Atlantic's works: Portable layout - Scenic details next

[Atlantic 3279]

The deeper visible D & S solebar does not make the coach body higher. The solebar on the Bill Bedford prints has its top edge at more or less the same height, much of its depth being hidden behind the higher, thicker top stepboard.

Yesterday afternoon I fitted all of the slot-in glazing pieces. I mentioned that I had made three sizes of slot-clearing tool at an early stage in building these vehicles, and cleared the full available depth of the slots out to slightly more than the width of the provided glazing pieces (or so I thought), both when preparing the raw parts and again after painting. I therefore really hoped that all of the snap-off, pre-determined size, glazing pieces would go in easily to produce a perfect fit. I wasn't particularly amused to find that many of the panes still would not go in properly, either being a bit tight between the sides of the slot (causing unacceptably distorted reflections off the surfaces of the windows) or more commonly just refusing to go all the way down. Where this happened I then used the clearing tool yet again to try to ensure that the side rebates of the apertures were fully clear, also using a slim pointed tool to dig out the bottom corners of the slots more thoroughly. I usually found that I was removing both paint and yet more of the printed resin. More often than not, even that was still not enough to solve the problem. I didn't have to trim the sides of very many of the glazing pieces in the end, but I had to cut off a great number of bottom corners, and in many cases also take a sliver off the height before they would sit "fully engaged" yet still flat in the slots and truly flush with the top of the side. It is of course imperative not to take too much off the height of any pane - the sides being accommodated only in rebates it is vital that the bottom of the pane goes down as deeply as it can into its channel. If it isn't tall enough, and thus has freedom to shuffle upwards, the glazing may be able to fall into the carriage body, bottom edge first.....

[Woodcock29]

Graeme
As I didn't have the use of the tool you made I wasn't able to clear out the slots but I think my coach bodies prints may have been better than yours as the bottom corners didn't seem to be a problem. I did have problems with width so sliced fine sections off each piece of glazing. One of my two coaches was missing the glazing so I had to cut some up for that as well as using the extra pieces from the other coach.

One piece did move after a roof was fitted so that's how I broke the roof - taking it off again. After fixing that piece of glazing and before refitting the repaired roof I ran a little bit of gloss varnish across the tops the of the slots - just enough to stick the glazing in place. I think I would do that for any more coaches with glazing in slots.

Andrew

[Atlantic 3279]

As last seen, the slightly shiny finish produced by the sealing coat of satin varnish on the sides of my Mousa / Bedford 3D printed GNR 6 wheelers wasn't doing any great favours for the overall appearance, perhaps emphasizing some of the less desirable characteristics of resin or plastic models. The models have since had roofs, underframes and, to a lesser extent their sides, weathered. The glazing has been fitted, as described above. With the roofs clipped back in place a problem remained, in that the clips were not tight enough in each case to completely close the gap between the top of the side and the edge of the roof. Thanks to my installation of a means of mechanically attaching and detaching body and underframe, rather than gluing them permanently together, I've been able to deal with annoying gaps without losing access to the interior of the vehicles for and later necessary repairs or improvements.

I worked with the combined body and roof lying on its side, on a flat rigid board. I had stuck a strip of 0.75mm thick plasticard to the board. I pushed the body so that the top of the gutter/cornice of the roof butted up against the shallow step formed by the edge of the plastic, the reaction thus pushing the roof edge down firmly onto the top of the carriage side. I also placed a length of straight brass wire under the body, very near the top of the side, to support the side on a nice straight line, slightly inset from the edge of the cornice. Using a piece of wire bent to a J-shape to carry the tiny drops of glue, I was then able to apply runny superglue to the inside of the joint in a few places along its length. The roof clips limit the points of access, but I was able to get at the corners (which was vital) and a point above each compartment dividing wall. I'm now happier with the overall appearance.

