Atlantic's works: Portable layout - Scenic details next

[Atlantic 3279]

Thanks to both of you.

I nearly posted some pictures of my next tentative piece of tinkering last night, but then found I had a couple of urgent e-mails to deal with instead. I'll try to do better, later today, or whenever.....

[Atlantic 3279]

One thing I did manage to do (or sort of do) on Monday evening, was the installation of an infernal chip in one of John White's locos, a lovely J37 originally built by Dave Franks. All was going remarkably well for most of the time. the lubricator drive cranks that bound the body and chassis together released without incident, at the first touch of the soldering iron. The motor, to my relief, turned out to be a Mashima Can, with both brushes insulated, even though the chassis was built with live wheels one side. The rather close-fitting metal motor mount still fitted when I had added some further insulation over one of the motor terminals. The loco, with chip installed, very obligingly ran forwards and backwards, on a simple DC supply, exploiting the default DC facility of the chip. There was room, with a bit of fiddling, to get the chip and the wiring inside the boiler and the body onto the chassis without trapping anything, despite the very tight fit of the motor within the width of the firebox. Lovely. Then I manged to get a momentary short between the two sides of the DC supply, after which the loco refused to run at all. I fear the chip may have died. I'm waiting to hear back from John, after e-mailing him with the news .

[Atlantic 3279]

I had also been considering one or two of the MANY things that I really ought to be doing immediately, including a lot of resin casting which won't work very well until the weather cools down again. I thought about making a start on the three Bill Bedford GN 6 wheeled coaches that I have to build and paint, I thought about putting the BR-liveried V4 that I bought a couple of years ago into "as built" LNER condition and livery, but what I actually ended up tinkering with last night was a fully-built Craftsman A5 body that I acquired as part of an auction lot about a decade ago. A similarly long time ago I had also obtained an un-built complete Craftsman A5 kit, and at one time I had thought of either using the chassis from that kit in conjunction with the pre-built body I had, or perhaps of using the kit chassis as a pattern from which to cut a second set of frames and in due course finish up with two complete A5s. Somewhere along the line my modelling plans went off in a very different direction and the A5 projects remained untouched until yesterday.
At a glance, the fully built body looked tidy enough, straight and square as nearly as was likely to matter anyway, plus it actually looked like an A5, which is sort of important...
Some of the steps had already got a bit bent before I acquired it, one set was missing altogether, the front guard irons had been mashed to oblivion and the boiler handrails had been formed into little better than a kink, rather than a nice curve, at their front corners. I tweaked the bits that were still on the loco into better shapes, filed and sanded some heavy flux corrosion off the cab roof ventilator, found a spare set of whitemetal steps to almost perfectly match those on the rest of the model, compared the body to the C.Reddy drawing, and had a closer look at other parts of the body and at the notes in RCTS Pt.7.

Apart from the complete lack of rivet or bolt head detail, one of the features of the Craftsman kit that I already knew to be wrong was the profile of the running plate around the bottom corners of the side tanks. It doesn't turn-in sharply enough. Hence, although the crew steps and grab rails are in the right places, half of the space above each set of steps is obstructed by a wide overhanging piece of running plate. I've marked in green ink the offending pieces that would ideally need to be cut back. That means interfering with the angle-iron beneath the running plate too. On close examination that has not been inset nearly enough under the edge of the running plate on this model. In fact, it projects slightly more than the edge of the plate in places! I think there's a coal rail too many for 1930s GC area condition on each side of the bunker too, although the top rail is correctly modelled as a piece of angle iron.

That Gorton angular dome would certainly have to go. It's too late in style for my tastes.

The builder appears to have lost or thrown away the nice etched handwheel that comes in the Craftsman kit (well it is there on my un-touched etches in the other kit anyway) and has instead fitted twin handles, made up from wire simply twisted around a central knob. Those would have to go. I'm not sure why the piece of copper sheet has been used as the front valve chest cover.

