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!!!
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.
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:
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
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.
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!!
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.
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!!
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.
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.
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!
billbedford wrote: But the compartment partition went up to the clerestory roof. Putting these in would make the whole clerestory a stiff egg-box.
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.
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests