Invisible fixes
Sometimes you can be busy but really not have anything to show. As im on the final run in to the DEMU show next weekend I’ve been looking at a few things that fit into this bracket. Starting with…
My loading gauge. Originally from the Smiths kit, its white metal construction for the main post was just too susceptible to knocks and getting bent out of shape during an exhibition. I hade used brass wire for the wires and after a few times bending it back to shame it was all starting to look a bit of a mess.
So i rebuilt it from brass instead. The wires this time are easy-line. I did keep the original bow mind you
Moving on to, perhaps, a more literal interpretation of the post title
The baseboard join is just a bit too obvious for my liking so I’ve revisited this too.
I found some soft rubber sheeting in my local hobbycraft. Its smooth on one side and has this texture on the other. I cut it into strips and blended the top edge into the existing scenery with static grass, ballast and paint. The result can be seen below.
Getting the most from older models.
In September I will be doing a demo at Scaleforum entitled getting the most from older models. Regular readers will know I have a bit of a thing for starting with old models that many will have long ago consigned to the bin. To this end I thought id look at a couple of old building kits too. Namely Airfix.
The Airfix Signal box is based on the one at Oakham which is a Midland Railway type 2a box from the early 1900’s I liked the look of the platform mounted version at Kings Heath (which is a type 3a) so set to work
The kit as supplied is too wide. I used some etched windows from Phoenix models and reduced the ends to fit. I binned the roof and knocked up a new end platform from microstrip. I wanted to use this model to try out a few new (to me) painting ideas.
First step was to paint it in an aged wood colour. The wood effect is pretty easy and quick if you work more like a painter and less like a modeller
I use these 4 Revell enamel colours as they are nice and matt. They are numbers 47 (mouse grey), 88 (ochre brown) , 84 (leather brown) and 9 (anthracite grey). The actual colours aren’t that critical. I use a dunk and dip technique and work on a base of Halfords grey primer. I dunk the brush into the mouse grey and ochre brown and lightly dip the tip into the leather and anthracite. All at the same time so that the brush is loaded with layers of colours. Then is just a simple case of drawing the brush across the model and letting the colours mix themselves. You don’t want them to mix too well so try and do one stroke per plank and work in the direction of the wood. The trick is to let the brush do the random work for you and not to fight it too much. My end result was a smidge dark so when dry, i drybrushed more mouse grey lightly over the model.
This is what ended up with. I then gave it a couple of coats of matt varnish.
This is the bit that’s new to me. Ranger distress paints. The large scale guys have been using these for a while with good results but the method for smaller scales seems a bit different. The pain is intended to be dabbed on quite think and left so that it starts to crackle and flake on it own. For our scale i found it better to brush it on on 2 coats. This doesn’t do any ‘magic though so the next stage is with a fine sanding stick to give it a little help. Again working in the direction of the wood.
Here’s the result. Distressed but not weathered. Another coat of Matt varnish and then back to enamels, used this time as a thin wash. I added an interior from Ratio and a signaller from Modelu. The finished result can be seen below
Quietly influential
The two wagons pictured above were the first 2 wagon kits I ever built. The grampus is from the older parkside kit and the turbot from the Cambrian kit. Both have been upgraded since I built them with Rumney models parts and both have seen RTR versions appear in relatively recent years.
When I built these though the options for 4mm scale modern wagons was very limited indeed. Hornby had their range of air braked 4 wheeled wagons on a very generic underframe and Lima had some useful bogie wagons (all with somewhat useless bogies). Bachmann hadn’t really appeared back then so if you wanted the trains you could see at the time you had to build them yourself.
Admittedly the grampus (which was my first kit) was a bit of an odd one out in the Parkside range and it was more the longevity of the prototypes that made this kit suitable. While Cambrian had carved a very nice little corner of the market for themselves with their dual ranges of engineers wagons and airbraked prototypes. Without these who knows where my interest in the making things aspect of the hobby would have gone?
The reason I’m being nostalgic is down to 2 people that the hobby has recently lost and will be sorely missed. Richard Hollingworth was the softly spoken gentleman behind Parkside Dundas while Colin Parks was one of the 2 brothers behind Cambrian models. Rest in peace gentlemen, and thank you.
Hornby Hacks 2 – The NBL class 21, part 1
I’ve mentioned before that Brettell road is a ‘what if’ layout and that extends to the stock as well. So what if the NBL class 21s were trialed in the Midlands? It’s not a huge leap to make from reality really and its reported that they did appear on the Condor’s occasionally (anyone got any pictures of this?). I’ve always had a passing interest in the Hornby class 29 as its melancholy look seemed to stand out from the other diesels in their catalogue as a kid. I never had one though so why not get one now?
I prefer the original look of the class 21 to the re-engined class 29 so that’s the plan. The Hornby model has bits of both. (I know about the upcoming Dapol model but I figured going this way would be more fun!)
The Prototype
©53A models of Hull Collection, used with kind permission. Click here to go to the original.