I don't know why so much crud had been left in place behind the buffer beams (and in other places both inside and out) nor why almost every last little detail had been fitted before cleaning up, even down the the screw shackles on the coupling hooks. The way I see it no thought had been given to getting or keeping things out of the way of a decent paint job. I also found myself ploughing and chiselling a thick, rough bead of solder out of the angle between one of the cab sides and the the tank top.

I well remember that this wasn't the only such example of the same modeller's approach to building, in the same auction. There were several trays full of various kit built locos and much else besides, in differing states of completion, many items looking initially impressive but on closer inspection having fillets of solder or epoxy that should have been cleaned off earlier, yet with details already added in disregard of underlying imperfections, and almost nothing to which any paint had yet been applied. He was supposed to be in the process of modelling an entire busy station, but fate had evidently intervened. It is beyond me to understand how he ever imagined that he would find time to complete a large project if he started everything but never finished individual items....

At least the steps won't be too much of a problem.

The big question now is whether I wish to get further involved at this stage.

[Horsetan]

Doesn't Pete Stanger / 52F Models produce a modern chassis for this

[Atlantic 3279]

I believe that is so.

[Horsetan]

I believe that is so.

What's stopping you

[Atlantic 3279]

Well it may be that I have on hand all of the items I need to build a suitable chassis without spending any further money.

[Woodcock29]

Hi Graeme
A few comments:
Firstly a mistake I made on the Bill Bedford resin 6 wheelers was to file down the printing pips under the lugs along the inside of the sides that hold the roof in place - I suspect this has allowed my roofs to sit up a bit high?

Secondly I have a partly stripped down second-hand Craftsman A5 I got in a job lot a few years back. It has already had the footplate modified around the tanks to shorten the wide section. But it was soldered with high melting point solder so was a bit of a b....r to strip down. What wasn't done and is more difficult is to widen the rear sides of the footplate a bit as I believe the section with the bunker on it is not as narrow as the front footplate section - it will probably stay like that! Of course the bunker probably should be widened a bit as well - that's not going to happen!

The chassis has what I suspect are Ultrascale wheels on it and the b-to-b was bit narrow but I managed to prise them out a bit (not proper modelling terminology I know!) so its doesn't drop between the rails on some of the Peco Code 75 pointwork.

I did intend to give my own Craftsman A5 built in the early 80s (of course this just built straight from the instructions so no modifications mentioned above) to a friend who desperately wants one, on a semi permanent loan but that might have to wait until I get this one fixed up. I can even remember buying my Craftsman kit from Chris Crawley in Lordship Lane at Tottenham in July 1981 during my first trip back. That day I also got several new greenies and also a range of D&S w/m wagon kits - what a day!

Andrew

[Atlantic 3279]

Thanks Andrew,

That's interesting, regarding the rear running plate width. I shall have to do some more research. Depending on how easy, or difficult it proves to detach the valance representing the angle iron, undamaged, I had considered already that I might instead leave at least the rear portions where they are and attempt to solder some straight wire or small brass strip to each edge of the running plate to give it more of the lip that it lacks. Another idea was to perhaps remove the valance entirely, even if it is destroyed in the process, and replace it either with suitably shaped pieces of square brass bar or even with strips of thick plasticard, although it may make sense to try to keep the existing thin valance near the front of the loco to allow for lateral movement of the large bogie wheels.

The sticker on the box of my unbuilt Craftsman A5 kit, which came to me "pre-cherished" as some now say, carries the words "Model Railways Kings Cross" - another blast from the past. Somebody has put some wheels in the box too, Sharman's by the look of them. I may be tempted to use the carrying wheels, but I'd prefer to use wheels whose tyres are firmly fixed and perfectly concentric with the axles when it comes to the coupled wheels!

Graeme

[Horsetan]

.... Sharman's by the look of them. I may be tempted to use the carrying wheels, but I'd prefer to use wheels whose tyres are firmly fixed and perfectly concentric with the axles when it comes to the coupled wheels!

