Atlantic's works: Portable layout - Scenic details next

[teaky]

I think you have proven the point there Mike. That looks good and for me the Peco geometry has no detrimental impact on the look. No doubt the longer switch rails help the look too.

I wonder though if this satisfies Graeme's requirements since it is a handbuilt point?

[James Harrison]

I am almost reluctant to put these up knowing the issues on t'other site. One of the considerations was to have a turnout to Peco geometry but with more UK style timbering. Just to prove a point (pun intended) I have knocked up a sample from copperclad and bullhead to give an idea of what it might look like (currently without chairs). I do not have samples of SMP, C&L or Exactoscale OO track to hand but I would be very surprised if these would not look right alongside it. Sample shown with Peco large radius point for comparison:

IMG_5291.JPG

IMG_5292.JPG

IMG_5296.JPG

I'd be perfectly happy with turnouts like that. Not only does the Peco-compatibility not hinder the appearance, it would actually be helpful to the likes of me who can't build track (though others might say I just plain don't try- not for here!) who therefore pretty much rely on Peco for permanent way.

[MikeTrice]

I wonder though if this satisfies Graeme's requirements since it is a handbuilt point?

It is a prototype to prove what is possible and not intended to suggest a way of manufacture.

[65447]

I got seriously bored after the first couple of pages on the 'dark side' when what could otherwise have been a genuine discussion with meaningful intent got the usual treatment.

More than anything, Mike's example clearly illustrates that it is entirely possible to continue, with a little cunning adjustment, to use standardised rail, switch and crossing elements in conjunction with mouldings exhibiting different sleeper and crossing timber arrangements (e.g. interlaced and angled) that could acceptably simulate the majority of pre- and post-Grouping permanent way - GWR possibly excepted as it did not participate in the Standard Railway Equipment 'consortium'.

More to the point (punning again) the cost should eventually be less due to the reduced amount of plastic material needed to accurately represent the more widely-spaced timbers.

[Atlantic 3279]

I see I have some catching up to do after a day off the web. "Substantial" illustrations of what might be possible as a ready-to-lay item inevitably have to be hand built, so nothing wrong with showing such examples. Given the potentially enormous difficulty in getting a manufacturer to adopt ideas for better track, we may remain stuck with the fact that those wanting such track will have to build the pointwork. Illustration or explanation of techniques that any may know to facilitate unusually speedy and economic construction of good pointwork with chairs therefore really ought to be welcomed with open arms too.

The "other thread" was never really meant to be confined to proposals for modified Peco, or any other ready made track, but I can understand that some may have mistakenly thought that I was trying to restrict the topic to those matters as I repeatedly tried to get it back on course after the unhelpful mob and the wreckers initiated the rambling, bickering and one-upmanship displays of track theory knowledge.

[Atlantic 3279]

Remember this? Further news soon....

[Hatfield Shed]

Ooh nice, a resinous knick knack?

...The "other thread" was never really meant to be confined to proposals for modified Peco, or any other ready made track, but I can understand that some may have mistakenly thought that I was trying to restrict the topic to those matters as I repeatedly tried to get it back on course after the unhelpful mob and the wreckers initiated the rambling, bickering and one-upmanship displays of track theory knowledge.

You did your best to try and restrict the in-depth hobby horsing! The more I think about this, from the perspective of Peco I come back to the thought that all that is required as 'test the water matching better OO RTP pointwork' is an equivalent to their current large radius point. It could be the same geometry as streamline, or better yet made to represent the nearest sensible prototype equivalent.

Such a point would I believe 'sell itself' simply by looking so good. Assuming that is true, then Peco have the green light to develop the range. None of this affects the existing code 75 range which will remain completely useable, even if the new better point doesn't share the same fixed system geometry. The only place this really matters is in a crossover formation, and surely most customers will use matching points for this purpose? It's a flexible track system and the small discrepancies in geometry are easily taken up in the 'flex'.

[earlswood nob]

G'day all amidst the Surrey rain

Suitable numbers for your J2;

3072 allocated to Boston before 1945
3073 ditto
3074 allocated to Grantham 1935-43
3075 allocated to Grantham 1938-43

Earlswood nob
(showing off that he has the relevant Yeadon)

[Atlantic 3279]

Thanks for those allocations.

Had 3077 left the area in the late thirties? Malcolm Crawley's list of tender allocations handily shows 3077 as the only J2 paired with a class B tender in thirties and the RCTS book includes an earlier picture of 3077 at Grantham (allegedly with unequal wheelbase class A tender at the time).

[earlswood nob]

Afternoon all from a now sunny Surrey.

Yeadon lists 3076/7/8 being at New England, before being transferred to Colwick at an unknown date.

There's a pic of a J2 with a type B tender. It was an early type B with equal axle spacing and one was coupled to 3077 until 1942.

Earlswood nob

[Atlantic 3279]

I managed to get the J2 out on the road ready for Stafford show last weekend, albeit with a tender borrowed from one of the preceding J6 models. The following pictures show the loco after first coat of primer on the basic structure, followed by gap filling and addition of various details. The view from beneath the body helps to show how the front of the running plate had to be cut and shut back a little, the rear drag beam having to move outwards by a matching amount. The amount of boiler cut away in order to take the spare Bachmann K3 chassis is evident too along with significant removal of material inside the rear splashers/cab floor. The other splashers, built up externally, needed only a generous bevel on their inner "under-edges" to clear the flanges of the larger wheels. The "simple" final job of directing the wires from the pick-ups to the motor without having them showing under the boiler, where there's already too much gearbox on show, caused much time consuming frustration last Wednesday afternoon. As an expedient the loco ran at Stafford with a full height J6 chimney, as some class members actually did, making them all but 13' 6" tall. I've since taken a slice out of the chimney just under the cap.

Work towards a better underframe for the GN tender, to give the two prototypical Ivatt wheelbase options, continues slowly. As soon as I can get an uninterrupted run at the work it should be an easy job to finish. Modifying the resin tender top to portray something other than a class B with waterscoop should be an easy task for any user, given a few dimensioned sketches or photos.

Lick o' paint, chopped chimney and borrowed tender...

Express goods versus the standard goods. The undersize K3 wheels diminish the apparent difference between the J2 on the right and the Romford/Markits 21mm wheeled J6 on the left. I should have used one of the other J6 models with 20mm Gibson or Sharman wheels...

TTFN

PS, Sorry if the reference to Ivatt's superheater fast goods loco got some of you excited about the possibility of a neverwazzer model of the compound Prairie with Atlantic boiler. That's still on the to do list.

[john coffin]

remember Graeme, there are in fact 3 wheelbase dimensions for Ivatt tenders
including the 6f1.5 +6 ft 10.5

[earlswood nob]

Afternoon all

I like the platform over the piston tail rods above the front buffer beam. IMHO it was one of the obvious differences between the J2 and J6.

I believe that all the J2s were fitted with carriage heating pipes on the front end.

Earlswood Nob

[Atlantic 3279]

remember Graeme, there are in fact 3 wheelbase dimensions for Ivatt tenders
including the 6f1.5 +6 ft 10.5

Can we just pretend that the model of that underframe differs by half a mil from the 6' + 7' variety?

[manna]

G'day Gents

A good looking engine, Graeme, but then I'm biased towards anything GN, especially there 0-6-0's.

manna