Knuckles,

One point of clarification - Bill's spring units are now produced and sold by Eileen's Emporium, so Bill certainly has no financial interest in pushing full-springing to the exclusion of anything else. So the perspective that he comes from is that of a springing enthusiast.

FWIW, my view is that there is nothing wrong with your dose of pragmatism, and your "ranking" of the different types of suspension is a fair summary if the "ideal" is either unworkable or unaffordable 100% of the time. And yes, in an ideal world I'd also be using BB springing on all wagons, but I have 50 or a 100 or so already built with compensation and I'm *not* converting that lot in a hurry...

Cheers
Flymo

[Armchair Modeller]

I tried wagon compensation in 2mm scale and found it seriously wanting as a concept. I was very surprised therefore to find that it is openly encouraged in the "Moving To Scalefour" booklet and that compensation units are sold in the Scalefour Stores.

I guess the lower mass of 2mm models does tend to emphasise the problems. Nevertheless, the compensated axle seems particularly prone to derailing, as there is very little resistance to wheels climbing up the side of the rail and over the top - far less than with a rigid axle. This is only overcome by putting a large amount of weight in the wagons.

[Knuckles]

Big thanks Noel, I appreciate you taking the time to write all that out, and no doubt there will be others who will need the information. I'll try to digest it more on my next build and implement things correctly.

I don't mind if Bill is trying to push springing, I too am a springing fan. I buy the units from Eileens also but surely profit goes to Bill? They are afterall his design, with which I'm rather fond of. Anyway, it's none of my buisness where money goes, it just seems I can never read one of Bill's posts without it seeming rather overt in percieved intensions and abit pushy or condescending. No offence intended.

Something else I meant to say in responce is I have found on some wagons, fitting sprung W-irons is not always the best option. It really does depend on the wagon and how easy it will be to do, also correct design and compatable patturn combinations need to be considered. At least that's what I've found so far.

I agree full that fully sprung is best for running qualities and visual roll satisfaction, but I don't agree that it's always the best as a conversion or build option, depending on several factors.

My 'invention' (unless others beat me too it - likely) I guess you could call, 'Luxury Compensation!

[Noel]

Illustrations as promised.

A Cambrian GWR loco coal wagon with morton brake.

Loco coal.JPG

A Slaters tank with either side brake.

Tank.JPG

I hope they are clear enough.

On springing at one end only, have you seen Brian Morgan's article in News180? Some chassis are now available via the Stores.

Noel

[Guy Rixon]

I have fitted a cross shaft thing as I thought all wagons had them? I admit my knowledge here is lacking.

By no means all wagons had cross-shafts in the brake gear. Early wagons generally had brakes on one side only, even if both wheels on that side were braked. Later, when the RCH insisted on brakes on both sides, the offending wagons were typically converted by adding an independent set of brakes on the "empty" side, with no shaft to link them to the original brakes.

Most (all?) PO mineral wagons built after 1923 had independent brakes on each side from new. I don't know whether this was cheaper (seems unlikely, but see note on patents, below), or done to avoid fouling the bottom doors.

As noted already in this thread, a cross-shaft implies a clutch arrangement to let the levers work independently on each side. The clutch was patented and fees applied to its use. There were actually two clutches, the visually-obvious one on the side where the lever motion was reversed and a discreet one on the other side.

[Noel]

Probably most mineral wagons [until BR decided in the early 1950s it didn't need any more] had bottom doors. When BR ceased building mineral wagons with bottom doors they switched to morton brake. I don't have drawings for the 1923 RCH wooden wagons, but for most steel minerals with bottom doors the doors were big enough to have fouled a cross shaft. I don't know what fee, if any, was payable for the use of morton brake, but, in view of its widespead use, it was presumably small. This cost would then have to be balanced against the cost of providing extra ironwork for a second independent set of brakes. It is possibly relevant, though, that none of the big oil companies used morton brakes; tank wagons with morton brake, although not totally unknown, seem to have been very rare indeed.

Noel

[Guy Rixon]

Thanks Noel. I guess that most of the class-B tank wagons had bottom-discharge gear which got in the way of the cross-shaft and the class-A tanks used the same brake-gear as class B for consistency.

I've seen a reference to Morton's clutch coming into use in the 1880s, so I assume that any patent would have expired by WW1.

[billbedford]

Because Bill, I like to experiment and re-invent the wheel if nessasary. I asked a question on a thread and no one answered, so I thought I'd answer it myself.
I trust nothing and no one easily, no matter how well established a method may be. I do listen and take advice, but only when I'm convinced of it. Sometimes that means doing things the hard way.

My experience lacking verdict so far:
Fully sprung - Great.
One sprung one fixed - Fairly good.
One fixed one compensated - Ok.
All fixed - Apart from some rare exceptions, naff.

I don't always want to go the whole hog, it depends what I'm doing. Pragmatism and time cutting is involved, especially being a one man band.
It's clear by reading almost every post you make you have the clear agenda of, 'buy my spring units', and to be honest I like them very much, but other methods are liked by some also. As it happens, one sprung and one fixed is working out for me currently,

You've certainly reinvented the wheel and come up with something that's not quite as round as it could be.

You also seemed to have missed the fact that when propelling rafts of wagons through point work compensated wagons are more likely to derail than fixed ones, so your observations don't have the same rigour as others have applied in the last 10 -20 years.

But do carry on -- it's always entertaining to watch tyros telling grannies how to suck eggs.

[beachboy]

Knuckles,

You may be modelling a ' what may have been ', as the NWR existed in the mid 1800's to build the Ingleton to Lower Gill line in N Yorks. But had to sell up prior to construction. I believe the LNWR lost out to the Midland to operate it. It runs parallel to the Settle Carlise, with some nice viaducts / scenery.

Steve.

[Knuckles]

Your the first granny I know of called Bill, if your head gets any bigger you may be in danger of burning it on the light bulb.

Interestingly if compensation is so evil why is the society supporting it? (for the past 10-20 plus years)...wait, I've read this before on another thread. My current layout is small so it doesn't make a difference, and as for 'rigour', maybe not, but I'm not teaching anyone how to go P4, I'm recording my efforts and subsequent findings.

I document what I do, not because I think I know better, but because it's what I do. We can all learn a thing or two whether something is considered a good thing to implement, or a bad thing to avoid, it's partly why I do so, so we can all learn. If that means making a fool of myself in some peoples eyes then so be it.

Thanks Noel and the others. There is a lot of info to digest and as I said above, on my next build I'll try to implement things. Your pictures help a lot. I can see how the cam works now and also it seems I will be removing some of the cross shafts from a few wagons. Easy job.