Sharmans weren't bad, and they definitely didn't have slipping tyres in my experience as they were moulded into the tyre ring rather than being pressed in. If they have flaws, it's that

1. crankpins are a bit too short for today's full width rods.
2. Axles sometimes have to be cut to length. I tended to use Ultrascale axles with them, rather than cut an axle.
3. Tyre width is a touch wide, but lathe users can skim a touch off the front and maybe a bit off the back...

[jwealleans]

Given their age, would that be an Imperial touch, or metric?

[Atlantic 3279]

As opposed to a twitch?

Tyre security aside, the only Sharman's I've ever used, quite ripe with age by the time I used them, were not a uniformly good firm fit on the axles and were certainly not properly concentric. I have no lathe nor the inclination at present to get involved with lathe work, but I find it very disappointing when a hand-built loco nods and waddles along on wheels that are not concentric. I therefore expect wheels to have spot-on concentricity "as supplied".

[45609]

Or a gnats?

Always liked A5s. Big beast of a tank engine that just look strong and fit for purpose.

[Atlantic 3279]

Armed with wisdom provided by others, I've started having a more detailed dabble with my Bill Bedford printed D.245 GNR six-wheeled third.

I like the pre-scored glazing material which can be snapped into individual panels of the various intended sizes for doors, the two classes of compartment quarter lights, ends and so on. I note however that some of it at least is a very tight fit even after a file has been rubbed along its edges, and that some of the fenestrations have printing supports or residual pips of supports attached in the rebates. Even with those patiently cleaned out, tightness of glazing is still evident. Unless anybody else has tried the idea and found it to be disastrous, I'm thinking of cutting some extra-long strips of metal sheet to the exact same width as the pieces of glazing (or a touch / twitch / gnat's more), and then using these metal strips as a push-carefully-in and pull out again slot-shaving tool for each opening.

Andrew: regarding roof edges not sitting down. With the benefit of scrutiny of my not yet fitted roof, I note that apart from the presence of pips, the under-side of the cornice / gutter on each edge of the roof is not horizontal when viewed from the end. Its outside edge is higher than its inside edge. If I pinch the roof clips inwards, as if they were clipped into the tops of the sides, the bottom of the cornice becomes more nearly level, but I'm wondering if I ought to scrape it a bit to ensure that, if anything, its inside edge finishes up a little higher than the outside edge, giving the outside edge the maximum freedom to sit right down onto the top of the carriage side.

[Woodcock29]

Hi Graeme

I noted that the underside of the cantrail was angled and did trim that a bit. I also noted on the Dia 148 that the top of the sides was more like a dampened sine curve so I flattened that out - maybe I should have left well alone on indeed filled the dips to build it up? I have though of adding an extra strip of fine plastic card to the out edge of the cantrail of slightly deeper section to cover the gap somewhat but haven't attempted that yet. That would also make them more visually compatible with D&S kits that do have a more of an overhang- well at least mine do! I must say the gaps aren't really noticeable when running on the layout though and they still look fine running with D&S coaches.

I didn't even notice the glazing could be snapped into sections! I cut them all and made a couple a bit too narrow so at least one of them moved after the roof was fitted so in getting the roof off I snapped it into two and had to repair it. Before refitting the roof I brushed some gloss varnish along the tops of the window slots to 'stick' them into position and left that to dry before refitting the roof.

Which are the other two you got? Mine other one is a Dia 154. My Dia 154 had the glazing missing so I had cut new glazing for that anyway. Also the centre axle tube and the thin axle were missing so I used a spare D&S centre axle etch with doubled up w/m weights on a suspension wire. Both arrangements seem to run ok. My minimum radius is generally 3ft but there are a few Peco Code 75 slips with their rather tight centres.

I found out earlier this year after getting the GNRS volumes on Howlden coaches that all 4 of the Dia 148 went to the M&GN by 1912. I should probably have got a Dia 146 to keep as a 6 wheeler as I have two of Frank Davies Dia 146 kits to build as a Dia 134 twin - most ended up as twins but not all of them.

Andrew