Although the class 21 and class 22 became something of an irrelevance in the history of British locomotives their story does hold a bit of interest. NBL could have been said to be at least as experienced in British loco production as anyone else at the time with their LMS commissioned prototype 10800 and the class 16s which shared a strong resemblance. Both were powered by Paxman engines and both were somewhat problematic.
When it came to type 2 units (or type B at the time) they abandoned the Paxman power unit turning to their own built MAN units, built under licence from Germany. It’s not clear if NBL actually had any real experience in building these engines at the time and to say they were somewhat disastrous wouldn’t be far from the truth. NBL would return to Paxman to repower some of the class 21s and they would be class 29. Truth is they were little better. Poor cooling and badly laid out equipment only made matters worse for the class.
Where they do hold an interest is in that the class 21’s were diesel electric while the class 22’s were diesel hydraulic. If they hadn’t have been so problematic then a reasonable comparison of the 2 propulsion types would have resulted. This was the only opportunity for main line locos in the UK. The 2 classes look very similar with the class 21s being just a smidge under 5 feet longer and at least to my eye, looking more ‘designed’
D6109 the odd one out.
D6109 became the odd one out of the true class 21s having received most of the body modifications for conversion to a class 29 but not the Paxman engine (reportedly down to problems discovered in the frames). So D6109 became the only class 21 to get a headcode box. Interestingly there was one class 29 that didn’t but got all the other modifications.
The Model as it comes.
Being reasonably unfamiliar with the real thing some time has been spent comparing the model to pictures of the real loco and I’ve drawn up a (quite long) list of things I think are off.
So here we go then
A – I think the peak of the roof is wrong – it looks flatter on the real locos. Also the rib behind it doesn’t seem as prominent as it is on the model.
B – The water fillers seem the wrong shape and are missing from one side completely/ the handrail next to it is too long.
C – The bodyside steps seem a bit too round and are too shallow.
D – Ignoring the moulded fan/etch thing for a moment. the whole panel with the radiator fan on is in the wrong place. It should like up with the bodyside grills.
E – There’s a lot of rivet detail on the model. It’s too heavy and I am not convinced it’s all really there on the prototype.
F – As with all Hornby diesels from this era there are moulded on paint guidelines.
G – I think the lower faring tucks under the loco more than it does on the model.
H – Wheels are too small and should be spoked not solid.
I – Central part of the lower bodyside faring looks a lot deeper than the prototype. It looks more like a class 31! I wonder if this was deliberate to compensate for the body being mounted too high as was the norm for Hornby models of the time?
J – Battery box detail is kind of suggested at best.
K – Bodyside door windows aren’t deep enough – they should line up with the bottom of the other bodyside windows. The lower bodyside rib goes across the door on the model – it doesn’t on the real loco.
L – Bodyside grills arent deep enough, they too should line up with the bottom of the bodyside windows.
M – Bogies look a bit filled in to me. Brake shoes don’t line up with the wheels (again common with Hornby diesels from the era. )
N – Steps under the doors are a bit freelance.
O – Bufferbeams blend into the lower bodyside – there’s a distinctive shape to these visible on the prototype.
P – Buffers and bufferbeam are too high.
Q – lower cab front isn’t deep enough
R – Horn covers are a bit basic
S – Cab end lights are very basic too! the upper ones are too near the cab edges.
T – More moulded on paint lines. the lines for the doors stand out. they should be grooves.
U – Headcode box – not on a class 21 (except D6109 as mentioned above.
V – Its well-known that the cab windows are not wide enough. I don’t think they are right vertically either. The prototype seems a pretty even height all the way along. Hornby’s are taller in the middle.
In addition the exhaust port is the wrong shape and somewhat freelance.
So, to work
Side views compared. Woking down from the roof I’ve replaced the exhaust and flattened the cabs a bit. The radiator grill was cut out as an offset before turning it around and sticking it back in so that it now lines up.
The bodyside steps have been drilled out and the handhold replaced (not really worth the effort with hindsight) and the bottom of the grill frames carved off to be replaced with microstrip. The bottom faring has been reduced (the white strip is where I took a bit too much off).
Power wise the model uses a Bachmann class 25 chassis with the bogie centers spaced out by about a mm each end. I kept the original Bachmann brakes and overlaid the Hornby sideframes after opening them up a bit. The original battery box was shortened and mounted in a new plasticard frame.
The cab fronts have been detailed with Extreme Etches window frames and headcode disks. The bottom of the can being extended and the original detail filed off. I scored the inside of the tumblehome and bent it in further to match the prototype pictures. The bufferbeams being cut off first and rebuilt. Hopefully a bit warmer weather and i can get it painted.
Some thoughts on wagon loads.
Ok, it seems a little odd to start a post on wagonloads with a couple of vans but they do give away subtle signs that they are actually earning money and not just trundling around. Chalk markings and labels are the give-away here. The chalk markings are done with a sharp chinagraph pencil which allows you to smudge them and rub them out. Much as could be found on the real thing. The labels are from Hollar Models and can be distressed with a scalpel or fibreglass brush before applying. 
