Rivermead Central

Masbury

Member
Hello Martin,

I have read with interest that you were not planning to ballast your railway (post 233, dated 16 January, 2025). To my mind this is a good decision!
Gilbert Thomas did in fact try some experimental ballasting, and the results may be seen in the photographs in Plate V, opposite page 64 in 'Paddington to Seagood'. Elsewhere (ibid., pages 115 - 116), Mr Thomas writes:

'Some day, we promise ourselves, we will ballast the track! A little temporary and experimental ballasting of one section was, indeed, carried out some years ago. It may be seen in the photograph of the "country" station, and[,] though it was not so neatly finished as the permanent thing would be, the illustration will sufficiently show the improved appearance which ballasting produces. Nevertheless, the ballasting of a complicated system is a big (and sticky!) job, and so far we have shirked it'.

It would seem that Gilbert Thomas did not proceed any further with the idea, and perhaps this was just as well. And, as you say, it does look as though ballast was not applied to the Sherwood Section (a line which no-one would call unrailwaylike!). For Gauge 0, ballast would need to be very finely graded, and, if laid 'loose', would be likely to spread everywhere. If glued with PVA or with a similar fixative, the ballast would make it difficult and messy to lift and/or to alter the track itself. Personally I feel that on a vintage layout the unadorned track, such as 'Lowko' or small scale permanent way, has an appeal of its own.

John
 

40057

Western Thunderer
Hello Martin,

I have read with interest that you were not planning to ballast your railway (post 233, dated 16 January, 2025). To my mind this is a good decision!
Gilbert Thomas did in fact try some experimental ballasting, and the results may be seen in the photographs in Plate V, opposite page 64 in 'Paddington to Seagood'. Elsewhere (ibid., pages 115 - 116), Mr Thomas writes:

'Some day, we promise ourselves, we will ballast the track! A little temporary and experimental ballasting of one section was, indeed, carried out some years ago. It may be seen in the photograph of the "country" station, and[,] though it was not so neatly finished as the permanent thing would be, the illustration will sufficiently show the improved appearance which ballasting produces. Nevertheless, the ballasting of a complicated system is a big (and sticky!) job, and so far we have shirked it'.

It would seem that Gilbert Thomas did not proceed any further with the idea, and perhaps this was just as well. And, as you say, it does look as though ballast was not applied to the Sherwood Section (a line which no-one would call unrailwaylike!). For Gauge 0, ballast would need to be very finely graded, and, if laid 'loose', would be likely to spread everywhere. If glued with PVA or with a similar fixative, the ballast would make it difficult and messy to lift and/or to alter the track itself. Personally I feel that on a vintage layout the unadorned track, such as 'Lowko' or small scale permanent way, has an appeal of its own.

John
Hi John

There has never been any intention to ballast the layout. Hence, I have painted the base-boards, fixed the track battens with black or countersunk slotted screws — all on the assumption of full visibility.

As you say, the vintage track has an appeal of its own. Many period layouts were not ballasted. So I see no need to add ballast. Practically, it would be a lot of work. Gluing ballast in place would damage the track panels and make alterations or lifting for repairs a nightmare. Loose ballast would be a source of fines to get stuck in oil and damage motors.

So general ballasting is out.

I have considered some limited applications of ballast where, for example, having the ground level nearly three scale feet below the rail top would make posed scenes (e.g. unloading a wagon) look daft. I have thought of a way of adding removable ballast. The material I would use is shown in post #154. The idea is piece of card or thin plywood the width of the gap between the sleepers and the the same length as the sleepers. Cover this in the fruit stone ballast, glued in place and painted. Then slide the card/plywood ballast insert between adjacent sleepers. No need to fix it down.

I do intend to try this idea.

There is no question of doing the whole layout. Unthinkable.

Martin
 

Roger Pound

Western Thunderer
As someone who has found ballasting a real drag in the past - it is next only to wiring in my least favourite aspects of railway modelling - I would agree for all the reasons stated in post #1082 above for not ballasting BL track and also applaud the fact that it is one less unwelcome task to tackle! In any case, I would contend that adding ballast would spoil the effect you are trying to create with Rivermead Central of reflecting a Basset Lowke system as originally supplied those many years ago.

