Scalefour Forum

Will L wrote:it ought to flap

Why, please, Will? Wagon doors are heavy, so gravity would, I suggest, ensure that any movement, even on rough track, would be limited [perhaps a slight swing?]. If there was a significant risk to safety of nearby personnel or structures the practice would presumably been stamped out?

Noel

Noel wrote:

Will L wrote:it ought to flap

Why, please, Will? Wagon doors are heavy, so gravity would, I suggest, ensure that any movement, even on rough track, would be limited [perhaps a slight swing?]. If there was a significant risk to safety of nearby personnel or structures the practice would presumably been stamped out?

Perhaps "flap" was overs stating it, but a large wooden door hanging from hinges along the top edge would not travel as if it was rigidly attached to the wagon. Heavy they may be but rememberer that a daft you'd hardly notice will slam a haevy door.

There's a significant difference between the effort required to move a door hinged on the sides to one hinged at the top. Remember that a wagon door doesn't quite sit vertically when open and rests against the door banger. So it still has gravity working to push it against the banger. Id suggest that movement would be very minimal indeed.

Cheers

Jim

jim s-w wrote:Id suggest that movement would be very minimal indeed

Perhaps the way to find out is for someone who works on a heritage railway where there is a similar type of wagon to try it out, if they are allowed to do so. On the Leighton Buzzard Railway where I work, I have been surprised at the weight of the doors on some of our wagons although we don't have ay of the same type as the model in question.

Even it the door does move, replicating this in model form might not be easy since you are faced with the old problem of trying to scale nature. Working wagon hinges could be made quite easily but it is the mass of the door that would be difficult. A door made from plastic is likely to be too light whilst one made of white metal may be too heavy.

Terry Bendall

How about a nice suitably thin springy phospher bronze door bang with a white metal or tungsten door?

Would that provide a bit of 'flappige'? If to heavy then layered brass may work. Brass has springy factor too.

Maybe I'm full of boiler sludge but the idea in my mental (emphasis on mental!) simulation seems to work.

Only one way to find out...

I have moved drop side door wagons with the doors down when unloading ballast or spoil and the doors move a fraction on untamped track or in a rough shunt, but otherwise remain still against the door bangs. This was on a heritage railway and I was the guard/shunter for the moves.

HTH.

Phil

I'd concur with Phil O's comment. I drop the doors on a 5 plank wagon on a weekly basis and the door springs only really flex when the door is dropped from the closed position onto them. Dropping them onto the springs was the approved safe practice in BR days. You have a great deal of weight above head height and you don't want that landing on your head. It is not possible to get any deflection on the door spring once the door is down by pushing against them.

It takes two of us to shut the door again, although in the days when people were more used to physical effort one person with the knack could perhaps have done it. The notion that the door will flap about during a normal shunting move is not impossible, but I think would require very rough track or a heavy shunt. Incidentally when opening the average 'bounce' on the spring is about three. In terms of 4mm scale the door springs would effectively be solid, not phosphor bronze or similar.

Hope this helps.

Tony Comber

Thanks both.

Kind of backs up my thoughts but I admit they were not based on any experience. It seems to be the nature of the finescale mindset that we over think things and get theoretical when sometimes its easier to just ask someone who actually knows.

cheers

Jim

You lot seem to have been taking this a lot more seriously than I intended, but if you can.... Not having a full size wagon to hand, I've had a look over a few mineral wagon drawings and its not clear to me if a hanging door would remain in contact with the stops or not. The door hinge is about the widest part of the wagon, and given the way the hinge is arranged so the door falls vertically clear of the wagon floor, it must hang well outside the line of the hinge pin and if it actually did hang vertically, almost certainly clear of the stop. However it I would not hang vertically as the hinge is to one side of the door not directly underneath it, it would hang with its centre of gravity directly below the hinge pin so I expect it would lean slightly inward. Question is would that be enough to put it in contact with the stop.

