Rivermead Central

[40057]

Nearly finished:





The coping needs weathering but that will have to wait for the paint applied today to cure. I’ll need to put a fresh coat of grey paint on the section of high-level base-board included in the structure once it’s installed on the layout. Otherwise, done.

 

[John R Smith]

Hello Martin

I am writing to appeal to you for a bit of guidance with a problem. I know that you are the owner of a very nice little Bond's Bonzone, which you showed us in your post #3 in this thread - and what a little beauty that one is, in wonderful original condition. I also found out from the Milbro site that you are considered to be an expert in these locos, so who better to ask?

Just last week I fell for this little loco, a clockwork Bonzone -



As you can see, this is the base model Bonzone and lacks many of the details which yours has - the extra handrails, sandpipes, and the bunker. So it is pretty plain. And of course it has been completely refinished, so it is not collectible (and quite inexpensive as a result). I don't mind the refinish, and had plans to turn it into an LMS loco and use it as a yard pilot. Initially, I was really puzzled by the clockwork motor as I had never seen a governer design like it before, but I now gather from the Milbro site that you have identified it as a Marklin 0-4-0 mech, with the extra driving wheels added on stub axles by Bonds.

However, I have had some pretty serious problems getting it to run. At first, the mech was very stiff and hesitant, but a good clean, lubrication and some running-in seem to have improved things. But she seems to have a real dislike for my track, crashing and banging through every point. I have now traced this bad behaviour to the back to back settings, which are as follows -

• Front drivers, 28.3 mm
• Centre drivers, 29.5 mm
• Rear drivers, 28.4 mm

I use, as you know, Bassett-Lowke Scale Permanent Way from the post-war era (1950s). And I have found out the hard way that I have to stick to the pre-war B-L back to back standard of 27 mm for good running - I can get away with 27.5 mm most of the time, but any more is bad news. So the Bonzone's settings are not so good, in fact the centre drivers are completely bonkers. The driving wheels have centre nuts (not press-fit, sadly), and I have checked them and they all seem tight.

So I was wondering if you might just check your own Bonzone for me to see what its B to B settings are? That might be useful knowledge, perhaps mine is some sort of aberration.

Many thanks in advance

John

 

[40057]

Hello Martin

I am writing to appeal to you for a bit of guidance with a problem. I know that you are the owner of a very nice little Bond's Bonzone, which you showed us in your post #3 in this thread - and what a little beauty that one is, in wonderful original condition. I also found out from the Milbro site that you are considered to be an expert in these locos, so who better to ask?

Just last week I fell for this little loco, a clockwork Bonzone -

View attachment 245442

As you can see, this is the base model Bonzone and lacks many of the details which yours has - the extra handrails, sandpipes, and the bunker. So it is pretty plain. And of course it has been completely refinished, so it is not collectible (and quite inexpensive as a result). I don't mind the refinish, and had plans to turn it into an LMS loco and use it as a yard pilot. Initially, I was really puzzled by the clockwork motor as I had never seen a governer design like it before, but I now gather from the Milbro site that you have identified it as a Marklin 0-4-0 mech, with the extra driving wheels added on stub axles by Bonds.

However, I have had some pretty serious problems getting it to run. At first, the mech was very stiff and hesitant, but a good clean, lubrication and some running-in seem to have improved things. But she seems to have a real dislike for my track, crashing and banging through every point. I have now traced this bad behaviour to the back to back settings, which are as follows -

• Front drivers, 28.3 mm
• Centre drivers, 29.5 mm
• Rear drivers, 28.4 mm

I use, as you know, Bassett-Lowke Scale Permanent Way from the post-war era (1950s). And I have found out the hard way that I have to stick to the pre-war B-L back to back standard of 27 mm for good running - I can get away with 27.5 mm most of the time, but any more is bad news. So the Bonzone's settings are not so good, in fact the centre drivers are completely bonkers. The driving wheels have centre nuts (not press-fit, sadly), and I have checked them and they all seem tight.

So I was wondering if you might just check your own Bonzone for me to see what its B to B settings are? That might be useful knowledge, perhaps mine is some sort of aberration.

Many thanks in advance

John

Hi John

I am certainly not an expert on Bond’s locos!

It is, as you say an early or plain Bonzone without a bunker etc. The plain version did continue for a time after the more detailed ‘super Bonzone’ was introduced. Early locos generally (always?) have flangeless centre wheels, so yours may be a later plain one.

Regarding the motor, I’m afraid Marklin motors are frequently not great. Often, they run absurdly fast. Even with its tiny wheels, my Bonzone makes a rapid progress. Since it has no speed control, it isn’t great for working trains along the Cavendish Goods branch. My Bonzone also has a very stiff reversing lever, so much so it is essentially unuseable as a shunter. So it will be very much the ‘spare engine’ amongst the industrials based at Cavendish Goods. Lovely to look at, not much practical use.

I think your wheels are much as I would expect. Bond’s used 28.5 mm back-to-back. The makers claimed the wheels were a special profile (or some such wording) and would also work on tinplate track. That will be true — for Hornby or Bassett-Lowke tinplate points with a pivoted plate and no crossing. I think the bottom line is your Bonzone will work on finer track or traditional tinplate, not (well) on permanent way track designed for different wheel standards.

I can run my Bonzone on my main circuit (that which exists) as there are few points and those there are have the straight track on the main line. It’s OK for that. Similarly, there are no points between the yard at Cavendish Goods and the branch coming into Cairnie Junction yard (something over 65’ of plain line) — and again the points at each end have the straight track on the running line.

 

[John R Smith]

Regarding the motor, I’m afraid Marklin motors are frequently not great. Often, they run absurdly fast. Even with its tiny wheels, my Bonzone makes a rapid progress. Since it has no speed control, it isn’t great for working trains along the Cavendish Goods branch. My Bonzone also has a very stiff reversing lever, so much so it is essentially unuseable as a shunter. So it will be very much the ‘spare engine’ amongst the industrials based at Cavendish Goods. Lovely to look at, not much practical use.

I think your wheels are much as I would expect. Bond’s used 28.5 mm back-to-back. The makers claimed the wheels were a special profile (or some such wording) and would also work on tinplate track. That will be true — for Hornby or Bassett-Lowke tinplate points with a pivoted plate and no crossing. I think the bottom line is your Bonzone will work on finer track or traditional tinplate, not (well) on permanent way track designed for different wheel standards.

Thank you so much for the detailed reply, Martin.

Oh dear, so the B-to-B I have on the front and rear wheelsets is actually correct. That (28.5 mm) is as bad as lots of post-war Exleys, which is why Bassett-Lowke always put their own bogies and wheels on the Exleys they sold. My own layout is mostly points with very little plain line, so things are not looking good. The little terror is, as you note, somewhat speedy, but I found that hanging a few heavy wagons behind it tames it quite well. My reversing control is very free moving and you can just operate it with one finger, so that part is good news. I will try taking the wheels off tonight and see if there is any scope for adjustment . . .

It may well become a decorative addition to the MPD!

John

 

[40057]

Thank you so much for the detailed reply, Martin.

Oh dear, so the B-to-B I have on the front and rear wheelsets is actually correct. That (28.5 mm) is as bad as lots of post-war Exleys, which is why Bassett-Lowke always put their own bogies and wheels on the Exleys they sold. My own layout is mostly points with very little plain line, so things are not looking good. The little terror is, as you note, somewhat speedy, but I found that hanging a few heavy wagons behind it tames it quite well. My reversing control is very free moving and you can just operate it with one finger, so that part is good news. I will try taking the wheels off tonight and see if there is any scope for adjustment . . .

It may well become a decorative addition to the MPD!

John

I think if you try reducing the back-to-back, the problem will be the wheel treads aren’t wide enough for the loco to stay on the rails (certainly not on round-headed rails). The wheel standards are not Bassett-Lowke and weren’t intended to be. Compared with Bond’s, B/L wheels have a smaller b/b but therefore necessarily wider treads.