[Atlantic 3279]

I've also been tinkering with some more experimental couplings for the East Coast twelve wheelers. Having gone to some trouble with the appearance of the models, I didn't want to have large commercial couplings blocking out lots of the daylight that ought to be seen under the headstocks, but I did want to retain coupling compatibility with my mainly tension-lock fitted main line teak stock. I'm therefore trying out some "skeleton" tension locks made up from no more than two pieces of 0.45mm brass wire (forming both the bar and the hook) and about 5mm of 1/16" brass tubing as the pivot-sleeve for the hook. The bar in this case does not fill the centre-buffer role as would normally be the case with a tension lock, as that is not necessary on my coaches with gangway connectors. The captive, slightly springy paper bellows with smooth end plates do a very good job of keeping the retracted buffer heads well apart. I don't of course expect these wire couplings to be robust enough for uses involving re-marshalling in a multi-handler exhibition environment, but they should be tough enough for my won "informed" handling. I feel the un-painted brass, once it tarnishes, is less visible when it has to be viewed against a light background than it would be if painted black or chemically blackened.
Others may of course consider these couplings hideous or ridiculous...

[Richard i]

They hang off the bogie? What was the reasoning? Would it not have been simpler to hang them down off the back of the head stocks?
Just curious.
Richard

[Atlantic 3279]

I know that there's a widespread view that carriages run more steadily when drawn by the headstock, and that it is easier to mount the couplings there anyway, but I don't observe that additional steadiness. Maybe it is to do with the way the bogies are mounted and the way the track is laid? Anyway, I prefer the bogie mounted coupling as there's less overthrow of the coupling on curves, so that narrow, short couplings are less likely to get into trouble when passage of carriages over reverse curves (mostly crossovers) creates extreme opposite overthrows at the ends of adjacent vehicles.

[john coffin]

Surely mechanically, it is better to draw the carriages from their bogies, since that means than be closer coupled.
Attached to the headstocks it surely restricts the radius that you can run over, and the distance between carriages.

I can understand the argument about stability by using the headstocks, but actually one would feel that the
bogies are more stable when travelling, especially at low speed when it seems that most wheels come off.

Don't forget that on the real thing, the coupling is not some large bar across the buffers/headstock,
it is really quite a small surface that pivots, and is held rigid by tightening up the coupling.

I would think that Greame's idea will lead to less buffer locking and more stable running.

Paul

[Chas Levin]

The recent ones by Bill Bedford have the more accurate dimensions. The discrepancy has been aggravated by a mistake that I now realise I made in building the earlier D&S kits: I put the representation of the cornice / gutter on the edge of the roof, which had a flat base, sitting on top of the side. Hence the bottom edge of the cornice is level with the top of the side. That seemed to be the easiest way to get the neat results, without gaps or wavy edges, using the skills I had at the time. The cornice should, I now realise, actually have been applied with its top edge level with the top of the side. I may alter that feature of the D & S vehicles in due course. It will also make the roof look a little wider, more like the recently built ones.

Discussion of this topic with Andrew Emmett has also revealed that there's an overall width error in one of the D & S carriages, but that can only be rectified or disguised by major surgery involving the underframe. That will have to stay as it is, along with the discrepancy between upper stepboard positions in the two varieties. My guard's look-outs stick out too far on one of my D&S six wheelers too, and that won't be altered either.....

Thanks for the explanation, I think I understand. I have a couple of D&S 6 wheelers to build in due course, so I shall look at how the cornice / gutter sits when I come to it.

