Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Area 51' started by Dikitriki, 31 March 2010.
Hi Richard, do you know why the switch work is further away on the lower point?
No, no idea. They were both built directly from the templates. I built the C&L one first from their own template provided in the turnout kit before subsequently printing off the Templot one. It's not going to matter in the context of testing, but it is curious.
It was fun to get back to point building, remind myself of the procedure, as I can now think about the G1 stuff.
Simple geometry. With constant crossing angle and radius, narrow the gauge and the length will reduce in proportion. The length of the 31.5mm gauge one should be 98.4% of the 32mm gauge turnout, or 95.4% of a Scale7 turnout. Sleeper spacings need to be adjusted to try to keep the narrower turnouts looking in proportion.
The reduction in gauge width will tend to shorten the lead of the turnout, and there are a few other variables concerning the crossing and the length of straight in front of it which can also vary the length. I remember that from changing a Templot FS plan to 31.5mm some years ago and I had to go round every turnout and make tweaks for the lead variations.
Firstly, the reduction in gauge from 32mm to 31.5mm causes a small reduction in the lead length.
But most of the reason for the shorter length is probably that in Templot you used the default regular type V-crossing. To get a match to the C&L template you need to change to a generic type or curviform type of V-crossing. More about all that at:
Templot defaults to the regular type because a) it saves space, b) it works better for crossovers, and c) it is easier to build with overscale model flangeway gaps.
But for direct comparison with templates from other sources, you usually need to change to generic.
You can adjust the amount of entry-straight on a regular V-crossing using the Shift+F11 mouse action, and see how it affects the lead length. This is useful when you want to shorten a turnout to fit a specific location without changing the crossing angle.
I had the pleasure of listening to this loco sat in the yard the first time that we visited.
I am just about to embark upon DCC sound myself and would like to start by equipping my LNER J63 with a sound chip. Could you tell me whose chip/sound file that you used please? - My guess/hope is that both being twin cylinder engines they might have sounded similar (albeit it one inside and one outside cylindered)? - I sincerely doubt that anyone does a sound file specific to the J63.
I had the same problem - I wanted a Paul Chetter sound profile to play with, but there was a very limited choice. So, whisper it quietly, it has a J94 sound profile in ZS004M J94 Multidrive soundfile for Zimo | Digitrains
I really like it, but then I wouldn't have a clue as to what a lanky tank really sounded like
Brilliant, especially as I have a J94 in the stash to do at some point too.
I have a similar problem as I have just acquired a J63 off of 'the bay of E' - perhaps the ex GWR 1361/1366 might be an alternative as they were outside cylinder 0-6-0Ts and some are preserved, so there may be a sound file around somewhere. I have just renumbered mine to 68205, with BRITISH RAILWAYS on the tanks when it was at Bidston - 6F, awaiting smokebox number and shedplate from Severn Mill, but will start the weathering process soon. Photos will follow.
Sorry for the hi-jack Richard
I look forward to seeing it Mike
I have just done a Lanky Tank too and fitted a J94 sound file in it Richard!
Phew, I'm in good company then
Gosh, over 18 months since I last posted any general work; it shows how busy I have been on other things.
Many, many years ago, I built a Jim Harris Flat Top - a Bulleid West Country with a rebuilt 4500 gallon tender. It was the first O gauge model I completed, built largely to see if I could 'do' O gauge. It has done sterling service and is still a favourite locomotive of mine. I put a lot of effort into detailing it and learned a lot in the process.
Over the years I became more aware of its shortcomings and always wanted to pair it with an original 4500 gallon tender. The catalyst was a couple of years ago when Roger Scanlon gave me a started Finney kit for the 4500 gallon tender with the chassis and most of the castings missing. That was fine as I was pretty happy with my existing tender chassis, and thought to just put a new body on. Fast forward a couple of years and I was now an owner of Finney7. Roger had acquired a built Finney West Country and the shape of that against the Jim Harris offering, particularly the engine body and roof..... Shall we say they were somewhat different. Could I in some way sort out my Jim Harris engine body while keeping the chassis? Well no, not without a major rebuild. I couldn't just put a F7 cab on the Harris casing as the dimensions of the former (literally) were miles out. So if I was going to get close, I had to use a F7 casing. As luck had it, we had some reject casings which the casters did not want back. They were not perfect to be put in the kits or otherwise sold, but within my abilities to restore, and with a bit of scratchbuilding, I would have a decent casing. Since I wanted an 8'6'' cab, I contacted one of our customers who I knew was doing a 9' cab, and he very kindly agreed to let me have the spare etchings. It would be a half-way house kit, as I was still going to use the Jim Harris chassis and some of the exisiting detail, but at least the shape would be right. I will at some time in the future build a F7 Flat Top with a 5500 gallon rebuilt tender, but this hybrid will no longer look so out of place with the more recent builds.
So, I took a couple of weeks off from F7 and commission work, and started the tender top. It's a joy to build as the fit is uncanny. There are a lot of bits, but I could not find any detail to add that wasn't in the kit. Just a case of carefully following the instructions. The most difficult thing was finding a suitable prototype - AWS fitted West Country with original 4500 gallon tender having the first BR emblem.
One of the best bits about the order of construction is that the sides go on last, which means that the rear, front and top of the tender can all be completed with most of the soldering done from inside, making for a tidy model. I've finished the front off:
and there's only a few bits left to complete the back and top. I have already formed the sides and added the top brackets, so I only really have the doors to do, and the tender body is done.
Very nice Richard. Funny you should mention the original kit being miles out dimensionally. Over the years I've seen quite a few Bulleid airsmoothed locos of both varieties and have never been overly impressed with the cab and casing shapes (both kit and RTR). The first one that looked right to me was the Finney kit that you guys have subsequently upgraded. Hence the two green boxes sitting under the layout in the to-do list.
I'll take some compare and contrast pictures later.
In the meantime, I have finished off the rear and top and added the sides.
I see you have been using that magic solder and soldering iron again..............super work
Thank you Bob,
Here's the compare and contrast photos:
Jim Harris tender on the left - too wide and with too flat a roof, and some questionable detail (stop laughing!). F7 on the right. The issue now of course is without a rebuild, the engine is noticeably lower than the tender. However, I have the plan as above, and the tender body is completely finished. In the meantime, I have to nip back to finish the radial off, so that's it for the moment.
....Not quite everything.
After being built over a period of 27 years, with 2 rebuilds, 1 paint and strip, I am finally near to unveiling a Duchess.
I must admit to being pretty excited about getting it back so I can reassemble it and weather it, I even have some Modelu crew, complete with a Brian as inspector.
Fantastic. Is this the one you posted a photo of on my RMweb Duchess thread, when you were still building it?
That's a very unusual way of breaking it down for painting. I see you have added the front boiler mounting just behind the smoke box. I've never seen that before and I thought I might have been the first to do it, but you have beaten me by 27 years. Drat!
Thank you. It's been a very long time coming, but I'm glad I persevered.
It's not the same Duchess, no.
This one is the first of 3 I have underway. Coronation, destreamlined.
The one I posted on your thread was #3, an Ivatt Duchess, Sir WS. This may well go on holiday with me and be progressed then.
The second one, and almost finished is the Finney one I documented on WT, Montrose, never streamlined. That's been chipped and has passed its Heyside trials. I just need to find a quiet week to finish it off.
It is an unusual way of breaking it down. However, the firebox/backhead/spectacle plate is a one-piece resin casting, so in that context, it makes sense. I can't really take credit for the boiler mounting, it was in the kit!