Roger
 
Last edited:

Masbury

Member
Hello Martin,

Thank you. I am pleased that you and I - and Roger - are on the same wavelength here - and you have a plan to deal with the 'special case' described in post #154. I have also today remembered 'Birkonian's Model Railway', which was described in two articles which appeared in the Model Railway News, I believe in 1947. This was a wonderfully and wildly ambitious '0' gauge railway which included representations of Euston, Stafford, Chester, and, yet further, Holyhead and Elvanfoot (the latter in the Upper Clyde Valley). None of this ensemble was ballasted, and I seem to recall that the author commented that in reality the absence of ballast was not so evident as it appeared to be in the photographs which accompanied the articles. Bravo battened track!
 

40057

Western Thunderer
Hello Martin,

Thank you. I am pleased that you and I - and Roger - are on the same wavelength here - and you have a plan to deal with the 'special case' described in post #154. I have also today remembered 'Birkonian's Model Railway', which was described in two articles which appeared in the Model Railway News, I believe in 1947. This was a wonderfully and wildly ambitious '0' gauge railway which included representations of Euston, Stafford, Chester, and, yet further, Holyhead and Elvanfoot (the latter in the Upper Clyde Valley). None of this ensemble was ballasted, and I seem to recall that the author commented that in reality the absence of ballast was not so evident as it appeared to be in the photographs which accompanied the articles. Bravo battened track!
I find it very interesting how perceptions of realism and purpose have changed amongst model railway builders. Euston to Holyhead and Scotland. Absurd foreshortening. Presumably not one siding or station platform anywhere near scale length. Yet a realism in that the model railway replicates the central purpose of the real thing. It goes from ‘A’ to ‘B’. Trains can be worked. Now we have layouts of minute accuracy that portray one or two sidings. It looks very real, but you can’t run ‘The Irish Mail’.

The assumption that a model railway portrayed a route or line, or at least went from somewhere to somewhere else, was clearly quite usual pre-WW2. I can’t recall the exact wording, but when Bassett-Lowke added GNR pattern somersault signals to its tinplate range, the catalogue suggested ‘a model every model railway owner will want to have on the GN section of his model railway.’

How many modern layouts have a GN section?

Martin
 

40057

Western Thunderer
Slow — alright, very slow — progress with the Exley Southern coach. I believe all paint repairs to the body are complete, though I have thought that previously and then found something I had missed. One gangway has been replaced and is now fastened permanently in position:

A264E10E-5247-4933-B09D-61E0B8ABA0D7.jpeg

Sorry, not a great photo.

I still have to put back the other gangway.

The bogies (see post #1,080) have been over-painted (very badly) at some point in matt black. I have removed rust from the ferrous components around soldered joints. I will repaint the bogies in a semi-gloss black to replicate the original paint finish.

This coach has really taken up too much time. I knew it had a lot of issues when I bought it, but I seriously underestimated the amount of work needed to put it back in good order. I probably wouldn’t have taken the project on but (a) I already had an S.R. brake/3rd (see post #74), and (b) pre-WW2 Southern Railway Exley coaches are hard to find.

It is — or will be when finished — a fine coach. I don’t suppose I will ever see another similar one.

Martin
 

John R Smith

Western Thunderer
The bogies (see post #1,080) have been over-painted (very badly) at some point in matt black. I have removed rust from the ferrous components around soldered joints. I will repaint the bogies in a semi-gloss black to replicate the original paint finish.

It is interesting how the old school manufacturers never used matt paint on their coaches or locomotives, probably because of handling issues.

It is — or will be when finished — a fine coach. I don’t suppose I will ever see another similar one.

You are doing a great job on it, Martin. And these coaches are certainly very rare, especially in SR colours.

John
 

Masbury

Member
Hello Martin,

I agree with your observations about the pre-WWII concept of a model railway representing an actual route. I have absolutely no difficulty with the familiar arrangement of an imaginary branch line terminus with a line leading to hidden storage sidings - it has served us well - but there is something rather pleasing about a line purporting to run from one location to another. I have just been reminded that in 1935 a Mr J. Southwell, who lived in Holyhead, decided that what was needed was a model railway which ran from Euston to that Welsh port. Accordingly he and his family built an outdoor railway linking those places, with an intermediate station at Shrewsbury [sic]. This Shrewsbury was to become the nerve centre of an astonishing system which spread to Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, and even Swansea via Craven Arms and the Central Wales line. Evidently this model railway made an impression upon the editor and writers of the Meccano Magazine ('MM'), which over the years featured six articles about the line.* The railway afforded huge interest and pleasure to Mr Southwell and to his family, and they continued to extend it even during the dark days of WWII. When track supplies became no longer available, the Southwells simply made rails from stripwood, to which the good natured Hornby wheel sets obligingly accommodated themselves.

