Rivermead Central

[40057]

Hi Martin
It‘s such a history lesson reading your thread thank you.
With the flexing of the switch blades braking the solder joints and to keep the points looking as they should with no noticeable alterations would it be worth pivoting the two fixed blades by removing the solder at positions marked with a Blue X and making the two fixed switch blades pivot at the position shown in red on the photo below by using a 12 ba screw or a piece of rod or similar through from the underside of the sleeper into the rail and (if needed closing the gap a little by bending the rail shown in Black so when the diverge position is set the check gap is correct).
David.
View attachment 213705

Hi David

Thank you for your comments and suggestion.

Your idea would certainly work as it removes the need for the switchblades to flex, so there would be no strain on the soldered joints in normal operation. I had considered a similar approach based on cutting through the rails that form the switchblades near the crossing and making them into a separate pivoted assembly, as was done in the post-war scale permanent way. I might try out either, or both, these approaches in future. I am not sure they will be much easier or quicker to do than what I have done so far. Generally, the soldered joints securing the wing rails don’t break, certainly not the joints furthest from the crossing. So I have been reluctant to disturb these as they preserve the relative positions of the different running rails.

My approach to date has not been to alter the way the points operate, but to strengthen the soldered joints so (I hope) they are strong enough not to fail. Additionally, to introduce more flexibility into the connection between the tie bar and the point lever, so the switch blades are free to swing in an arc, rather than just move transversely across. The combination of reduced stresses from a more ‘natural’ flex and stronger joints should be durable, I feel. Come back to WT in 100 years time to find out!

I don’t think the original Lowko Track design is far off being OK for 3’ 2 1/4” radius points. Lowko track was also made in 2’ radius. The distance between the toe of the switch blades and the crossing is obviously far less in 2’ radius points and they are always broken. I have never seen a 2’ turnout with the soldered joints intact. (I was never going to be using such a small radius anyway, so not my problem). In 3’ 2 1/4” radius points with tinplate rails, joints at one or other end of the switchblades have usually failed. Not every time, either because the turnout has had little use or the soldered joint was particularly strong or the tinplate rail was particularly flexible. There is certainly some variation in the rails as to how ‘splayed’ the bottom webs are and this does seem to affect how easily the rails bend. Also the removal of one web from the rail to form the switchblade extends further from the toe in some points than others reflecting the hand-made construction. I have only three factory made Lowko Track points with brass rails. So, based on this very small sample, I would say soldered joints are less likely to fail with brass rails, no doubt because they bend more easily. I have never seen a factory made 4’ radius Lowko Track LH or RH turnout in 0 gauge (these were only listed pre-WW1). However, the ‘complete crossovers’ listed until production of Lowko Track ceased used two 4’ radius points. I have several of these but mostly very distressed and not repairable. It is difficult to distinguish between failed soldered joints due to flexing of the switchblades in use and the damage caused when granny stood on the crossover. My impression though is the extra length of the points in the crossovers reduces the strain on the soldered joints sufficiently for them mostly not to fail.

Based on the above, my conclusion is that a modest strengthening of the soldered joints plus some additional flexibility should be enough to allow 3’ 2 1/4” radius Lowko Track points to be used regularly and not break.

 

[Allen M]

Back in about 1958 I built some 00 points with flexing blades. They gave trouble.
Since then I have always pivoted the blades on 00 0fs and 16mm (0cs). Some times by putting a pivot under each blade but then that also needs a pivot in the tie bar. Then I started to use a pivoted sub assembly, not prototype but very reliable and once weathering & ballast added invisible unless you know and look closely.


Might be of help
Allen

 

[40057]

Back in about 1958 I built some 00 points with flexing blades. They gave trouble.
Since then I have always pivoted the blades on 00 0fs and 16mm (0cs). Some times by putting a pivot under each blade but then that also needs a pivot in the tie bar. Then I started to use a pivoted sub assembly, not prototype but very reliable and once weathering & ballast added invisible unless you know and look closely.
View attachment 213740

Might be of help
Allen

Thank you, Allen.

There is no doubt that the Lowko Track points (and indeed permanent way points until post-WW2) were not a good design. I certainly wouldn’t build points that depended on the switchblades bending. But I’m not building them, so I hope I have found a way of repairing them and making the least possible change consistent with satisfactory long term operation. Time will tell.

 

[40057]

A cleaned-up, 3’-radius, post-war permanent way point:



A few hours work was all it needed, and it’s ready to use. There are no signs of wear on the rails, so either this has never been used or it has had very little use. There was some corrosion on the rails — I think phosphoric acid had been used as the flux for the soldered joints during manufacture and not cleaned off properly. Lots of dust on the sleepers. But no damage and no repairs needed, just cleaning. I don’t suppose all my permanent way track pieces will be as easy to renovate as this — but this was far, far simpler and quicker than putting a Lowko Track point into good, useable condition.

I would comment that post-war permanent way points always seem to be very accurately made. The switch blades fit tightly against the stock rails, the check rail spacing is correct and consistent. Standard Bassett-Lowke wheels run through the crossings perfectly smoothly with no drop or jar. In terms of their design, functionality and appearance, these post-WW2 permanent way points are clearly superior to Lowko Track points. However, I will stick with Lowko Track for most of the layout because it is contemporaneous with much of my rolling stock, so a more appropriate track. I will get Cavendish Goods laid with permanent way, see how it looks, and then consider if I might do another part of the layout in permanent way track as well.

By way of a PS, when I opened the box containing the above 3’ radius point, I found a sheet of newspaper had been used as a wrapping. This turned out to be the front and back pages of the Sheffield Telegraph of 5 September 1963. Quite possibly the date the points were last packed up and put away. Anyway, it was this front page story on view when I lifted off the box lid that caught my eye:

 

[oldravendale]

I lived a matter of a few hundred yards from the bridge where that happened for quite a few years. When passing it was difficult to comprehend the drama that ensued...

Brian

 

[Roger Pound]

I don't wish to boast but I had a 'bit' part as a 'police extra' in the film "Robbery" based on that incident. It starred the late Sir Stanley Baker - a fine gentleman with whom I was privileged to chat when on the set.
Apologies for hi-jacking this fascinating thread !

Roger

 

[jonte]

I don't wish to boast but I had a 'bit' part as a 'police extra' in the film "Robbery" based on that incident. It starred the late Sir Stanley Baker - a fine gentleman with whom I was privileged to chat when on the set.
Apologies for hi-jacking this fascinating thread !

Roger

No doubt you were the dashing fellow who made Mr. Baker look, well, ordinary

A signed autograph, if I may be so bold Roger.

Oh, and sign it to ‘the kid who used to wave to passing Police cars’

Jon

 

[40057]

The roof advertising sign for the Benham’s factory building is nearly finished:



I have added diagonal supports for the frame on which the letters are mounted. I still need to put some matt white paint over the joints at each end of the diagonals, and I will probably spray on a thin coat of matt varnish. But otherwise, all done.

I have put in just four diagonal supports which I am sure is too few for a full size equivalent sign. But only the ones at each end are really going to be visible when the building is in place on the layout — as I think is apparent from the above photograph. From any normal viewing angle, all anyone is going to notice is that there is a supporting framework behind the letters.

 

[40057]

The roof advertising sign for the Benham’s factory building is finished.

It was officially declared completed less than an hour ago.

Here it is in place on the still unfinished factory:



I have made no progress with the building itself for months, due largely to concentrating effort on the warehouse building. However, the roof sign was easily the most complicated of the remaining tasks needed to get the factory building finished, so that’s a significant step forward.

 

[40057]

Having decided to use post-WW2 Scale Permanent Way for part of my layout, for context I had better provide some general information about the track system. The Scale Permanent Way I am going to use was manufactured between the late 1940s and the mid ‘60s. I shall only be using ‘standard’ brass track at Cavendish Goods, i.e. with no third rail for electric traction. In addition to the standard Scale Permanent Way track, variants with steel rails and fewer sleepers were offered, generally at lower cost; also electric track fitted with a raised centre third rail, and; right at the end of production, points insulated for use on two-rail electric railways (the plain line track was insulated anyway, by the wooden sleepers).

The post-WW2 Scale Permanent Way was essentially similar to the Scale Permanent Way track Bassett-Lowke had offered since 1905. Many details changed over time. The rail section became smaller and closer to scale. In the 1920s and before, Scale Permanent Way was made in 15” lengths and with a standard curve of 3’ 2 1/4” radius — i.e. the same as Lowko Track. Early Scale Permanent Way track always had separate hardwood keys. But the basic approach did not change — creosoted wood sleepers, solid drawn rail, cast lead alloy chairs fastened down with tiny spikes. Track of similar construction was offered by several other manufacturers. It was the ‘industry standard’ for fifty years.

By the time Bassett-Lowke’s retail shops closed in the 1960s, they were also selling Peco ‘0’ gauge track as an alternative to Scale Permanent Way. What had been the norm since the early 20th century, with only relatively minor variation, was quickly superseded by something quite different. Arguably, the replacement of Scale Permanent Way by Peco Streamline represents the only paradigm shift in the history of 0 gauge model railway track.

The post-WW2 Scale Permanent Way was sold in 18” lengths, though shorter ‘distance pieces’ were available as well. The standard radius of curve was described as 3’. Curves of 3’ 3” radius were also offered to enable the laying of double track. There was a comprehensive range of pointwork. The track pieces offered in the mid-1950s are shown here:



(The point levers shown in the above illustration are of a type offered since before WW1 and I have never seen them fitted to post-WW2 track).

Despite the curves always being described as 3’ or 3’ 3” radius in lists and on the boxes, slightly different dimensions were given in a helpful diagram published in the early 1950s catalogues:



I will have to check the actual dimensions carefully before starting to fasten down the track for Cavendish Goods. I am confident I can fit in a suitable run round and sidings, but there is very little space to spare. Compared with Lowko Track, the track panels are 3” longer and the radius of curve slightly larger or slightly smaller. My intention is that the run-round loop is based on a 90 degree arc of double-track. Fortunately, I have several of the 3’ 3” radius 6”-long distance pieces, one of which will be essential for constructing the loop. I think I also have all the points I need but, if not, post-war Scale Permanent Way is easy to obtain in good condition.

 

[40057]

This terrible cold, wet, windy weather is a disaster for getting on with the garden — but great for making time for modelling.

I have just fitted the vertical coping to the ends of the raised wall section in the centre of the Benham’s warehouse building:





The two holes are for a couple of moulding pins. These will help strengthen the joint between the top c. 1 cm of the wall, which is integral with the canopy structure, and the rest of the building.

I was concerned whether I could make such a large separate subassembly as the whole canopy and top section of the wall accurately enough for it to fit exactly onto the rest of the building. In particular, my worry was twist due to warping of the wood in either component. But all is well. Everything lines up as it should.

 

[40057]

Back in my post #71, I described the first Precursor tank models sold by Bassett-Lowke, made by Marklin. Precursor tanks were by no means the only 0 gauge tank locomotives in the Bassett-Lowke catalogues during the years immeadiately prior to WW1.

Truly, the 1910 to 1914 period was a golden age for British model railways. Bassett-Lowke had since 1900 developed a range of affordable scale models that allowed ‘better-off’ enthusiasts to create realistic and very complete model railways. There were, for example, by 1914, nearly 50 different model wagons of tinplate construction offered in 0 gauge. Five different tank locomotives were available for 0 gauge modellers to run on their systems. Also five express locomotives for clockwork and electric railways, plus two others that were live steam. And there was one 0-6-0 goods engine. After 1910, all of these locomotive models were made by Bing.

Unlike the Marklin Precursor tank described previously, these Bing-made locomotives were produced exclusively for Bassett-Lowke. The quality of these Bing models is exceptional. The advance in realism compared with what was being made a decade before is staggering. But these Bing models will also stand comparison with much later production. I feel several factors contributed to them being particularly successful portrayals of real locomotives. Firstly, the models Bing made for Bassett-Lowke benefitted from the guiding hand of Henry Greenly who produced dimensioned drawings for the Germans to work from. Secondly, the very high quality of the workmanship by Bing’s employees. Thirdly, the suitability of the prototypes chosen for portrayal in model form. The very uncluttered appearance of Edwardian era British steam locomotives was crucial here. It would have been quite commercially and technically impossible to accurately model a locomotive when the real thing was covered in visible pipe work with miscellaneous functional parts in full view. I would argue that Bing’s contemporary models of French and German locomotives were much less successful than their models of British locomotives largely for this reason. But in addition to the generally clean lines of British locomotives of the period, Bassett-Lowke (or perhaps Henry Greenly) also selected prototypes carefully. The clockwork and electric models, with one exception, were of locomotives with inside cylinders. So bogie wheels could usually be close to scale size despite the bogie needing to swing sufficiently for 2’ radius curves.

These Bing models necessarily had to be able to run on tinplate track temporarily laid on the floor or a table. So the wheels were very coarse by today’s standards. They had to be. But within the practical, technical and commercial constraints on what was possible, the accuracy of reproduction set a new and very high standard.

The five tank engines made by Bing for the Bassett-Lowke 0 gauge range during the 1910 to 1914 period were:

Two 4-4-2s. The LNWR Precursor tank — as described in my post #71 — and an LBSC I2 class, no. 11. These two models shared many parts in common. Both models were also made in Gauge 1. Both models were produced by Bing again after WW1, though production of gauge 0 Precursor tanks was later switched to Northampton.

Two 0-4-4s. These were an LSWR M7 and an NER O class (LNER class G5). The M7 was the first of these scale model Bing tank engines, and in 0 gauge was less detailed than the others — for instance it lacked a boiler handrail. Both models were also offered in Gauge 1. The NER loco was briefly produced again just after WW1. I am not a ‘collector’ who wants to complete ‘sets’ — but if I was, these two would be the ones I ‘needed’ to get. I think I have only ever seen one example of the NER loco in 0 gauge, and that was a complete wreck. I don’t have, or ever expect to own, an example of either of the 0-4-4s.

The odd one out — a GWR ‘Birdcage’ 2-4-2. This model was offered only in 0 gauge and included in the catalogue only in 1911–13. It was not produced again after WW1. My best guess is there was one production run in 1911 which was not repeated when that first batch sold out. It’s impossible to know if there might have been further production had war not come in 1914.

I’ve always liked the Birdcage tank model and was lucky enough to be able to buy one several years ago. This is it:





The model reflects the contemporary condition of the real no. 3611, so no taper boiler. All the main characteristics of the prototype are reproduced in the model; it is instantly recognisable and beautifully painted. This example has been well used as the nickel plating has completely worn off all the wheel treads near to the flange. But it must have been looked after and cared for throughout its 113 year existence, since the paintwork is in excellent condition. I guess it has always been someone’s treasured possession, as it is for me.

No. 3611 is an excellent example of a pre-WW1 ready-to-run model. It still works as if it was just built. To its other virtues, I would add that it now has a period charm it didn’t have when new.

 

[40057]

The idea of building a vintage layout became a definite aim for me over thirty years ago. Unlike many — perhaps most — enthusiasts for vintage equipment, my focus has remained finding what I need for a working railway, not collecting models. I have obtained items I thought I could use as the opportunity arose. Inevitably, during the busy years in employment, items were found that needed minor repairs or restoration. Though individually not a great deal of work, many were nevertheless set aside for future attention. Now with Rivermead Central progressing at last, and more time in retirement, I have a backlog of cleaning and repair work that can finally be addressed.

As items get attended to, I shall post pictures of them here if I think they will be of interest to others, or if the repairs needed have been a learning opportunity. Or if the item is something I particularly like.

I have mentioned before the amazing completeness of the Bassett-Lowke range. The items listed in the Bassett-Lowke catalogues, especially in the inter-war years, really did allow every aspect of real railways to be portrayed in model form. Although many different manufacturers made the items retailed by Bassett-Lowke, the range was harmonious as Bassett-Lowke either specified what was to be made or bought in for sale only products that fitted in with their exclusive models.

Many of the multitude of small items listed in the Bassett-Lowke catalogues were offered at very modest prices. Generally, these accessories are not expensive to buy today — often costing less than an equivalent item of current manufacture. However, small vintage items can be very hard to find. Unlike, say, a locomotive or track, a model railway doesn’t have to have a telephone box, fire buckets, parcels and luggage including a crated up piano, line side advertising hoardings or even signals or a goods depot. So sales of such items will have been limited. Also, when the railway owner grew up, died or lost interest, the locomotive was unlikely to have been thrown away. But the accessories may well have been. Today, of course, surviving accessories are not always recognised as being model railway related. What is actually a nice, perhaps scarce, vintage railway passenger, separated from its model railway context is just an old lead toy figure.

This afternoon’s weather was damp, so instead of gardening I spent a couple of hours repairing a Bassett-Lowke street light. The glue joint between the post and the lantern had failed so needed remaking. I then had to blend in a small area of cream paint over the new joint.

This is the relevant entry in the 1933 Bassett-Lowke catalogue:



And this is the street light I repaired today:



Note that this is one of the expensive street lights, with a working bulb:



And, indeed, it’s still a working bulb when connected to a 3V battery. Since, there is no way of replacing the pea bulb, this must be the one fitted at the factory 90 ish years ago.

These street lights are hard to find. It is probably fair to describe them as scarce. At five shillings, they cost nearly twice the price of a tinplate open wagon (2/9) and only 6d less than a LNE bogie brick wagon. So although 5/- was not a fortune, only a fairly wealthy model railway owner would be likely to prioritise buying street lights given what else could be had for the price.

 

[magmouse]

I shall post pictures of them here if I think they will be of interest to others, or if the repairs needed have been a learning opportunity. Or if the item is something I particularly like.

Yes, please. Although these models are in many ways very different to my own interests (Edwardian GWR in S7) I find the way they sit somewhere between a pure toy and a finescale model fascinating.

it’s still a working bulb when connected to a 3V battery.

Is there anything in the Bassett-Lowke literature that says what the rated voltage of the bulb is? Running it a little below its rated voltage will significantly extend its life (and reduce the output a little, of course):

"a 5% reduction in operating voltage will more than double the life of the bulb at the expense of reducing its light output by approximately 16%. Conversely, a 5% increase in operating voltage above the rated voltage will halve the lifetime of the lamp, albeit with a higher light output as a trade-off." sciencedirect.com

Nick.

 

[40057]

Yes, please. Although these models are in many ways very different to my own interests (Edwardian GWR in S7) I find the way they sit somewhere between a pure toy and a finescale model fascinating.



Is there anything in the Bassett-Lowke literature that says what the rated voltage of the bulb is? Running it a little below its rated voltage will significantly extend its life (and reduce the output a little, of course):

"a 5% reduction in operating voltage will more than double the life of the bulb at the expense of reducing its light output by approximately 16%. Conversely, a 5% increase in operating voltage above the rated voltage will halve the lifetime of the lamp, albeit with a higher light output as a trade-off." sciencedirect.com

Nick.

There is nothing in the catalogue regarding the bulbs in the street lights (see catalogue entry, as posted earlier). However, the entry for signals lists the bulbs as 3.5V. I guess they are the same bulbs. I tried a 1.5V battery with the street light and it didn’t light. A 3V battery worked — as photographed. Your advice suggests that is probably a good choice.

Thanks for your input.

 

[40057]

A second day of cool, damp weather to keep me out of the garden. But on the plus side, more models repaired. First, another street light with working bulb:



Same repair required as on the light attended to yesterday. That’s it for these, as I have only two. Somewhere, in a box, are three of the non-working type. Apart from not being fitted with a pea bulb, they are otherwise just like the working version. But, in the phrase used at the time, ‘only for show, you know’.

Today’s second completed repair was this:



Bassett-Lowke, from between the wars. There were three ranges of semaphore signals offered in the 1930s, and this is one of the best type. A wooden post with metal fittings. This example, like most I have seen, has no ladder or platform. Nor is it fitted with a pea bulb in the lamp, so is not illuminated. These additional features were available to order. The finial casting is clearly LNW, perhaps reflecting that Bassett-Lowke was based in Northampton.

This photo shows that the lamp is hollow to allow for fitting a pea bulb:



Apart from a clean, the signal needed two repairs. The metal base was detached as the glue joining it to the wooden post had failed. I had to clean off some of the old glue so the post would fit properly into the recess in the cast base. Then re-glue and cover the join with matching black paint. Secondly, there was a chunk of red paint missing from the signal arm. I decided this needed to be touched in with matching paint. If the signal had numerous small abrasions and paint chips, the paint loss on the arm would probably not really have been noticeable. But with it being in such good condition generally, the damage to the arm stood out. So I needed to mix a matching red and fill in the hole left by the missing paint.

In close up, the paint repair is just visible:



I’m generally averse to adding new paint to vintage items. But I will do it to stabilise areas of original paint that are fragile or flaking, or to protect against further corrosion. And occasionally, as here, for the sake of appearance.

 

[40057]

Today has been a warm, sunny day. So plenty else to do, but I have cleaned one vintage item ready for use. Cleaning in this case was brushing with a soft toothbrush, rinsing in water and putting the item outside in the sun to dry. I had been waiting for a day like today to get this job done.

I’m a great fan of the Antiques Roadshow on BBC TV. Sometimes, one or other of the experts asks Fiona Bruce to guess the function of weird items used for some obsolete activity or purpose. Here is my model railway equivalent that I cleaned this afternoon:





It’s a piece of post-WW2 Bassett-Lowke scale permanent way fitted with a long, rectangular section brass bar that can be moved transversely by operating the centrally positioned lever. It’s factory made and was advertised in the Bassett-Lowke catalogues in the early 1950s.

The construction is extremely complex and must have been expensive. The sale price was more than for a standard left or right hand turnout. This next photograph shows the construction of the brass bar — an inverted U with the ends neatly finished. Also the short lengths of tube let into the running rails to form bearings for the transverse supports for the brass bar.



The transverse movement of the brass bar is limited by the circular discs of tinplate to which it is soldered:



Even at the limits of its movement, the brass bar is too far from the running rails to act on the wheel backs or obstruct the wheel flanges. The bar projects about 4 mm above the top of the rails.

Anybody know or like to guess what this apparatus is for?

 

[simond]

Some form of actuator for a clockwork loco braking/control mechanism?

a brass version of this!

 

[40057]

Some form of actuator for a clockwork loco braking/control mechanism?

a brass version of this!

View attachment 215083

Correct, Simon. That’s exactly what it is. Similar devices were made and sold by other manufacturers of 0 gauge clockwork trains — for example, Hornby. Depending on where the brass bar was positioned, fully to the left or to the right, and the direction of travel of the locomotive, the bar would operate a trip on the underside of the clockwork mechanism and either stop or reverse the locomotive/train. In practice, suddenly putting the locomotive into reverse when pulling a train at speed is likely to have disastrous consequences. Nor, clearly, is it in any way realistic. But using the device to stop a train close to the end of its run but in exactly the right place is fine. The ‘extra’ with the Bassett-Lowke system, compared with, say, Hornby, was the rail could also be used to start a clockwork train without touching the locomotive. In addition to the ‘normal’ brake control in the cab/bunker, Bassett-Lowke clockwork locomotives have a third control, ‘brake/restart’. If this lever is pulled out, it holds the brake ‘off’, but the brake will be applied if the trip under the locomotive is raised by the special rail. However, with the ‘brake/restart’ lever engaged, if the trip under the loco is released (by moving the bar between the rails), a small tension spring ensures the brake automatically returns to ‘off’. The ability to start a clockwork train without having to touch the locomotive was evidently regarded as an advance in realism and was a selling point. Personally, I’m really not convinced pulling a large lever adjacent to the track is any more realistic than moving a brake lever in the locomotive cab/bunker. I suppose the control from the track took clockwork trains a step closer to the remote control an operator gets with electric trains. But any clockwork locomotive is always going to have to be handled, for winding up.

This is the listing for the control rail in the 1951 catalogue:



That’s a price of 30/3, not a cheap item.

Incidentally, the lever on these post-war ramp rails is the type used for Bassett-Lowke’s pre-WW2 tinplate points. I don’t know whether these levers were still being manufactured after WW2, just for use on ramp rails, or whether the factory was using up surplus stock left over after the tinplate track was discontinued. But the lever’s origin from an earlier period is apparent from its size and the company initials included in the casting:

 

[simond]

That’s a price of 30/3, not a cheap item.

About £1.51. Quick and dirty estimate would give about £193 in today’s money.

But 1951 Britain was far from prosperous, I guess, so perhaps rather more.