A Highland Miscellany

Mark Tatlow
Posts: 897
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:24 pm

Re: A Highland Miscellany

Postby Mark Tatlow » Tue Jun 09, 2020 7:22 pm

Paul Cram wrote:
Are you missing a half etch line on the side of the bogie at the bottom right? I presume that this would fold up.


Paul - thanks for that. It wasn't an intentional mistake; it was just a mistake!!!
Mark Tatlow

User avatar
Julian Roberts
Posts: 1388
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:33 pm

Re: A Highland Miscellany

Postby Julian Roberts » Sun Jul 11, 2021 11:59 am

Mark Tatlow wrote:As a diversion from the lever frame, I have made a start on the first bit of civils required for Glenmutchkin. To segmentalise the layout and create more room for descrete vistas and cameos, I intend to introduce an overbridge in the throat of the station. This will mean that you can not see what is happening at the station approaches/loco shed end from the platform end and vice versa.

The bridge is in fact modelled on the one at Killiecrankie, but there were very similar ones at The Mound, Kyle of Lochalsh, Keith amongst others. Heres a picture of the Kyle one:



Hi Mark

I've only just started to study this thread, rather late in the day I see it is rich in ideas for my Kyle shed layout. This quote is on Page 4. I'm going to need the same pattern of lattice girder, so could I ask how you made it? - in brief terms I mean - is there an etch available somewhere?
Screenshot_20210711-130027_Chrome.jpg

I see you pay attention to the courses lining up at the corners of the wingwalls. Just for a laugh here is a pic of part of the bridge at Beck Houses near Grayrigg on a bike ride yesterday - obviously not the same part, hopefully not dodgy.
20210710_145519.jpg


Lovely signals! - I'm going to need the exact same pair of shunt signals to leave the yard, plus a gantry of four and a set of three in the cutting.

I wonder if you're making an interlocking lever frame for Glenmutchkin.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Mark Tatlow
Posts: 897
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:24 pm

Re: A Highland Miscellany

Postby Mark Tatlow » Mon Jul 12, 2021 7:59 am

Hi Julian,

The lattice girder came from parts drawn up by Alistair Wright many many moons ago. They are not in either the elements that went to Lochgorm Models or (I think) in what went to the new owner of 5522 Models. They are probably thus lost.

It is something I have been thinking about, as a lattice girder bridge is something that ought to be of use to a load of other people. I will let you know if I confront it at some point.

Many of the bridges on the WCML where renewed when the line was originally electrified; especially the phase 2 electrification north of Crewe. I too hope there is some bonding somehow between the sections of the bridge parapet and the wing wall parapet!

I can offer more joy with the signals as these have been made with parts from my range and that of MSE, so they are still capable of being replicated.


Mark
Mark Tatlow

charleswrigley
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:49 pm

Re: A Highland Miscellany

Postby charleswrigley » Mon Jul 12, 2021 11:42 am

With my Lochgorm Kits hat on, I have retrieved a girder from my garage. However, at 35 x 285mm I rather suspect that is a 7mm scale version of Alistair Wright's original. I do have a 'Girder Bridge" listed in my stock of phototools which I again suspect is 7mm scale. I may have the artwork somewhere in its original 4mm form or it could be possible to rescale the 7mm artwork. Either way I don't think that the girder bridge has disappeared in toto but I wouldn't guarantee to produce one right away.

Hope this helps

Charlie

IMG_1205.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Daddyman
Posts: 740
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:09 pm

Re: A Highland Miscellany

Postby Daddyman » Mon Jul 12, 2021 4:19 pm

charleswrigley wrote:With my Lochgorm Kits hat on, I have retrieved a girder from my garage. However, at 35 x 285mm I rather suspect that is a 7mm scale version of Alistair Wright's original. I do have a 'Girder Bridge" listed in my stock of phototools which I again suspect is 7mm scale. I may have the artwork somewhere in its original 4mm form or it could be possible to rescale the 7mm artwork. Either way I don't think that the girder bridge has disappeared in toto but I wouldn't guarantee to produce one right away.

Hope this helps

Charlie

IMG_1205.JPG

Could I ask what the state of play is with the 4mm locos in the Lochgorm range?

Phil O
Posts: 363
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 5:23 pm

Re: A Highland Miscellany

Postby Phil O » Mon Jul 12, 2021 8:18 pm

It's possible to scratch build lattice bridges, have a look at the Manchester Central and Castlefield viaduct thread and similar threads by Ron Heggs on RMweb. Sorry no link, but the guy is truly inspirational, with what he does with plastic strip.

Cheers Phil.

PS, you may find that his load testing methods are also enlightening.

Phil O
Posts: 363
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 5:23 pm

Re: A Highland Miscellany

Postby Phil O » Tue Jul 13, 2021 7:31 am

Further to my post above, here's the link to Ron's exquisite structural modelling.

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index ... ent-296162

In his signature box are links to other structure builds.

Cheers

Phil.

User avatar
Julian Roberts
Posts: 1388
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:33 pm

Re: A Highland Miscellany

Postby Julian Roberts » Tue Jul 13, 2021 9:29 am

Many thanks chaps. I've sent a PM Charles. Inspirational indeed Phil. :)

User avatar
Paul Willis
Forum Team
Posts: 3031
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: A Highland Miscellany

Postby Paul Willis » Fri Jul 16, 2021 7:55 pm

Mark Tatlow wrote:Hi Julian,

The lattice girder came from parts drawn up by Alistair Wright many many moons ago. They are not in either the elements that went to Lochgorm Models or (I think) in what went to the new owner of 5522 Models. They are probably thus lost.


Hi Mark,

I've had a look at the master spreadsheet that I wrote up of the various elements of the 5522 range that I acquired, and there is an entry described as "Footbridge diagonal (Weedon)" on tool 2460.

I had a test etch, sight unseen, of this sheet done a few years ago. Apart for 15 LMS bogies, and some LMS coach ends, it produced a pair of the sorts of lattice sides that you would have coming down the sides of steps to the platform. Not the lattice girders themselves.

I'm afraid that I can't identify anything else on the master list that comes close. Having been and looked through the entire stock of etches yesterday, there's nothing in any of the other test etches that I have had which looks even vaguely like them either. The existing artwork is spread between Grange & Hodder, PEC and Chempix as producers as well, so I wouldn't even know who to start asking about the history of any girders.

Sorry to draw a blank on this one.
Paul
Beware of Trains - occasional modelling in progress!
www.5522models.co.uk

davebradwell
Posts: 1173
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:48 pm

Re: A Highland Miscellany

Postby davebradwell » Sat Jul 17, 2021 2:07 pm

Suggest, Paul, you check with Chempix (now Precision Micro) that they still have your tools. When I finally had to retrieve mine from them they'd chucked several away that had not been used for a while. Not too bad where there's a digital master, although presentation needs changing, but some were the result of some deft camera work by Phil Jennings. I believe PEC have a camera, still, but that's rare now.

DaveB

Mark Tatlow
Posts: 897
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:24 pm

Re: A Highland Miscellany

Postby Mark Tatlow » Sun Jan 16, 2022 4:39 pm

Some time back I posted about the construction of a NER autocoach that I was building for Benfieldside and subsequently what it looked like once painted by Warren Heywood. https://highlandmiscellany.com/2021/03/ ... paintshop/

The NER generally used these in pairs, with a loco sandwiched between, although they did go out singly and even as quads. In this case, the Benfieldside team wish to operate them as a pair, as the bay to the right of the layout is conceived to receive such a train, with a NER / LNER G6 in between. This means that there was pressure to build the second from the moment I handed the first over. They have recently given me a favour, so it was high time I repaid it.

It is now completed down to the final check over stage (which has indicated that I need to put the steam heating pipes on – doh!) and then it can be delivered. So I have braved the fading light this afternoon (so sorry about some of the depth of field issues) to take a few pictures and to prove to the fellas it is done!

IMG_0590 (2).JPG

I completed a few personal upgrades to the kit in both this and the earlier autocoach. Chief of these is around the roof where I ditched the plastic roof and replaced it with rolled brass. This was formed of 0.25mm to give it a tangible depth, which makes its rolling a fair challenge. Add to this, I elected to cut out the portion below the clerestory, so that it was a clerestory! By the time I had added the gas lines and the various gas lamps and ventilators, I reckon there is around 20 hours in making the roof alone!

IMG_0593 (2).JPG

The prototype coaches were fairly long lived and numerous. They thus collected a good number of alterations and differences over time. I took some guidance to David Addyman and tweaked the kit in respect of gas lines, foot steps, handrails, footboards and gas cylinders. If someone thinks this is wrong, please don’t tell me!!

IMG_0594 (2).JPG

It always amuses me that the driver had to stand and peer down the line through two tiny windows. They lived in different times – could you imagine the snow-flakes tolerating this in the 21st century?

IMG_0592 (2).JPG

These are rather beautiful coaches, but not for the feint-hearted as there is a lot of time invested in these. I am pleased I do not have to paint it!

IMG_0662 (2).JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Mark Tatlow

Daddyman
Posts: 740
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:09 pm

Re: A Highland Miscellany

Postby Daddyman » Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:32 pm

Mark Tatlow wrote: The prototype coaches were fairly long lived and numerous. They thus collected a good number of alterations and differences over time. I took some guidance to David Addyman and tweaked the kit in respect of gas lines, foot steps, handrails, footboards and gas cylinders. If someone thinks this is wrong, please don’t tell me!!