John

* With immense industry, Timothy Edwards has digitised all UK Issues of the Meccano Magazine, and they can be read on-line (and free of charge): see www.meccanoindex.co.uk; and follow the links. (In case anyone might be interested, I could supply chapter and verse about the Southwell articles in the 'MM'.)
 

John R Smith

Western Thunderer
Hello Martin

While I think about it, there should be an addendum to my post #1076 (about post-war Exleys).

A vital fact regarding these coaches is that they can have either one of two types of bogies. Some have Exley bogies. These are sprung by individual steel wire springs from the ends af the axles, fixed at the centre of the bogie side frames. They are superb runners - but not on B-L Scale Permanent Way track, because most (but not all of them) have quite fine wheels with a B to B of 28mm. So they fall off at facing points. Because of the springs, it is very difficult to change the wheels, and if you break a spring you are dead in the water. So these are not the ones you want.

The ones you do want are the ones with Bassett-Lowke bogies, as sold by B-L themselves. The were delivered from the Exley factory in Bradford to Northampton as bodies only, where they were fitted with the B-L 616/0 bogies with cast-iron wheels and 27mm B to B. These of course run through all B-L trackwork without a hitch.

You can imagine how long it took me to realise all this, and the grief and money that it cost me. But it is all part of the problem which we have mentioned here previously, that Greenly specified 27mm B to B way back in the earliest Handbooks, BRMSB also specified 27 mm in the 1946 / 47 Standards, but Jack Ray and the Gauge O Guild specified 28 mm B to B in the late 1950s for their Coarse Scale Standard.

John
 
Last edited:

40057

Western Thunderer
Hello Martin

While I think about, there should be an addendum to my post #1076 (about post-war Exleys).

A vital fact regarding these is that they can have either one of two types of bogies. Some have Exley bogies. These are sprung by individual steel wire springs from the ends af the axles, fixed at the centre of the bogie side frames. They are superb runners - but not on B-L Scale Permanent Way track, because most (but not all of them) have quite fine wheels with a B to B of 28mm. So they fall off at facing points. Because of the springs, it is very difficult to change the wheels, and if you break a spring you are dead in the water. So these are not the ones you want.

The ones you do want are the ones with Bassett-Lowke bogies, as sold by B-L themselves. The were delivered from the Exley factory in Bradford to Northampton as bodies only, where they were fitted with the B-L 616/0 bogies with cast-iron wheels and 27mm B to B. These of course run through all B-L trackwork without a hitch.

You can imagine how long it took me to realise all this, and the grief and money that it cost me. But it is all part of the problem which we have mentioned here previously, that Greenly specified 27mm B to B way back in the earliest Handbooks, BRMSB also specified 27 mm in the 1946 / 47 Standards, but Jack Ray and the Gauge O Guild specified 28 mm B to B in the late 1950s for their Coarse Scale Standard.

John
Hi John

Thank you for the above post — which has raised a question in my head.

How do the Exley wheel standards compare with Nu-scale?

You will appreciate I have no post-WW2 Exley coaches. Nor do I have a B-L Nu-scale locomotive.

Bassett-Lowke standard wheels were always 27.0 mm b/b. From the mid-‘30s, the wheels were 6 mm wide with treads 4.5 mm wide and 2.0 mm deep flanges that were 1 mm wide. These wheels are happy on Lowko Track or Scale Permanent Way.

The 28.0 mm b/b of Exley wheels would, logically, allow wheel width to be reduced to 5.5 mm. The width over the wheels being the same as the B-L standard, the Exley wheels should run fine on B-L track on plain line. But not through turnouts.

Are the Exley wheels 5.5 mm wide?

My experience with B-L standard wheels and track is the wheel width can be reduced from 6.0 to 5.8 mm without causing a problem. So the Exley wheels should still be OK on plain line if as narrow as 5.3 mm.

You kindly sent me the article about Nu-scale from the B-L Society newsletter. One thing that strikes me immediately is that descriptions of the Nu-scale standard in catalogues and press articles say the wheels are ‘finer’. They don’t say how or give dimensions. In the article, the author states the Nu-scale tread width to be 5 mm. This must be an error, since standard wheels only had treads 4.5 mm wide. I’m guessing he actually means wheel width? Nu-scale flanges were, it says, 1.5 mm deep. This is what we used for 828. Back-to-backs were variable between 27.4 and 28.0 mm, typically 27.6 mm. The variation in b/b measurements is really surprising. First, the 27.0 b/b for standard wheels tends to be very precisely adhered to on standard models. Second, the Nu-scale wheel specification has to be based on pushing the tolerances for standard track to the absolute limit. So, clearly, even small variations are potentially outside the maximum tolerances, which is likely to result in derailment, possibly even on plain line.

