20220102_120737.jpg
20220102_120810.jpg
20211228_203026_resized.jpg
timlewis wrote:For steel underframes and all the gubbins, try Rumney Models. Beautifully etched and a pleasure to build.
Tim
Daddyman wrote:I think they're both different versions of the LMS dia 1/200 vans, but one has the (seemingly very rare) vertical framing on the door, as seen here:
Daddyman wrote:If Zebedee's Knees are around, could I ask if this (in red) is one of two torque reaction links on the Coronation? Is it a design you would still use, and use with a CSB-ed 0-4-0, or would you do something differently now?
Capture.PNG
zebedeesknees wrote: provided it pivots freely at both ends
zebedeesknees wrote: the pivots should not be too well engineered
Daddyman wrote:Thank you. A couple of questions...zebedeesknees wrote: provided it pivots freely at both ends
I can't quite see from the photo the arrangement at the non-gearbox end.
zebedeesknees wrote: the pivots should not be too well engineered
By which I assume you mean the wire should not be an interference fit in the gearbox frame? That suggests that your design doesn't rely on the wires flexing, as I'd originally understood - rather, they're rigid and all the movement occurs in the joints?
Thanks again!
Daddyman wrote:...By which I assume you mean the wire should not be an interference fit in the gearbox frame? That suggests that your design doesn't rely on the wires flexing, as I'd originally understood - rather, they're rigid and all the movement occurs in the joints?
Daddyman wrote:Could anyone help me identify these wagons, please?
John Palmer wrote: If vents were visible before cropping on the roof of the leading van in the first picture then this is likely to be a Diag. 2108 vehicle rather than Diag. 2097, as this is noted as the difference between these diagrams in Essery and Morgan's 'The LMS Wagon'. Can't speak as to the BR version's ventilation.
In the second photograph the second vehicle certainly looks like a LNER van but escaping steam is unfortunately obscuring detail that might assist identification. However, there appears to be a fairly prominent splice plate just below eaves level to the left of the door. This could indicate that this is one of the batch built by Charles Roberts to Diag. 14 (Peter Tatlow's 'LNER Wagons' Vol 4A, p.116), or a Faverdale-built Diag. 161 (same volume pp.128 and 130). Or instead, the plate could simply have been added as part of an in-service repair. If part of a rake of five attached to a passenger train, then scarcely likely to be one of the 9' WB, non-fitted Charlers Roberts vans.
Third vehicle in second photograph has a chalkboard at l/h end of the side, suggesting that this may a LNE Diag.83 or 143 fish van (same volume, pp. 148 and 9).
Daddyman wrote:Could anyone help me identify these wagons, please?
I think they're both different versions of the LMS dia 1/200 vans, but one has the (seemingly very rare) vertical framing on the door, as seen here:
https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brlmsvan
Daddyman wrote:This very helpful blog shows how to do the bodies - or at least the horizontal-framed doors:
https://windcutter.wordpress.com/2012/0 ... e-lms-van/
Daddyman wrote:What non-plastic sources exist for brake gear or underframe? I'd like to use Bedford spring units (is the prototype fitted with 1923 RCH W-irons? EDIT: no, looks more like BWF080/4 BR sprung open) and brass brake gear, but am not very up on LMS wagons. Would the MT LMS brake etch be suitable, or does someone do all the underframe in one go?
Porcy Mane wrote: Lovely work BTW.
Daddyman wrote:I agree that vehicles 3 and 4 in the train are D.143s (or are they actually 134s? I think there's a typo: pp.143 and145 call them D.134s), but your identification on the D.14 is possible.
Daddyman wrote:The Ratio kit is on its way, alas. Will end up being a £30+ wagon... But a nice break from metalwork.
Noel wrote:I don't know what is happening in the photo, but all the sliding doors are open, which was not unknown when shunting, but definitely not usual while in transit. The LNER were running the NSR from 1939, so I would expect their rules to apply. Shunting, therefore?
Users browsing this forum: ClaudeBot and 0 guests