I don't think the weight of the door is any bar to them at least swinging gently when in motion, quite the contrary. I agree the concept of them flapping does contains an element of hyperbole. Their weight would ensure any movement was relatively slowly, but if would also overcome any stiffness in the hinges. I would speculate that any "normal" siding is going to be rough enough to ensure the door does loose contact with the stops at some point and that the motion of the vehicle is more than enough to start them swinging a bit.

jim s-w wrote: It seems to be the nature of the finescale mindset that we over think things and get theoretical when sometimes its easier to just ask someone who actually knows.

Absolutely I expect I'll catch up with Don Roland in the next month or two I'm sure he'll put me right.

P.S. I am also aware that, given the physics of systems driven by the weight/mass of an object doesn't scale well, if you did model a hanging door that could swing, it wouldn't swing like the real thing under gravity and you'd back to the same problem as to how you make a signal arm seem to bounce. but as I said I wasn't being entirely serious...

Might be better to invest the effort into making couplings swing to scale will

Stuck with things that won't scale like gravity (perspective is another). You realise if scaleforum was held on the moon things would look far more lifelike

Jim

One solution to the scale inertia problem is to thicken the environmental medium (pre-CGI filmakers knew this well, using oil-tanks for oceans in miniature warship actions). So, why not place the whole thing underwater and let both doors and couplings 'swing' in prototypical fashion? You're already half-way there with the 'dismal day in the Midlands', Jim, so just shoe-horn the baseboards into an aquarium - built-in proscenium arch, and you might swell the numbers at the next Scaleforum with a few passing fish-fanciers!

What if? We all do it at some point usually with regards to layouts. What if such and such place had a railway or this branchline stayed open to the diesel era? What if Clapham junction was a bit smaller so that it could fit on an 8x4 sheet of plywood? Where we don't seem to do 'what if' as often is with regards to the stock itself and this is where I am heading with this post.

One of the few steam locos that appealed to me before I started Brettell Road was the Midland Flatiron or 'hole in the wall tanks'. Although not a great success the designed by ruler and no other drawing aids look of the things appealed to my interest in things that look less than pretty. While they made it to the LMS and were reboilered by them (you can tell by the square firebox and the protruding smoke box) the last of the breed went for scrap in 1938. But what if they didn't? What if at least one managed another dozen years? I could have one on Brettell Road then!

Of course the armchair experts will delight in pointing out that its wrong but we seem happy to basically make up history for locations, why not locos? Id be interested in people's thoughts on this.

Wanting to see how one would look in BR livery I got my digital crayons out and drew it. I think it looks quite smart myself.

Why not Jim? If you enjoy it go for it. We have all thought about stretching time to include favourite classes to operate on a layout.

I thought you digital scribbling looks really good!

jim s-w wrote: I think it looks quite smart myself.

It does, and once it has been suitably weathered ....

Terry Bendall

In much the same way, at 101 Not Out last weekend, there were two similar locomotive 'might-have-beens' which looked entirely believable. Pete Hill had a rewheeled Hornby Gresley 2-8-2 'Cock O' The North' in BR Express Passenger Blue whilst Roy Jackson had 2-8-2 'Mons Meg' in BR Express Passenger Green and very fine they both looked!

Gerry

It would be pretty tatty Terry. Not scrap line style weathered that many seem to do though

Jim

jim s-w wrote:Of course the armchair experts will delight in pointing out that its wrong but we seem happy to basically make up history for locations, why not locos? Id be interested in people's thoughts on this.

I quite like the look of them too. However, apparently one of their problems [common to most contemporary 0-6-4T and the LNWR 0-8-4T] was a tendency to do bad things to the track, especially track with sharp curves and in doubtful condition, sidings for example. I don't know why the problem existed; was it perhaps something to do with the bogie design limiting its movement?

I like that
I glued a Wills Flatiron body sort of together when I was but a child!
IF you invent a line of rail, it obviously never really existed - But all the locomotives that did really exist were already busy elsewhere , so in one way you have to invent engines in order to fill your locomotive rostering requirement....