Your comments about Exley wheels, and my experience with a couple of new builds, do raise in my mind the question of whether Nu-scale locomotives would actually work reliably on B-L track. I certainly doubt compatibility with Lowko Track, but it seems their wheels might be similar or identical to the Exley’s you say won’t negotiate B-L Scale Permanent Way turnouts.

Martin
 

John R Smith

Western Thunderer
How do the Exley wheel standards compare with Nu-scale?

Hello Martin

As you can imagine, I quite rapidly sold on all the Exley coaches I had with Exley bogies once the penny dropped as to the reason for my persistent derailments. Fortunately for this conversation, I have actually got one set of genuine Exley bogies with wheels from a coach where I cannibalised the body for window glass, gangways etc.

So, these are the sprung bogies with the typical centre mounting using Exley's favourite split pin method. The wheels on this pair are I think turned from dural bar stock. The width of each wheel back to front is 5.0mm. The flanges are very fine at 1.3mm, tread width is 3.5mm. B to B is 28.0mm.

Something that struck me was that there did not seem to be a "standard" amongst the wheelsets on the Exley bogied coaches. They varied a lot, but unfortunately I did not keep a record. I changed to B-L bogies and my problems went away.

I hope this helps

John
 
Last edited:

40057

Western Thunderer
Hello Martin

As you can imagine, I quite rapidly sold on all the Exley coaches I had with Exley bogies once the penny dropped as to the reason for my persistent derailments. Fortunately for this conversation, I have actually got one set of genuine Exley bogies with wheels from a coach where I cannibalised the body for window glass, gangways etc.

So, these are the sprung bogies with the typical centre mounting using Exley's favourite split pin method. The wheels on this pair are I think turned from dural bar stock. The width of each wheel back to front is 5.0mm. The flanges are very fine at 1.3mm, tread width is 3.5mm. B to B is 28.0mm.

Something that struck me was that there did not seem to be a "standard" amongst the wheelsets on the Exley bogied coaches. They varied a lot, but unfortunately I did not keep a record. I changed to B-L bogies and my problems went away.

I hope this helps

John
Hi John

Your information on the 1950s Exley wheels suggests they are almost identical to some Nu-scale wheels.

The whole Nu-scale episode is distinctly odd. I can understand B-L’s locos were looking a bit dated by the late 1950s, particularly using a very old wheel standard. Things had moved on. But B-L couldn't afford to invest in a new range of models that would meet expectations for greater realism. However, wheel and track standards are flip sides of the same coin. There is very limited scope for changing one without altering the other in parallel. Finer wheels without altering check rail spacing is bound to lead to problems at crossings, if not derailment then an unsupported gap allowing the wheel to drop.

To work properly on standard B-L Scale Permanent Way — designed for standard B-L wheels — Nu-scale wheels would have to be very similar to standard wheels in respect of width and back-to-back, and very precise since these dimensions would be close to or at the tolerance limit for the crossings.

Martin
 

John R Smith

Western Thunderer
Hello Martin

You raise a lot of very interesting questions. Just to clarify my experience with Exley etc, it is limited these days to my own small setup. As you know, it is not much better than a glorified test track, but to be specific -

Layout Plan Web.jpg
All the track is post-war B-L Scale Permanent Way in brass. So we have two 3' radius LH points, forming a crossover into the rear Platform 2 and access to the MPD. And there are a RH parallel point and a LH crossover forming the loop from Platform 1 and also giving access to the goods shed. As a test track this gives engines and rolling stock a good workout, especially when stock is being propelled. What it does not do is test high speed running with lengthy trains, of course, so it has its limitations. One thing I should note is that none of this B-L track has a gauge of 32mm - it varies between 31.5 and 31.7mm, so I assume it is nominally 1 1/4 inch gauge. This might make a difference to the running of finer scale wheels, perhaps.

So as far as engines are concerned, all of my Bassett-Lowke engines will run happily over this layout, from the earliest (Bing Precursor 4-4-2T) to the most recent (B-L BR 2-6-4T). When I say run happily, I mean at any speed in any direction without derailment. My Hornby engines (both No 2 Specials) also run just fine, despite presumably having been designed for tinplate track. So my derailment troubles have always been with coaches and wagons.