[Atlantic 3279]

I did mention, a while ago, the possibility of lowering the representation of the cornice and gutter on my largely-brass D & S "cove roofed" Howlden coaches that I built over 15 years ago in order to put it more nearly in what I now believe to be the "dead scale" position and to thereby make the appearance of the D & S models a bit more compatible with my recently built Bill Bedford / Mousa 3D printed versions. With at least some of my huge list of overdue house maintenance tasks now finished, and local weather unfavourable for cycling yesterday afternoon and today, I've found some time to have a dabble.
As a test, I selected the D.301 D & S luggage brake which I acquired "not very expertly built and painted" and for which I made a new roof a couple of years ago because the paint was falling off the original one in sheets. This coach being by my reckoning "a bit rough" compared to those I built for myself, and therefore in need of a full rebuild if and when I ever get round to it, I was unlikely to get seriously upset if something went wrong with the plan to move the cornice.
As it turns out, I think the alteration can be made satisfactorily so that it improves the visual compatibility of the two makes of kit and does not ruin the older model in the process. I think I've learned one or two things that should be done differently when I deal with the rest of the models too.

Here's a reminder of the mis-match of cornice heights (and some other features) between a Mousa D303 on the left, and the un-touched side of the "rough" D & S D301 on the RIGHT. (Edited 27/9/20 to correct my two original daft references to 'left' )

Here, but this time annoyingly poorly auto-focussed by Nikon technology, is what should be the exactly comparable image but with the altered side of the old D & S van now in the view. The original builder having been so slap-dash as to even fail to fill the relieving slots with solder at the top and bottom visible edges of the sides, the re-location of the cornice also has the beneficial effect of hiding the upper slots. The less said about the bottom edge of the side and the finish on the solebar, the better....

[JASd17]

Are you sure everything is in line at the bottom.

Ducks for cover!

I am struggling with converting a Parkside van kit into a Diagram 16, more involved than I thought.

Quack

John

[Atlantic 3279]

A good question John! The huge difference in visible / exposed depths of solebars really doesn't help, and the levels of the various beading lines are not in exact agreement either, but the impression of overall alignment is better with the altered cornice, and is better when standing on rails rather than on the wheel flanges on a flat surface - but the photography gives a slightly better view on the pale flat surface. I'm trying to limit alterations to "just enough" to help to fool the eye, as I really don't have the motivation to completely re-build or replace four D & S carriages.

[Woodcock29]

Graeme the cornice on that D.301 looks much like what mine do. I actually use the method Dan suggested and make a false ceiling as part of the roof which can then be removed. Strips of plastic card are then used along the edge of the roof and down below the base of the ceiling to hide any gaps.
Andrew

[Atlantic 3279]

Thanks Andrew. Given that the cornice strip is only 1mm or less in depth, the idea of trying to stick that neatly, in a straight line, to only the very edge of the thin ceiling, with most of the depth of the strip below the level of the ceiling, seemed (and still seems) to me to be a recipe for getting into a mess and/or ending up with a weak joint between the strip and the ceiling. Only if the roof skin also extended down below the ceiling level would there be a good "backing layer" to carry the cornice strip as part of the roof, and I thought that would make the overhang look too substantial. That is probably the reason why, in my ignorance of scale dimensions in the past, I stuck the cornice strip a shade higher up so that its full in-board surface was firmly stuck to the edge of the roof. What I've now done on the luggage van, and will also do on the other vehicles if I decide to alter those too, is to stick the cornice to the very top of the flat side of the carriage. That of course involves firstly scraping the paint off the brass carefully in that area, and later making sure that the edge of the roof revealed by removal of the old cornice is free of gaps and scars. I must be mad to bother with it all for such a small eventual alteration to appearance.....

[jwealleans]

converting a Parkside van kit into a Diagram 16, more involved than I thought.

Can you elaborate, John? I've done two or three and didn't think they were too complex. I'm wondering what I've missed now.

[JASd17]

Jonathan,

I will put it on the Lane Head thread when I have done.

I scrap most the the underframe components. MJT W-irons are the starting point. I can keep the springs, but RCH axle boxes required. Home made brake levers. The biggest question is whether to shorten the solebars (which I did with 9ft non-fitted conversions, I think they are somewhere on the Forum), or remove all the detail and add in the 9ft details as appropriate.

The biggest difference really Jonathan, is you get on with it, and I 'worry' or dither over issues which may not be there.

John