I want to depict some sort of activity within the current building or at least evidence of it either about to occur or that it's just occurred (luckily the vans will block the view when the place is the most active) . So I need some way for my mini workers to move stuff around.



These barrows and sack trucks are from Scalelink and depict items of Midland origin. I thickened up the wheels on some using old handwheels from various etches as a single etch didn't seem thick enough. On the larger sack trucks I couldn't figure out how the mount for the wheels was supposed to fit, you can see my best guess on the one lying down. On the others I just mounted the axles on plasticard blocks as mounting them on blocks seemed to be more in keeping with a picture of something similar in LMS miscellany bu H. N. Twells. the wheels on the last barrow were supplied as a flat etch so I used some of Colin Craigs handwheels instead as they had a better look. I think the rear wheels are actually too far forward now its built mind you.

Incidentally the brown used for these is from Halfords range of camouflage spray paints and would make quite a good basis for general track colour if you are looking for something for this.



A spot of research showed fork lift trucks to be a lot older than I thought they were so I figured that the owners of the building had got hold of one to move stuff around. My idea is that the building was originally a factory of some sort but now being used as a warehouse so a make do approach seems more sensible than everything being designed for a purpose.  Anyway this is a JPG Models kit backdated to look like a generic earlier forklift. I ditched the safety cage and added a grill on the side and some vents on the back as it seemed that the earlier fork lifts tended to be more like this.

Well the bullet has been bitten and a flatiron kit is sitting in my to do pile. Slight problem though is that the supplied coupling rods are wrong. They are backwards! The flatirons had the knuckle in front of the middle boss not behind it. The uneven wheelbase means you can't just fit them backwards (8ft + 8ft 6) and the design of the rods is a bit iffy anyway (the knuckle is cosmetic and the pivoting is done on the crank pin)

Any suggestions on an alternative or will I have to draw up my own?

Regards

Jim

I wouldn't worry too much about the coupling rods being pivoted on the centre crankpin as some prototypes were like this. However, it is possible to arrange properly jointed rods by soldering the layers together as if for rigid rods and drilling through for a pivot (rivet or soldered pin to taste), then sawing halfway through and separating the layers in the appropriate place. Then you can file off the offending knuckle joint and build it up on the other side of the crankpin where you have arranged the pivot. This all sound like a frightful bodge but so long as the rods are strong and the appearance is good... I think this might be less expensive than drawing up some new rods?

Alternatively (and this might be my option) you might ignore the fact that the pivot is in the wrong place. After all, this is a 'might have been' and the engine will look the same as the prototype unless you look very closely. If it had survived the coupling rods might well have been altered. And how many people will know, even less how many will notice? If you hadn't mentioned it...

The third alternative is that others may offer etchings for rods of the correct orientation (Alan Gibson, Brassmasters, Comet?).

Looking forward to seeing this little monster in due course. I remember seeing this in a Railway Modeller article as (I think) the subject of Nick Freezer's first locomotive kit build. Plus the lovely picture of the completed kit in the Wills catalogue.

Philip

As Phillip mentioned there is always other suppliers out there, a solution may be the Alan Gibson universal coupling rods for a couple of quid. It may be quicker, easier than drawing them up yourself!

Though I am impressed that so many people do seem capable to do the drawings themselves.

I haven't posted for a while but I have been busy. Generally I'm not really a fan of layouts with lights as many of them tend to look like Christmas trees. Its the reason why most of the lights on New Street don't work and besides as New Street is set in the day the lights wouldn't be on in the real world either so why have them on on the model? However for Brettell Road it will be set at night so I needed some. I found some decent looking ones on Ebay and today I have got round to fitting some. The results of these efforts can be seen below.

jim s-w wrote:... besides as New Street is set in the day the lights wouldn't be on in the real world either so why have them on on the model?

It's a long time since I worked in Birmingham, Jim, so my memory may be at fault, but I seem to remember that the platform lights in the substantial covered area of New Street were on 24/7, because of the gloom under the low roof, even on a bright day...

The ones under the roof were indeed Noel. They do work on the model but the others don't.

Cheers

Jim