Not wanting to hijack your thread, but returning to Nuscale as you discuss above. This is the relevant page from the 1961 B-L catalogue, which I am sure that you have, but I have included here for the benefit of those who may be following this -

B-L 1961 Catalogue Nuscale 002.jpg


What I do notice is that, apart from the wheels, the "additional details" seem to amount to lamp irons, vacuum pipes and smokebox door detail on the Scotsman and Compound. But not on the Duchess, which already had those things anyway. Whether this justified the price increase from £8-18-0 to £15-10-0 for the three-rail compound seems debatable. The other question is raised by the statement in the text -

". . . wheels finished to a new standard which introduces that "fine" look - yet they will operate on the standard track - "

But if these Nuscale wheels were anything like the Exley ones in my last post, this sounds like wishful thinking on B-L's part. In fact, they may have ended up with neither fish nor fowl - engines not able to run on finescale track, and unreliable on B-L track too. I would have thought that the later cast-iron wheels, as fitted to my 2-6-4 tank with 27mm B to B, are about as fine as you could sensibly go on the Scale Permanent Way track and maintain reliable running at any speed and direction.

John
 

40057

Western Thunderer
Hello Martin

You raise a lot of very interesting questions. Just to clarify my experience with Exley etc, it is limited these days to my own small setup. As you know, it is not much better than a glorified test track, but to be specific -

View attachment 269245
All the track is post-war B-L Scale Permanent Way in brass. So we have two 3' radius LH points, forming a crossover into the rear Platform 2 and access to the MPD. And there are a RH parallel point and a LH crossover forming the loop from Platform 1 and also giving access to the goods shed. As a test track this gives engines and rolling stock a good workout, especially when stock is being propelled. What it does not do is test high speed running with lengthy trains, of course, so it has its limitations. One thing I should note is that none of this B-L track has a gauge of 32mm - it varies between 31.5 and 31.7mm, so I assume it is nominally 1 1/4 inch gauge. This might make a difference to the running of finer scale wheels, perhaps.

So as far as engines are concerned, all of my Bassett-Lowke engines will run happily over this layout, from the earliest (Bing Precursor 4-4-2T) to the most recent (B-L BR 2-6-4T). When I say run happily, I mean at any speed in any direction without derailment. My Hornby engines (both No 2 Specials) also run just fine, despite presumably having been designed for tinplate track. So my derailment troubles have always been with coaches and wagons.

Not wanting to hijack your thread, but returning to Nuscale as you discuss above. This is the relevant page from the 1961 B-L catalogue, which I am sure that you have, but I have included here for the benefit of those who may be following this -

View attachment 269252


What I do notice is that, apart from the wheels, the "additional details" seem to amount to lamp irons, vacuum pipes and smokebox door detail on the Scotsman and Compound. But not on the Duchess, which already had those things anyway. Whether this justified the price increase from £8-18-0 to £15-10-0 for the three-rail compound seems debatable. The other question is raised by the statement in the text -

". . . wheels finished to a new standard which introduces that "fine" look - yet they will operate on the standard track - "

But if these Nuscale wheels were anything like the Exley ones in my last post, this sounds like wishful thinking on B-L's part. In fact, they may have ended up with neither fish nor fowl - engines not able to run on finescale track, and unreliable on B-L track too. I would have thought that the later cast-iron wheels, as fitted to my 2-6-4 tank with 27mm B to B, are about as fine as you could sensibly go on the Scale Permanent Way track and maintain reliable running at any speed and direction.

John
Hi John

Very presumptuous of me, for which I apologise, but looking at your track plan — if it were mine, I would looking at whether I could have a lift up flap with gate leg at end ‘A’. This could be on the end of the layout or at right angles. Now, of course, I realise there may be issues in the shape of the room, other furniture etc. which rule this out, or you are happy as things are. And a short extension doesn’t give you a return loop or continuous circuit or even an end-to-end. But it would allow departing trains to get beyond station limits.

If your existing base-boards are 3’ off the floor, the lift up flap can be 3’ long with a track or tracks screwed in place or just put down to run trains.

A lift up flap at end ‘B’ wouldn’t allow trains to run out of the station, but a flap at right angles in front of the existing boards could provide room for a longer curving siding in place of the parcels depot. It would however make access difficult for reaching trains in the back platform.

Martin
 

John R Smith

Western Thunderer
Very presumptuous of me, for which I apologise, but looking at your track plan — if it were mine, I would looking at whether I could have a lift up flap with gate leg at end ‘A’.

Not presumptuous at all, Martin. All are good suggestions. All are possible, but would involve serious compromises in the aesthetic of the room, and its use for other purposes, so I have up until now resisted the temptation to expand. I live in a charming old Cornish cottage which dates back to at least 1695, and the room the railway is in was the original parlour of the house. The layout occupies the only clear wall in the room, and is 9 feet long. This wall is actually 12 feet, but the three feet beyond A-A is occupied by the door, which opens inward. B-B abuts the inside wall of the room. The remainder of the room has a radiator, a set of original recessed shelves, a delightful period fireplace, and a very nice window with deep recessed window seat looking out onto the garden. So I am very reluctant to compromise it all too much.

My tentative plan for the future might be to extend from A-A in an 'L' shape onto the next wall, which would involve losing the radiator (which I could bear) and really I would also need to re-hang the door so it opens outwards. There would still have to be a lifting flap, of course. I have plenty of B-L track in stock, more than enough to do the job. But these days arthritic problems mean that I would need some serious assistance in the construction phase!

John
 

40057

Western Thunderer
Hello Martin

You raise a lot of very interesting questions. Just to clarify my experience with Exley etc, it is limited these days to my own small setup. As you know, it is not much better than a glorified test track, but to be specific -

View attachment 269245
All the track is post-war B-L Scale Permanent Way in brass. So we have two 3' radius LH points, forming a crossover into the rear Platform 2 and access to the MPD. And there are a RH parallel point and a LH crossover forming the loop from Platform 1 and also giving access to the goods shed. As a test track this gives engines and rolling stock a good workout, especially when stock is being propelled. What it does not do is test high speed running with lengthy trains, of course, so it has its limitations. One thing I should note is that none of this B-L track has a gauge of 32mm - it varies between 31.5 and 31.7mm, so I assume it is nominally 1 1/4 inch gauge. This might make a difference to the running of finer scale wheels, perhaps.

So as far as engines are concerned, all of my Bassett-Lowke engines will run happily over this layout, from the earliest (Bing Precursor 4-4-2T) to the most recent (B-L BR 2-6-4T). When I say run happily, I mean at any speed in any direction without derailment. My Hornby engines (both No 2 Specials) also run just fine, despite presumably having been designed for tinplate track. So my derailment troubles have always been with coaches and wagons.

Not wanting to hijack your thread, but returning to Nuscale as you discuss above. This is the relevant page from the 1961 B-L catalogue, which I am sure that you have, but I have included here for the benefit of those who may be following this -

View attachment 269252


What I do notice is that, apart from the wheels, the "additional details" seem to amount to lamp irons, vacuum pipes and smokebox door detail on the Scotsman and Compound. But not on the Duchess, which already had those things anyway. Whether this justified the price increase from £8-18-0 to £15-10-0 for the three-rail compound seems debatable. The other question is raised by the statement in the text -

". . . wheels finished to a new standard which introduces that "fine" look - yet they will operate on the standard track - "

But if these Nuscale wheels were anything like the Exley ones in my last post, this sounds like wishful thinking on B-L's part. In fact, they may have ended up with neither fish nor fowl - engines not able to run on finescale track, and unreliable on B-L track too. I would have thought that the later cast-iron wheels, as fitted to my 2-6-4 tank with 27mm B to B, are about as fine as you could sensibly go on the Scale Permanent Way track and maintain reliable running at any speed and direction.

John
Hi John

I think it’s worth recording here that I have seen locos (several Flying Scotsmans in particular) with the ‘additional details’ listed for Nu-scale but standard wheels. I am sure these locos were factory upgrades. The addition of smoke box door handles and the handrail across the smoke box makes a tremendous difference to the appearance.

Martin
 

John R Smith

Western Thunderer
I think it’s worth recording here that I have seen locos (several Flying Scotsmans in particular) with the ‘additional details’ listed for Nu-scale but standard wheels. I am sure these locos were factory upgrades. The addition of smoke box door handles and the handrail across the smoke box makes a tremendous difference to the appearance.

Hello Martin.

You are absolutely correct, I too have noticed these "Super Scotsmen", one about two and a half years ago now which was a real beauty. These extra details were in fact a factory option, and are listed in the 1961 catalogue for the Flying Scotsman -

"Vacuum Brake Pipes, Headlamps and Brackets, Smokebox Door Handles can be fitted at 45/- extra." (page 12)

The price of the 3-rail electric Scotsman was £19-0-0 at the time.

I would imagine that if you were known to WJ Bassett-Lowke and were well-heeled (like Gilbert Thomas), you could have had more or less whatever you wanted in terms of detail and finish.