It looks about right to me, Mark, and consistent with your period - gas hoods on the roof, bogie and centre steps/footboards in the higher position, early end details. You just need a whistle!

I make roofs in 10 thou for ease of rolling, and then thicken them up around all the edges with 2-mm-wide strips of 5 thou.

User avatar
Chas Levin
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2021 9:39 pm

Re: A Highland Miscellany

Postby Chas Levin » Sun Jan 16, 2022 6:14 pm

Beautiful coach, Mark! :)
Chas

Mark Tatlow
Posts: 897
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:24 pm

Re: A Highland Miscellany

Postby Mark Tatlow » Sun Jan 16, 2022 8:13 pm

Daddyman wrote:It looks about right to me, Mark, and consistent with your period - gas hoods on the roof, bogie and centre steps/footboards in the higher position, early end details. You just need a whistle!

I make roofs in 10 thou for ease of rolling, and then thicken them up around all the edges with 2-mm-wide strips of 5 thou.


Thanks David.

I did think about your holy grail (the clerestory handrails) but as I struggled to see them in the photographs and decided they were firmly for a different lifetime!!

One of the other reasons I used thicker material for the roof is that it is weakened a lot by the cut outs at the clerestory. I might well give your approach a try though, as it really is difficult to make them!
Mark Tatlow

DougN
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:57 am

Re: A Highland Miscellany

Postby DougN » Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:09 am

Lovely coach Mark.
I will keep an eye out for a couple to go with my G5 and G6( both which need to be finished and started respectively) It shows that every kit can be improved in some ways. I have a couple of these clerestories which may be part back dated to be 1923 to 1930's in NER plum as I have a tin of it. As I am really not sure what livery they would have been in during the LNER ownership. Could be Brown painted (yuck), Faux teak, or weathered NER Plum. I think we as modelers stick too rigidly to periods. Yes they would have changed but on visits to works but this could have been a a number of years Along with the economic cost to repaint rollingstock from the top link down to backwater services.

Saying the above one of the local modelers of the NE region thinks he can remember NER plum on coaches into the 1950's, Yes he is of the older generation! It is getting evidence of the speed of change is the hard thing.

Any how all the best and happy new year to every one.
Doug
Still not doing enough modelling

Daddyman
Posts: 740
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:09 pm

Re: A Highland Miscellany

Postby Daddyman » Mon Jan 17, 2022 7:48 am

Mark Tatlow wrote: I did think about your holy grail (the clerestory handrails) but as I struggled to see them in the photographs and decided they were firmly for a different lifetime!!

Yes, I thought it wasn't fair to mention that, and I certainly wouldn't hold its omission against anyone!

Mark Tatlow
Posts: 897
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:24 pm

Re: A Highland Miscellany

Postby Mark Tatlow » Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:04 am

Hi Doug,

Others more knowledgeable than me can comment but I suspect that the only NER clerestories still in existence in the 1950s were the pair that were used as miner's carriages at the pit that used them. These were both preserved initially at Beamish but one at least is at Kirby Stephen on the Stainmore line at the moment. I don't know what livery they were in during this era, mind.

I would be pretty surprised if the NER plum lasted into the 1930s. I think there is a belief that some might have picked up faux teak but most went into the fawn in the years after grouping.

Speaking more for the railway on the west side of the country; there is plenty of evidence of pre-grouping liveries on loco's in 1928 and a small amount in 1929. Coaches have been less well charted but I suspect will follow by a couple of years. Goods stock may well have had faded examples well beyond this. There is also occasional evidence of later paint coats of paint fading away to reveal earlier liveries below- often from decades before!

Things to look out for are the change of lighting along with the attendant chances in lamps/gas cylinders etc, changes to foot steps/handrails and some beading changes. David tells me that the D&S kit is a slight mongrel with some elements from LNER days and others from NER.
Mark Tatlow

Terry Bendall
Forum Team
Posts: 2416
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:46 am

Re: A Highland Miscellany

Postby Terry Bendall » Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:18 am

Averty nice piece of work Mark and it is good to see you back.

Terry Bendall

Daddyman
Posts: 740
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:09 pm

Re: A Highland Miscellany

Postby Daddyman » Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:07 am

Mark Tatlow wrote: David tells me that the D&S kit is a slight mongrel with some elements from LNER days and others from NER.

I'd say it's consistently and coherently NER, Mark, which is my problem with it: there was no interest in the instructions in the LNER period and the detail changes that occurred later in the carriages' lives, so one has to work these out for oneself - though I hope I've now done that work for posterity... I have an annotated photo which I did for the NERA journal, showing the detail changes; with your permission I'll happily attach it here for others' information.