The easiest loads are the loose ones such as coal, ore, ballast etc. This is real coal glued to a foam former (the dark foam in RTR loco packing is ideal). Remember to weather the inside of the wagon first though. 
One loose load I struggled a little with was coke. In the end I used larger lumps of coal but when set sprayed it with gunmetal to give the dull look coke has. 
Sheeted loads tend to come in 2 forms. Above the load is sheeted as a stand alone item. This was a cheap load i found on ebay. 
The second form is that the load is added to the wagon and then the load and the wagon itself is sheeted over. These are more cheap loads from Ebay which were quite crude. The sheeting is black latex cut from a surgical glove. 
Sometimes the load is just open to the elements. This is a drawbar converter from Langley Models.
Finally, sometimes the load is a wagon itself. An RT Models molten slag wagon loaded onto a Lowmac and ARM-E
Return to the back scenes
I’ll admit I wasn’t planning on the back scene post being a 2 parter but thanks to some helpful feedback I’ve had another look at what I did before. Changes are to add detail to the windows and make them more yellow/darker. Ive taken some magenta out of the prints and added some blur to various buildings to knock them back a little and give a better sense of depth. Ive also added a few extra details. Ive also left the roofs gloss while the rest of the prints are matt in an attempt to emphasise the wet effect I’m after. You can judge for yourselves the results below. 
Moor street bridge and its little known history.
This is the view of the real inspiration behind Brettell Road. This is taken from Moor Street bridge looking towards Brettell Lane/Stourbridge. The remains of the sidings can just be made out to the right of the running lines. There is nothing to show it now but this location was, in 1858. the site of what was, at the time, Britain’s worst rail disaster.
The story starts on the morning of the 23rd of August and the The Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway Company (which was known as the worse and worse, a nickname it never lost) had organised a day trip for Sunday School children from Wolverhampton to Worcester. In the event the ticket offices mostly ignored the instruction that the trip was for school kids and many sold the tickets to anyone. The train set out from Wolverhampton made up of a tender loco, 24 4 wheel coaches and a guards van (info is sketchy it seems that the guards van was a good van although apparently some guards coaches were included in the train).
It picked up passengers and vehicles along the way as by the time it arrived at Worcester it was made up of 2 locomotives, 42 coaches and at least 2 brake vans. The outward journey hadn’t been without incident as they had coupling failures at Brettell Lane, Hagley, and Droitwich. It was estimated that there were between 1500 and 2000 passengers on board when it got to Worcester. The train was examined by the inspector of rolling stock at Worcester, the repaired or replaced side chains were replaced by four-link goods couplings before the return journey, but no attempt was made to repair or replace failed centre couplings as the inspector considered that a re-made screw coupling was weaker than the goods couplings.
For the return trip the train was divided into 2, the first being made up 2 tender engines, 28 carriages, and 2 brake Vans (one at each end). The other was made up one tender engine, 14 carriages and a brake van. The second train followed the first 15 minutes behind. The line was worked on the interval system, in which trains were allowed to follow the previous train without positive confirmation that it had reached the next station, relying instead on it having been an adequate time interval ahead at the last station. The guard on the first train was a man called Frederick Cook who it was alledged had allowed passengers into the brake van and even let them operate the brake while he played cards and drank with them. He was normally tasked with being the guard on freight trains and might not have been all that suited to passenger work.
The line from Brettell lane rises on a 1 in 75 gradient towards round oak so the second train had an additional engine added to cope with this at Stourbridge. It was after 8pm when the first train arrived at Round Oak, the second arriving at Brettell lane at about the same time. Reports say it was dark and there was a lot of smoke blowing across the tracks from the local factories. The train of the first crew hadn’t spotted that another coupling had broken and 17 coaches and the brake van, with about 450 people on board were now rolling back towards Brettell lane. A porter tried to chase the carriages but they soon became to fast for him. The last hope was that the guard would stop the train. Frederick Cook was not on the train though, he was on the platform.
A telegraph message was sent the staff at Brettell Lane to warn them. Unfortunately the second train was actually departing the station at the time and the telegraph was missed. The second train was struggling with the incline and when the driver did spot the runaway, very late, he slammed on the brakes. Hit train slowing to 2mph at the point of impact. The free coaches were doing about 16 mph but construction at the time meant that the brake van and 2 coaches as good as disintegrated. 12 people died in the crash, 150 were injured of which 2 would pass away later. All of the victims were on the first train. The driver of the second was said to be ‘shaken’. His loco had its buffers ripped off but was otherwise not too badly damaged.
Amazingly several hours later the track was cleared and the 2 trains carried on their journeys to Wolverhampton. Some of the injured getting back onboard as they just wanted to go home.
Frederick Cook claimed at inquest that he never left the train, that the brake hadn’t held the train and he had jumped for his life at the last moment. He changed his testimony when it was established the brakes were off and he looked remarkably clean and uninjured for someone who had apparently jumped from a train doing 16 mph! Test showed the brake would have held the train and he was charged with manslaughter but acquitted. Some alledge the jury was bribed.
The view looking towards Round Oak/ Wolverhampton
Tweaking the lighting and yet more rain.
I wasn’t all that happy with the positioning of the yard lamps shown last time. The one on the right masked the tail lights on the lorry (as several people didn’t notice them) and it didn’t do enough to light up the entrance to the yard. Leading a couple of people to enquire how the lorries actually got in. So I’ve had a bit of a fiddle. 
I’ve moved the light further along so that the back of the lorry is in shade. This on its own didn’t do enough to illuminate the gate area so…
I’ve added headlights to the lorry. (this picture was taken on a phone). They are much to bright really but you can’t see them from the front of the layout anyway. 
Here is what I was aiming for. Again its too bright for a lorry of that era but I’m happy with a bit of artistic licence for effect. You can see the difference when the headlights are blocked (on the left).
I have also been busy with more AK interactive wet effects fluid. Below are a few overviews that give a better hint of the rain. 
Finally another video, time for another cuppa and a biscuit!
Return of the rain
Up until now I have been using various gloss varnishes to attempt to make Brettell Road look wet. The results have been somewhat mixed especially on the ground itself. So I’ve given a few AK interactive products a try, still water and wet effect. Here are a few pictures of the results so far (Yes it is dry)
The Still water is a self levelling resin and it’s quite thick. The wet effects is an enamel. What you see in the pictures is a mixture of both products.
More on bananas, couplings and a short time lineside.
With the motor sorted out I cut away the molded hump (as well as the seats) and added a new floor from 20thou plasticard. The replacement seats were from DC kits (I think). The interior was then sprayed a reddish colour as that’s what pictures seemed to show. I added some curtains (drawn up in photoshop and printed) along with 3 passengers – Brettell road being very sparsely used by the public.
Although I will be keeping the railcar as no14, I removed the numbers in preparation for adding the later off white version at the other end to the way Dapol had them. The numbers came of very easily with a spot of turps substitute on a cotton bud. Be very careful around the lining as that comes off almost as soon as you look at it!
Returning to the coupling conundrum
If you remember I was toying with the idea of using a UV torch for my coupling pole but the one I had gave out a lot of visible light. I’ve upgraded to a much better UV laser torch and since photographing it is quite difficult I did a video instead. I did try adding a filter to block the visible light completely but it made it extremely hard to use.
On the subject of videos, may I invite you to get a comfy chair and a mince-pie and spend a while line side watching a bit of shunting. (this one is all diesel)
The Dapol Flying Banana
Dapol have recently released a 4mm scale model of the GWR streamlined railcar. The model depicts one of those ordered in January 1935 to lots 1546 and 1547 meaning it can cover railcars number 8 to 16 (number 17 was ordered at the same time but was a parcels version). Overall first impressions are good. Not being all that familiar with the real thing it looks the same as the pictures in ‘The History of the Great Western A.E.C. Diesel Railcars’ by C.W.Judge. There are a few things that stand out immediately though as room for improvement. The interior isn’t great being a 1 piece moulding with a huge lump in the middle to over the underfloor (well below the window line anyway) motor. With something with such big windows this isn’t ideal. The bogies look very under nourished.
First steps in converting to P4
The model uses a single driven bogie which has split axles, picking up through the bearings. The other end is a more traditional coach type bogie with wipers on the backs of the wheels. You might be able to use the Branchlines class 108 conversion for the power bogie as it looks a similar arrangement but as I didn’t have one I can’t say for sure.
I used standard wheels and drilled the center gear out 2mm to fit. I disconnected the wire from one side and used a little bit of copper clad and phosphor bronze wire to arrange new pick ups.
At the ‘trailing’ end things don’t looks so easy. The bogie is very, very narrow. No doubt a compromise to allow any sort of swing on the full skirted versions on 00 curves. You can see from the picture that a standard 26mm axle is wider that the bogie. You might be able to fit P4 wheels on the original axles as they do just about fit between the sideframes but…
… lets face it the super skinny bogies look more than a little bit naff. The quite low relief details really don’t help either. No doubt another compromise for the skirted models. 
The powered end has plug on sideframes, like a Heljan diesel so these can be easily spaced out to something approaching the real thing. The difference is quite marked to my eye for as good as no effort.
This is the driven side after its been re-spaced – the additional drive details go some way to mask the low relief nature of the basic sideframe.
I await a Brassmasters 7 ft bogie to redo the trailing end with new pickups which should kill both of the problematic birds with the same piece of small aggregate!
EDIT – Tony on the scalefour society forum has tried the Branchlines class 108 conversion and reports they don’t fit.
Weathering track – some thoughts
One topic that seems to come up fairly regularly on forums and Facebook groups is weathering track. I thought I’d do a mini article on my thoughts and how I approach this subject. As always other methods apply.
The prototype
As with any modelling activity you need to look at the real thing if you want to copy it. You don’t necessarily need to understand it and the advice model what you see, not what you think you know applies. If you are modelling a real place then the jobs pretty much done for you but it pays to look at references as close as you can to the timescale you are modelling. 
Even when track is brand new it actually isn’t. this was taken a few days after they relayed the eastern end of new street. Note the use of wooden sleepers, not all brand new track uses concrete or steel sleepers. The rails are very rusty and there’s already evidence of the trains using it. The visible colours of he pandrol clips wont last long. 
Some plain flat bottomed track that to any modeller would be considered clean. things to note are the welds where it was joined, the rail colour has spread to the sleepers in places and some of the ballast is on top of the sleepers. I’ve found when it come to track being really neat isn’t always he best thing. Its subtle but look at how the 2 rails are not the same colour. The inside face seems dustier than the outside. 
The weather changes things – the rails look very dark because they are wet. The wetness seems to mask some of the subtleties seen in the previous picture. 
Around points things have to move and as such they are greased. Note how the grease from the rod passing under the rail has manages to creep onto the web of the rail above it? The rail dust is visible around the baseplates and the third rail is a completely different colour to the running rails. 
I include this picture because it illustrates an important point. 2 tracks can be side by side and look different. There are many reasons for this. The tracks might be different ages. The trains might be doing something different depending on the direction they are going. If they are braking then there will be more brake dust. The trains themselves might be different too, loaded freight trains that carry loose material do tend to drop things and push dust along with them. If your line had a heavy use of a particular type of train then the material itself can affect the look of the track and distort its colouring. Also track weathering is directional. As the trains move along they tend to push any dust or debris along with them. As we run on the left in the UK the left hand line will tend to look the dirtier of the two when looking away from you. You can see this effect here and it pays to weather your track in the direction the trains are moving for best effect.
Modelling it.
If I am using wooden sleepers then I tend to lay the track first then give it a base coat of a mucky brown colour. I use JLTRT track colour but I’m not sure if you can still get it. Halfords do a decent matt brown in their range of camouflage spray paints which is good as well. You don’t need to be too precious as it is just the base colour. I then paint the rail sides with either Humbrol matt leather (look for tins with the union flagon the side, the others are weird and too green) or Revell 84 before ballasting. You can get a little tool for paining rails that consists of a little roller fed from a reservoir. To be honest I tried it ans didn’t get on with it. A nice flat brush seems much easier. Do all this before the ballasting. 
Flat bottom track on New Street. It was pretty new in 1987 and the rails had a distinctly different colour to the bullhead stuff. As its bi directional i sprayed the track from both directions. Firstly with a light coat of Revell 84 and then a mix of gun-metal and black. Note the grease around the fishplates done with the same colour and a simple card mask to prevent overspray. 
Sidings outside New Street signal box, It pays to have all the scenery immediately next to the track in place before the weathering. Overspray onto these elements is something that would happen in real life. Note much more gunmetal/black colour where the loco’s stand. 
Make sure that you repaint the checkrails once you’ve cleaned the rail tops A black sharpie is good for keeping them dirty or you can chemically blacken them as well. 
Close up of the end of a double slip. 
Older sidings on Brettell road. I used my finger to ‘smudge in some powder paint to the ballast to give the less cared for look. Some static grass gives an impression that the yard is losing the battle with nature. While in some cases weeds can creep into sleepers or even force their way through them it pays not to have your greenery on top of them.
Its all pretty simple stuff really but as I said at the start, observation is the key.
Post Scaleforum part 2
Couplings
The subject of couplings tends to come up at most shows. Each have their own ideas whether manual or autocouplings are best. I’m firmly in the manual camp and within reason I like couplings to look like the thing they are supposed to represent. Yes I know the infamous ‘hand of god’ grates to some but, to me, I like to suspend my belief for a second or 2 while an operator couples up rather than something looking wrong 100% of the time due to some weird design of autocoupling. On Brettell Road I have kind of the best and worst case scenario at the same time for the hand of god problem. Best case because its dark and its easier to hide it. Worst case because if the operators have any hope of seeing what they are doing you need a light! 
I can appreciate that this might well be the ultimate per peeve for some. Bit like my own of tipped from the box road vehicles or magnificently modelled signals with a flat etch for the ladder, so is there another way? Well there might be!
The couplings on this wagon have been modified do that they can be seen in the dark. in the light there are no derogatory side effects but in the dark…
…and under a UV light coupling hook they are clearly visible. Potentially easier to see than inter the normal pen torch. The UV torch I have does still give out visible light so the next mission is to find a truly black light source. By marking the coupling link, the wagon hook and the end of the coupling probe with a UV marker I might have a reasonably invisible manual coupling method.
Cassettes
Of the 5 layouts I have regularly helped to exhibit 3 have used a cassette system and this always seems to generate interest at shows. Cassettes are one of those weird things in model railways that everyone seems to be aware of but no one ever really explains to anyone. I have to hold my hands up and say I am not really a fan of them but for Brettell Road I didn’t really have a lot of options. This is how my cassette system works (other methods are available).
The baseboards were designed with a recess for the cassettes. 
The connecting end of the cassette itself. this is the third revision. The track is only actually stuck to the cassette at this end via the copper clad. the rest is merely clamped between the cassette and the inner piece that runs down it’s length.
I say third revision because the way it connect to the layout has been a tad problematic. initially I had extra rails outside of the running rails that transferred power to the copperclad sleepers by sitting over the top. This worked for the vertical alignment and at the test session at Phil’s seemed to be fine for horizontal too. However in terms of transmitting the power it wasn’t 100% and as Simon (one of the operators) pointed out – it was likely to wear through the copperclad at some point.
For Scaleforum I retained the extra rails for alignment but added phosphor bronze strips for electrical connection. these were better but fragile. Also oddly we had horizontal alignment problems that hadn’t shown up before. 
This is my revised arrangement that I am happy with so far. It seems reliable in tests but until the layout goes to its next show we wont be absolutely sure. It does look a little bit more complicated than it needs to be due to 2 tracks feeding in from the layout. 
The basic idea is that a piece of flatbottom rail mounted sideways and into the web of the running rail does all the alignment and power transmission. you might have noticed that the rail in the cassette picture wasn’t attached to the first sleeper. this is because it’s slightly tweaked outwards and is held in line by the flatbottom rail. The advantage of this is that its robust but easily adjustable if needed. So far in tests the derailment problem hasn’t re-occured. 
The cassette in place. I also have some half length ones too. 
Uh-oh – hes got distracted again!
Well sort of! When I was a kid my mum and dad took me and my brother to Matlock for the day. I might have been one of those family away day rail tours BR did back then. I can’t remember why we were there but I do remember wandering down the platform waiting for the train home and finding a little loco shed. Inside was this! 
(picture © Philip Wheldale and used with permission).
I can’t remember if it was exactly the same and I seem to recall some sort of tarpaulin on the roof but I had absolutely no idea what it was. I could only see the front and it looked kind of sad sitting there. On getting home and checking my early loco numbers book I found out it was the last surviving co-bo and ever since they have always held a certain appeal. definitely weird and pretty much hopeless from the very start they were like the runt of the early diesels litter, whats not to like?
Anyway given that Brettell Road is a what if and none to serious. What if one made it to there in the late 50’s? Remember I have set it to be more midland railway than it should be so it’s not a leap of imagination to presume that Derby might have sent one to the area to see if they could find a use for it. So, just as Hatton’s stocks of the Heljan model were dwindling I ordered one. They only had the full yellow end version left by then.
A quick win would be to stick some P4 wheels in, weather it and jobs a good-un but that would be a bit too simple really so I set to with files and opened the cab windows out to their original sizes. A bit of wire restored the framing. 
The actual windows were cut from the packaging the model came in to get the curves edges. The cab front was re-sprayed back to green (Precision locomotive green being a very close match) and then it was weathered. Ok A quick win-ish!
The other side (yes I know it’s not the right headcode arrangement for a passenger train) 
I know this shot is rapidly becoming a Cliché but I am not bored with it yet!
For more of Philips photos click here.
Post scaleforum, part 1
Brettell road seemed well received at Scaleforum and for a first show I was very pleased with how it went. That’s not to say there isn’t a list of things that need looking at for the future though.
One of the things I did before the show that I didn’t really have time to post about was this derby lightweight from a Bachmann model. I have long-term plan for a DMU but this was a quick win to have something for the show. I wired the 2 cars together and disconnected the red tail lights. A swap of the destination blinds, a few passengers and some weathering and it was good to go. I still need to redo the gangway at some point. 
I found at Scaleforum I had more wagons than I needed. this meant withdrawing ones that played up wasn’t a problem and to be fair my cripple train is reassuringly short. 
The class 20 didn’t have enough rotation in the bogies so that’s been fixed too.
I’ve toned down the streetlights as well as several people remarked that they were too bright. 
finally a quick shot of the Deeley parked up under the bridges (well why not?). I still need to finish the bedding in of the bridges so that will be a future post of its own.
The not so dirty dozen
I’ve nearly finished of another batch of a dozen wagons. Some are repeats of types that have gone before, some are variations and some are typed I’ve not done before. 
Below are the repeats 
A LMS 5 plank open from the Cambrian kit. 2 shockvans and a 9 plank private open from Parkside kits. 
A couple of standard 12t vans from Parkside kits. The plywood one (furthest) is built as per kit with my usual mods to detail the underframe a little. The nearer planked example with plywood doors runs on the Red Panda 10 ft clasp brake chassis. 
This one is a mix of old and new Parkside. The body is one of their old kits mounted on their newer LMS clasp brake underframe to produce a diagram 1927 vac fitted 12 ton goods wagon. 
Nearest is a diagram 1379 Southern railways 8 plank open from the Cambrian kit. Furthest a 6ton LMS fish van from Parkside. 
2 palvans from the Parkside kit. Furthest as supplied and nearest converted to a clasp brake variant using parts from the red panda underframe. Not quite as simple as the 12 ton van shown earlier as I needed to retain the palvans slightly odd springing and solebars. 
Finally a diagram 2111 LMS banana van. The body is from the ratio kit and the underframe is a little bit weird. It is basically the standard LMS clasp brake design but with a shorter 9 ft wheelbase rather than the usual 10 ft. I think it gives quite a nicely proportioned vehicle . 