John
 

40057

Western Thunderer
Nearing completion now for the Southern Exley coach. The second gangway is fixed in position:

C6B49214-2B62-4CE5-BFDA-A7C06A17108B.jpeg

These gangways are built up from paper and card over a block of wood. I had to make extensive repairs, hence removal from the coach. Mostly, the gangways are still the original material. I replaced some elements using gummed brown paper tape sold for picture framing. Very similar material had been used by Exley.

The construction of these coaches was pretty basic in some respects. The bogies are mounted on blocks of wood approximately 14 x 22 x 22 mm nailed to the floor. There should be a rectangular aluminium ‘washer’ between the wooden block and the bogie. I wonder if these were made from the pieces punched out of the bodies to form the windows. The bogie washers are missing from this coach and I don’t have an original to copy. In any case, I am not sure accurately copying a washer that will never be seen is a good use of my modelling time. I found four circular pieces of thin aluminium sheet and have drilled central holes to make washers:

84B8E18A-C88D-491A-A6B9-8927B0867F91.jpeg

The wood screw is the type used by Exley, recovered from a wreck I am using as a spares donor. The washers will fulfil the same function as the Exley type — and are possibly better for being larger and circular.

These simpler-type pre-WW2 Exley’s tend to be rather high on their bogies, and wobbly too. I think the height is deliberate and, like the shorter than scale length, is a concession to 2’ radius curves. The bogies can swing out under the solebars with no problem.

I have only four of these Exley’s. Apart from the S.R. pair, a G.W.R. gangwayed brake/3rd and an L.M.S. non-gangwayed all-third. Both the L.M.S. and G.W.R. coaches have had the original bogie mounting blocks replaced by a previous owner to lower the ride height. The G.W.R. coach also has Bassett-Lowke bogies fitted. So quite a bit of work to return these to original condition. Why not just leave the alterations, as the lower ride height is probably an improvement? I would be tempted if the alterations had been made neatly, but the replacement bogie mountings on both coaches are crude, roughly glued and nailed in place and not equidistant from the coach ends. A right mess. Which I will put right. I’ll need some more bogie washers, though. I have only two left after this Southern coach is finished.

Martin
 

40057

Western Thunderer
Back in April last year, starting at post #342, there was an extended discussion in this thread about the post-1906 blue colour of Caledonian Railway locomotives. The discussion was prompted by having to choose the blue colour for the model of C.R. 828 built by Tom Mallard (see his workshop thread).

Amongst all the uncertainty and debate about ‘Caledonian blue’, a good case can be made for copying the colour used on the contemporary models made by Bing and others and sold by Bassett-Lowke. These were not toys for children, but ‘scale models’, expensive items aimed at well-to-do, educated, adults. Within the limitations of the manufacturing processes, these were accurate representations of real locomotives. It seems inconceivable to me that the manufacturers would not strive to get the colour of the livery correct. Their customers, by definition interested in railways, would soon have complained if the model was the wrong colour. And Bassett-Lowke, with a retail outlet in Edinburgh, had plenty of customers who saw real Caledonian locomotives on a daily basis. Bassett-Lowke was also supplying promotional models (made by Carette) to the Caledonian Railway for sale at the company’s stations. Bassett-Lowke definitely knew what colour ‘Caledonian blue’ was. Bassett-Lowke was also, of course, selling models of Midland, GNR, LNWR and many other companies’ locomotives. No-one suggests these models are the ‘wrong colour’; indeed, it is quite clear they carry generally accurate renditions of the respective liveries. So why should anyone assume Bassett-Lowke, uniquely, got the Caledonian colour wrong?

So my assumption is that I can trust the contemporary quantity produced models sold by Bassett-Lowke as a reliable source for Caledonian Railway locomotive livery.

There are, however, some caveats that must be applied to reliance on the contemporary Bassett-Lowke models. The paintwork will be over a hundred years old. It may have faded if left in bright light. The varnish covering the paint may have darkened or yellowed with age. The paint is likely to be dirty. All these things may have changed the colour over time. Over and above that, having looked at a range of contemporary models, I don’t think they were all exactly the same colour to begin with. And the blue can appear very different depending on the lighting conditions and even what angle the surface is at relative to the incident light.

It also has to be remembered that manufacturers, then as now, do make mistakes. Also, manufacturers might not pick up immediately on changes on the real railway, so models could reproduce out-of-date livery styles. Generally, in the pre-WW1 period, models copied the latest practice, but for Caledonian Railway livery there is the question of which blue is being represented — pre-1906 (darker) or post-1906 (lighter).