Mark Tatlow
Posts: 897
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:24 pm

Re: A Highland Miscellany

Postby Mark Tatlow » Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:10 am

Daddyman wrote:
Mark Tatlow wrote: David tells me that the D&S kit is a slight mongrel with some elements from LNER days and others from NER.

I'd say it's consistently and coherently NER, Mark, which is my problem with it: there was no interest in the instructions in the LNER period and the detail changes that occurred later in the carriages' lives, so one has to work these out for oneself - though I hope I've now done that work for posterity... I have an annotated photo which I did for the NERA journal, showing the detail changes; with your permission I'll happily attach it here for others' information.


Of course, no problem from me - I think it will help a number of others!
Mark Tatlow

Daddyman
Posts: 740
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:09 pm

Re: A Highland Miscellany

Postby Daddyman » Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:24 am

Here you go, Mark. It will require some reading between the lines, but anyone interested will be able to compare yours and mine and see the differences that I haven't annotated. These include different heights for the steps/footboards (higher up relative to the axleboxes in the earlier period, lowered on all ex-NER carriages later), as well as all the roof changes after the switch from gas lighting (depicted by your model) to the more efficient gas mantle lighting shown on mine. This system of lighting was introduced from (from memory) 1905 or 1906 and was rapidly made standard across the company's stock - as might be expected given the savings in gas usage involved; photos show the changeover happening throughout the 1910s and I'd be surprised if any got into LNER days with the gas-only (as opposed to gas-mantle) lighting that the D&S instructions exhort. The Green Book Part 7 Fig.185 shows a BTP in the early pre-grouping years with one of these carriages still in NER livery but with all the changes shown in my model (or at least it would show these if it had been reproduced more clearly; the NERA has a better version of the print).
20210103_121210.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

billbedford

Re: A Highland Miscellany

Postby billbedford » Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:31 am

Mark Tatlow wrote:One of the other reasons I used thicker material for the roof is that it is weakened a lot by the cut outs at the clerestory. I might well give your approach a try though, as it really is difficult to make them!


But the compartment partition went up to the clerestory roof. Putting these in would make the whole clerestory a stiff egg-box.

Daddyman
Posts: 740
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:09 pm

Re: A Highland Miscellany

Postby Daddyman » Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:47 am

billbedford wrote: But the compartment partition went up to the clerestory roof. Putting these in would make the whole clerestory a stiff egg-box.

That hadn't occurred to me but of course it makes sense - if the partitions weren't full height, first-class passengers would be exposed to the CO2 and - god forbid - the lives of those in third class. Photos of semi-open NER carriages confirm this, and there's every reason to think that the compartment stock Mark and I are modelling was the same.

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 1972
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: A Highland Miscellany

Postby Noel » Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:32 am

Mark Tatlow wrote:Others more knowledgeable than me can comment but I suspect that the only NER clerestories still in existence in the 1950s were the pair that were used as miner's carriages at the pit that used them.

Apparently three were preserved, but one of them was used as a parts donor http://beamishtransportonline.co.uk/2015/02/early-days-at-beamish/, fourth photo down. There is a photo taken at Ashington 3/66 by Alan Jarvis, reproduced in Derek Huntriss' "On North Eastern Lines" p27, which shows two clerestories with an arc roofed coach in between.

Mark Tatlow wrote:Speaking more for the railway on the west side of the country; there is plenty of evidence of pre-grouping liveries on loco's in 1928 and a small amount in 1929.

By 1928 pre-group liveries would probably have been fairly rare, and, as such, would have been likely to get disproportionate attention from photographers and other observers. The relative lack in 1929 suggests that the routine overhaul and repainting programme had largely removed them by then.
Regards
Noel

Mark Tatlow
Posts: 897
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:24 pm

Re: A Highland Miscellany

Postby Mark Tatlow » Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:14 pm

billbedford wrote:
Mark Tatlow wrote:One of the other reasons I used thicker material for the roof is that it is weakened a lot by the cut outs at the clerestory. I might well give your approach a try though, as it really is difficult to make them!


But the compartment partition went up to the clerestory roof. Putting these in would make the whole clerestory a stiff egg-box.


Oh dear, a bit more potentially to do. I do not actually insert more than a couple of metal compartment divides in my coaches. I find that the tend to lead to a bit of deflection on the side panels from even careful handling (especially with half etched panelled stock). They also make painting of the interior a lot more difficult. I thus only insert one or two divides to keep the sides at the right width at this stage, coming back with the remainder in plasticard (largely pre-painted) much further into the build.

Looking over David's pictures, I see I have missed a door vent. I only put one above the luggage doors - out with the soldering iron again!! I told you lot not to tell me of errors!!
Mark Tatlow


Return to “Mark Tatlow”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ClaudeBot and 0 guests