Above shows how I did it. I’ve been finishing the bodies first for a while now and adding the underframe later as, provided the underframe is supplied in black plastic, it saves some time painting, especially the visible bits on the insides. This one uses spare bits left over from other wagon kits. The solebar is from Cambrian and the handbrakes are from Parkside. W irons are Bill Bedford with Wizard models brakes and Rumney Models axleboxes and springs. Question is, will anyone ever notice?
Some thoughts on Parkside Dundas
I’ve mentioned parkside a lot in this entry. In fact the first wagon kit I ever built was a Parkside Grampus (the unfitted one). Well the people behind Parkside have decided to retire and the range of kits has passed to another supplier. I will no doubt continue building Parkside kits for as long as they are available and i’ve built an awful lot so far. They were always accommodating and it was always a pleasure to stop by for a chat at shows. So to the guys behind Parkside Dundas, I thank you and I wish you all a happy retirement.
Kirtley part 2
The Kirtley kit came with wheels (00 obviously) I think they might be Romford. The above picture shows a comparison with a scale wheel (Gibson) and highlights a problem with 00 gauge steam loco’s While the diameter of the wheels match the oversized flanges mean that the splashers need to be much bigger to accommodate them. They are generally too wide too and sometimes in the wrong place. Some manufactures of RTR loco’s solve this by fitting smaller wheels.
On the left the original splasher (and somewhat crude spring) and on the right my resized version/ I chain drilled a line of 1mm holes inside of the splasher (from the back) and added a new top from some scrap etch.
The oversized splashers mean the boiler is compromised to fit around it. I modified it with some scrap whitemetal disks (from a southern Pride 310 kit – see, never throw stuff away!) Below is the loco so far with new splashers, springs and beading along the footplate. I’ve also mounted the chassis a tad higher into the body since the first image the other day. 
Dave Hewitt
Long time readers will have seen mention on many occasions of a little company called Unit Models. When I first came across them they did a range of resin bits mostly for US modellers in HO scale but what a range it was. Noting spectacular but they produced no end of useful little bits and pieces for people who scratchbuild buildings and the like. Things like vents, wall fans, lockers etc. The sort of stuff that was a bit of a ball ache to scratch build yourself. 
The roof vents you see here are from them and as they didn’t do the exact ones I needed Dave was only to happy to do some for me, he didn’t even seem to charge any extra for them either! Well Sadly Dave passed away recently and the business is up for sale. I hope someone picks it up and continues to produce this specific but invaluable range of bits and bobs and its sad to see such a lovely chap taken from us. My thoughts with his friends and family.
The what if factor
What if? We all do it at some point usually with regards to layouts. What if such and such place had a railway or this branchline stayed open to the diesel era? What if Clapham junction was a bit smaller so that it could fit on an 8×4 sheet of plywood? Where we don’t seem to do ‘what if’ as often is with regards to the stock itself and this is where I am heading with this post.
One of the few steam locos that appealed to me before I started Brettell Road was the Midland Flatiron or ‘hole in the wall tanks’. Although not a great success the designed by ruler and no other drawing aids look of the things appealed to my interest in things that look less than pretty. While they made it to the LMS and were reboilered by them (you can tell by the square firebox and the protruding smoke box) the last of the breed went for scrap in 1938. But what if they didn’t? What if at least one managed another dozen years? I could have one on Brettell Road then!
Of course the armchair experts will delight in pointing out that its wrong but we seem happy to basically make up history for locations, why not locos? Id be interested in people’s thoughts on this.
Wanting to see how one would look in BR livery I got my digital crayons out and drew it. I think it looks quite smart myself.
Prototype picture ©Warwickshire Railways and used with permission. www.warwickshirerailways.com
Compromises and trying a different path
What you see here are 3 walls for the same building. The one on the left faces the public, the one in the middle doesn’t but you can see it from the front of the layout and the one on the right you can’t see at all, at least not from this side. You will note that the middle wall doesn’t have representations of the arches but it does have the raised details and sills. This is because from the angle you can see the wall (you will have to look for it) you should just be able to make out texture and relief but not enough to see if those things are accurate or not. The right wall you can’t see at all so I didn’t bother with texture or even the top curve of the windows You will be able to see the windows from the other side so that is one reason they are there. The other is that I hope you will also see the effect the light from the windows will have on the little yard behind it. 
There is a reason that the walls in the first picture look pretty much finished and that is that I am approaching this build differently to my previous buildings. As its right at the front and you can see inside I want to detail the interior and to my mind the best way to do this was to build the structure in situe. We will see how it goes!
DCC controlled Dinghams
I originally wrote about this several years ago but since the topic has come up again on a forum I’m going to take a little look back at my thoughts on couplings.