Shown previously, but worth including here, Bing’s model of C.R. no.142 in Gauge 1, sold by Bassett-Lowke c. 1910.

F7180C08-6E3A-4C1F-A604-01E923085380.jpeg

9C3ECBA1-C7A2-481D-AE2D-38AD606AB572.jpeg

I looked at several contemporary models when deciding on the colour for 828. I had previously been able to examine contemporary models at the Brighton Toy & Model Museum. My conclusions were:

1. The blue colour was very similar (but not identical) on all the models examined.
2. It was a noticeably bright blue but much darker than some current paints sold as being the C.R. lighter blue.
3. The blue tended towards a purple-blue, not a green-blue or turquoise.

Several of the contemporary post-cards reproduced in the Caledonian Liveries book also have a purple cast to the blue colour.

The colour I chose for 828 was based on my judgement of the ‘consensus’ amongst the shades exhibited by the contemporary models. The paint used was a mixture of RAL 5002 and purple. I will never know if this is an accurate, or even a good, representation of C.R. post-1906 blue. But it seems very unlikely to be badly wrong, based as it is on multiple contemporary sources.

Just to show how important lighting is, three pictures of 828 at different times of day with or without supplementary artificial light:

B544F0C0-C9E6-4E39-B473-14F2F24684C4.jpeg
E80ECF3A-6059-4234-B0FC-13428FB81A1A.jpeg

FDBB4D4C-083B-4C94-AAD9-FC15F946899D.jpeg

Same paint in all three photos.

Since 828 was painted, I have come across two other contemporary sources for C.R. lighter blue. These sources are independent in that they played no part in my settling on the colour for 828. Both are also post-WW1 products from manufacturers who weren’t making trains until long after 1906.

First, Meccano Ltd, whose range of Hornby toy trains was introduced in 1920. Between 1921 and 1923, Caledonian livery was offered along with Midland, LNWR and GNR. None of these locos had lining; essentially the locomotives were available in blue, red, black or green. Here’s the blue:

4EAF0096-037A-4499-952F-D6F28EAC5019.jpeg

Picture from the Binns Road website, used with permission.

Despite all the variation due to lighting and any effects of ageing on the paint, the blue used by Meccano Ltd is clearly very similar to the blue used by Bing pre-WW1 and the the blue on 828. The bright colour, on the purple rather than green side of blue, is present again. It’s a nice confirmation.

However, I have also come across a very different rendition of Caledonian lighter blue. I must emphasise I haven’t seen this model, only a photograph. I have no idea of the lighting conditions used for photography. This model was offered on eBay. It’s a first series Leeds Model Company (LMC) 4-4-0 tank loco dating from the early 1920s. Very unusually for the LMC, it clearly has its original paint:

EC9B0026-6F7F-4AF4-9473-5CE083B630D4.jpeg

This is a markedly different colour to all the other models I have seen in what was supposed to be the same livery. Even from the photograph online, it’s clear the varnish on the LMC model has significantly yellowed. The paint may also have faded but there is no sign that the lower part of the boiler, for instance, is a different colour. The wheels, however, do appear to be a different shade. It’s impossible to know without examining the model in person, but my best guess is the wheels are not varnished. The wheels appear darker and more in line with the blue used on other models.

With only a photograph to go on it’s impossible to be sure, but it seems likely the LMC tank engine was always a paler and greener blue than the other models produced when the Caledonian Railway was still in existence.

Martin
 

Overseer

Western Thunderer
It is good to see the colours of contemporary models. They may not be perfect matches to the original colours used but they should be reasonably close. The Caledonian has suffered badly over the years from people seeing pale locomotives in photographs and assuming it meant that the blue was a light blue because they have not realised the contemporary film was blue sensitive - any blue, even a dark blue, will appear white or pale grey. Some photographers used coloured filters to try to improve the colour rendition so it is nearly impossible to form an opinion of the actual colour based on a black and white photo unless you know the film used and whether any filters were used. Conversely, the blue sensitive film recorded yellow colours as dark grey and red as black. Pale green and yellow locos look dark on film making it hard to know the true differences between dark green and lighter green in two colour liveries, or even how yellow Stroudley's colour was.

The problem was discussed in the Meccano Magazine during the 1920s. Checking online, this 2023 article on 35mmc.com gives a good comparison of the properties of blue sensitive, orthochromatic, panchromatic and other film types. Spectral Sensitivity of B&W Film - A Deep Dive into Orthochromatic, Panchromatic and All the Rest
 
Top