Atlantic's works: Portable layout - Scenic details next

[Dave]

Amazing work there Graeme.

It's a pity the LNER did not have somthing like a N&W J class, that would be a beast.

[2002EarlMarischal]

Not fully finished, and awful photography I know. Other things happened this evening, robbing me of time to do any better. Even my printer caused me grief as I tried to print the temporary cabside number plate, but I didn't want to keep interested parties waiting to see the lump in black:



I might just manage to persuade a man who CAN take photographs to do a much better job than this tomorrow, if he's in the right mood.

You do yourself an injustice Graeme. Your photos are usually amongst the very clearest on this forum.

With a big long beastie like that, I would use my tripod, self-timer and open the lens right up to f22 for maximum depth of field. The whole lot should be sharp then with probably no need for flash.

And before I forget - the loco and workmanship is typically superb. Thanks for sharing with us as always!

PS: What's next?!!

[Blink Bonny]

Wow.

Wot you up to next?

[wehf100]

Thanks All.

Will, if you find a number below 1253 in the GC capital list that was made vacant by a withdrawal, 1915 onwards, I'd be interested to know, particularly if there's one that was never re-used - although I seem to remember the GC kept its numbers fully used.

Would it in some way be appropriate if this loco wereto carry a number from one of the last Baldwin moguls to be withdrawn? Perhaps however, the GC might have seen it as potentially confusing to have the same number passing to another Baldwin. Maybe the inheritance of a number from a mogul would have cursed this beast from the very outset too!

First of all, bravo on the completion. Looks superb. The GCR society would be interested to see this I think!

The last Baldwin 2-6-0 to be withdrawn was #948, scrapped June 1915. The number was already in use on a 9J from mid 1910, so I guess the Baldwins probably all went on to 'duplicate' list after that date (i.e. 948a).

The only thing getting built by GCR in 1915-1917 was the 'Crab' 2-6-4 tanks. They were #274-6, 337-345, 366-370. These numbers had previously been worn by class 18 saddle tanks and various other ancient 0-6-0s that were withdrawn around 1911-12.

Looks to me like the GCR had a loosely observed principle of attempting to build up a 'block' of free numbers as locos were withdrawn over a period of months or years.

Sorry this isn't much help!

Will

[Robpulham]

Superb Graeme,

I haven't had much to contribute but you never cease to amaze me with the variety, ingenuity and quality of your builds.

[Atlantic 3279]

I've been asked about modelling a Smiths speedo. Here, firstly unpainted and then painted, is my effort on Irish Elegance, as created five years ago (doesn't time fly?!) by simple use of a piece of curved wire with a crankpin fixing washer soldered on each end. I may have taken the trouble to drill into the sides of the washers to ensure that the wire is in a firm socket fixing - I can't quite remember! The drive arm is just a piece of brass or N/S soldered to the head of the crankipn and bent to shape so that its tip just gently brushes on the centre of the rear face of the "speedo primary gearbox" (the lower washer) as the wheel turns. No physical connection between the arm (on the chassis) and the rest of the speedo drive (hanging from the running plate) so the loco body is quickly and easily fitted and removed as often as necessary.

By the way, "the man who can" didn't get around to photographing the Baldwin yesterday, but I fought valiantly to do so again today in cruelly revealing light, employing a bit of trickery to get my automatic compact camera to over-expose the image to just the right extent to reveal all of the black areas without getting horrendous white-background flare all around the edges of the loco (it usually fouls this up completely if you use the "built in" allowance for a back-lit or dark subject). I'll post results later.

[Atlantic 3279]

Apart from allowing better photography of details, full daylight this morning helped to emphasize some areas in which the black top-coat had not covered the red primer:

That tender was crying out for some coal.....

The red paint was still a bit thin on the buffer beams, the crossheads and slidebars way too bright, plus the cylinder ends were sorely in need of some contrasting "steel" paint to give the necessary appearance of typically early 20th century US style end caps.

Having made a false base and front plate for the coal space, coaled-up the tender, re-coated or touched-in the defective black areas, and strengthened the red on the bufferbeams, I mixed what appeared in moderately good light to be a nice dark-ish "steely" grey-brown with a little silver to add metallic lustre. After applying this to all of the motion and the cylinder ends to try to get a nice dull, tarnished, mild-steel basic appearance, I was incandescent with annoyance on seeing that it literally GLOWED in full sunlight! A good deal of further darkening will now have to follow, consuming more of my time.....

[davidwest]

Lovelly bit of work on the A1 Graeme! Oops I meant A2 Doh! And the Baldwin has to be one of the more unusual prototpes modelled. Any Idea how the size compares with the Mountain or a 9F?

[Tom F]

What an interesting looking creation Graeme. I've been watching from the side lines.

Top marks sir!

[2002EarlMarischal]

T'would be interesting to see next to your P1 Graeme!

[Atlantic 3279]

Just what I thought earlier today 2002. I'll try to take a suitable picture some time. I may throw in one of those piffling little 9Fs for comparison too. Bear in mind when assessing the comparison that Although the Baldwin tender is modelled to full scale, the costs of potential "starting point" locos persuaded me to reduce the length of the loco itself to (7/8ths) WRONG, correction, that's 15/16ths I now remember of what is should be.

Only a technicality, but the oft-mentioned "big" 9F may have lots of coupled wheels but isn't a huge loco. Okay, the boiler is jacked up to the limits of the loading gauge so that a decent depth of firebox and ashpan will squeeze in over the 5' 0" coupled wheels, but that boiler is both slimmer and shorter than those of the Brits - themselves somewhat cut-down Pacifics compared to the pre-nationalisation 8P types

[Blink Bonny]

Ay up!

Just to add my tuppenceworth to the speedo debate - I make 'em out of a Romford brake pipe and two Romford crankpin washers. Straighten the central brass wire, slide the copper windings along then solder the two washers either end of the aforementioned windings. Then, using a bit of scrap etch (or metal strip, if you're feeling flush!) solder the return crank to the crankpin. Hornby plastic wheels are fine with this, provided you don't linger with the iron. Trim the return crank and bend into an elongated "S" shape. Bend the speedo lead to shape, paint to taste et voila!

Or summat....

You can even use the brass wire to fix the speedo to the loco body if you insist

[Atlantic 3279]

Sounds a good idea to use the braided pipe - but I hadn't imagined that the braided portion would be long enough.

[Horsetan]

The overall format of bar frames supporting a substantial, free-steaming boiler, with footplates attached to the boiler (not the frames) and maximum access for servicing was the format adopted by Deutsche Reichsbahn Gesellschaft from 1926 onwards, paving the way for standardisation and a uniform appearance.

It was the cost of making (and lack of post-war capacity to make) bar frames that later turned British Railways off the idea when planning the Standards. In the end, the USATC 0-6-0Ts and the S160s were pretty much the only bar-framed engines that worked regularly in the UK.

Looking at the cab on the putative GC 2-10-2, would it have had those large windows, or would we have seen something more akin to the 8M/O5?

[S.A.C. Martin]

It really is a handsome machine from every angle. Can't fault it, can't fault it at all. That rear three quarter view shows up the elegant lines perfectly.

It seems a geuine shame that the GCR didn't go for it and have built a real one.