There are 2 schools of thought on the issue of coupling trains together. Something that looks like the real thing, or something that can work automatically. The downsides of these are that the real thing type can be fiddly (and the closer you get to dead scale the more fiddly it gets) and the often bemoaned ‘hand of god’ that seems to be wheeled out as a regular complaint by some forum go-ers. The automatic type doesn’t look like the real thing (unless you are doing some sort of buckeye type prototype) and many of them require fixed magnets and an odd ‘shuffle’ to be performed by the driver to uncouple. How this shuffle looks any better than the hand of god I don’t really know and to my mind its better to credit your viewer with the ability to suspend their disbelief for a moment while you uncouple a vehicle than for said vehicle to look wrong all of the time!
Problem is with New Street I don’t have much choice. Loco’s will need to be changed and all that overhead along with a shopping centre means that a manual hook isn’t going be in any way practical! So automatic it will have to be and as only certain rakes will need to be uncoupled some sort of DCC on board solution seemed the obvious answer
Proof of concept. The coupling of choice being the Dingham coupling which will couple to a Smiths hook (not automatically mind you), By fitting these to coaches that have gangways they can be hidden as much as possible and there’s no requirement for a weird coupling on the loco. As supplied the Dingham has a steel dropper that when passing over a magnet is pulled down to raise the loop. By fitting a magnet instead and using an opposing magnet the loop can be raised from inside the vehicle.
By salvaging an electro-magnet from a cheap relay and wiring it to a DCC decoder this process can be simply automated. with no power the loop sits in its normal position.
But when power is supplied via a decoder function the loop is raised and coupling/uncoupling can be done. It’s all quite simple really!
A technological rethink
A while ago I wrote about the benefits of using modern techniques and processes, specifically laser cutters. However I have sort of come to change my view on this a little recently. You see, if you are doing more than 1 thing that is the same then laser cutting can offer a distinct time-saving. If however what you are doing is pretty much bespoke then the extra effort is, I have concluded, not really worth it. Take my retaining walls for Brettell Road. I did draw up the larger one but it took for ever. It turned out to be much quicker and easier to just get some sheets of embossed plasticard and get stuck in! I have to admit those that protest on forums that laser cutting is cheating really don’t have a clue what they are talking about because it’s a lot, lot harder than the old way. 
These walls use Slaters bricks and I have done the top row by cutting individual blocks from evergreen strip and gluing them in place. Even taking the time to do this (Which isn’t exactly taxing but is long-winded) these walls didn’t take all that long to do.
Wagon building continues and I have amassed a fair few now (probably enough for Brettell Road if I am honest). This is a diagram 1/019 BR medium goods wagon from the Parkside kit which, as is customary for their stuff, pretty much falls together out of the packet. The usual extra bits and bobs have been added to the underframe. 
On the left a BR 13 ton steel open again from Parkside while on the right a 13 ton sand tippler from Red Panda. I originally built this for Amlwch but never actually ran it on that layout so it can go here instead. It’s good to see that the small but useful range of Red Panda kits have recently resurfaced from Parkside. 
Finally this is pretty much what I hope Brettell Road will be all about, dark and wet! It’s always been my intention to depict a rainy night somewhere in the Black Country and this is the first time I’ve really been able to get an image that illustrates what I am looking for.
Some thoughts on springing
No I haven’t put this in the wrong place and yes this is a bogie off a class 31 but it serves to show how the real thing goes about springing 3 axles. When I first wrote about building the chassis for my Jinty I didn’t go into too much detail on how it was sprung, mainly because I wanted to check that it worked properly before telling people how to do it (or leading them down the wrong path , possibly!). In truth I knew it would work as when my friend Simon built his fully spring class 31 (from a Bill Bedford kit) he sprung it using a similar principle. AS he’s an engineer and I’ve seen his 31 perform faultlessly on may occasions there was little to worry about other than I possibly didn’t get it or couldn’t do it!
Anyway after a few days of shuffling wagons around on Brettell Road I feel confident to tell you how it was done. I admit off the bat that CSB’s work and work well as I’ve seen many examples of them (Continuous Springy Beams). I also admit that all the maths, tables and discussion put me right off the idea from the start. It just seems so ‘faffy’ somehow. Sure they first appeared when there was an element of the finescale side of the hobby who likes to pretend they were actually Stephen Hawking and seemed to revel in making things look as difficult as possible but there was always the thought in the back of my mind that a lot of the clever theory, whilst fine on paper, didn’t actually translate to any effect in the real world. That and why don’t real 3 axle vehicles do it that way then? (Yes I know a Jinty isn’t sprung like a class 31 either!)
The principle of equalised springy beams is very simple. If you have a beam with a pivot in the middle the effects on either end will be the same. If you move the pivot to a 3rd of the way along the effects are more on one end than the other, By using 2 beams on 3 axles, with 2 of them acting on the center axle and the pivots towards the outer axles, the effects on all 3 should be about the same. It’s a mix of old-fashioned, very rigid compensation beams and springs to get a sprung result. I am sure that you can apply loads of complicated maths to this to refine the thinking further but it works for me, appeals to me KISS approach to things and all you need is 4 handrail knobs and 4 springs of 18 gauge guitar string. Nothing has to be pivoted and you can just change the gauge of the springs to adjust the effect. 