 

[40057]

Really, it’s been too hot to make much progress with anything. However, I have managed to finish weathering the retaining wall so it is ready to be installed on the layout:



And the side that will only be seen by leaning over or from a very oblique angle:



The less-than-elegant supporting structure made from miscellaneous offcuts will never be seen again. I can identify the section of the high-level baseboard to the left as having been part of a window-sill in its previous life. I think the only purchased components (as opposed to reused materials) in the whole structure are the nails, screws and laser-cut brick-effect plywood.

 

[40057]

A productive afternoon working on the railway. The new section of retaining wall is fastened in position (wood screws + glue):



Still a work in progress — for instance, another coat of grey paint is needed over the join in the high-level base-board as the orange coloured wood filler I used is showing through.

A few other points worthy of comment.

You can see the ‘new’ shade of grey chosen for the low-level base-boards. It’s nowhere near as dark as the colour selected a few months ago which proved a poor choice since it showed every speck of dust. The new shade is still significantly darker (and much browner) than the grey used for the high-level base-boards.

As can be seen in the above photo, I have laid my ‘transition track’ (see my post #222 et seq.) and the first piece of Scale Permanent Way at Cavendish Goods. This is the first piece of Scale Permanent Way laid on the layout — so something of a milestone. The reason for the shape of the retaining wall section just installed is now obvious. The cut away corner being necessary to accommodate the curving track leading into the yard at Cavendish Goods. The position of this track was essentially fixed by needing to fit a yard built using Scale Permanent Way into a space designed to accommodate a yard built using Lowko Track, with its different geometry. Anyway, everything fits with plenty of clearance.

I have laid the track emerging into the yard at Cavendish Goods to give me its exact position for constructing the tunnel mouth. I say ‘tunnel mouth’ — but effectively one elevation of a plate-girder beam bridge. I will build the abutments using the same brick-effect plywood as I used to make the retaining wall. I’m not sure about the plate girder. I would happily use a kit, if I could find something suitable. My default is to build the girder in wood as per Bassett-Lowke, but I am concerned about it warping. Metal might be a better option. A kit would save time.

I am fairly happy with the alignment of the newly laid track and how well the transition piece has worked, as seen here:



The curve across the join between the two track types is smooth and of constant radius. One rail of the transition piece is slightly low (a fraction of a mm) which I don’t think will be a problem given the generous flanges on period models. I’ll do some testing and put a piece of coffee stirrer under the low side if I need to.

The above photo shows the Cavendish Goods branch climbing away from the yard and weaving across under the main running circuit, specifically under the southern station approach at Cairnie Junction. When the branch straightens out, it is under platform 1 at Cairnie Junction — which allows the tops of vehicles in branch trains to rise above the level of the high-level base-boards as the track continues to climb.

 

[John R Smith]

The curve across the join between the two track types is smooth and of constant radius. One rail of the transition piece is slightly low (a fraction of a mm) which I don’t think will be a problem given the generous flanges on period models. I’ll do some testing and put a piece of coffee stirrer under the low side if I need to.

It looks like you have achieved a very good join, especially considering the huge difference in height between the two different rail sections. One problem I have come across is that of a lesser but still troublesome height difference between pre and post-war B-L brass rail sections - the post-war Scale Permanent Way is a smaller section, so you can't mix the two up without a horrible step in the track.

Another issue these days is with fishplates (the brass rail joiners). Bassett-Lowke or Bond's ones are now quite hard to find and sellers are asking very silly money for them. I have found an OK substitute to be Tenmille items, still not cheap but they do the job.

John

 

[40057]

It looks like you have achieved a very good join, especially considering the huge difference in height between the two different rail sections. One problem I have come across is that of a lesser but still troublesome height difference between pre and post-war B-L brass rail sections - the post-war Scale Permanent Way is a smaller section, so you can't mix the two up without a horrible step in the track.

Another issue these days is with fishplates (the brass rail joiners). Bassett-Lowke or Bond's ones are now quite hard to find and sellers are asking very silly money for them. I have found an OK substitute to be Tenmille items, still not cheap but they do the job.

John

Hi John

The change in rail section used for the later Scale Permanent Way is a nuisance. Like you, I assume the smaller section was introduced when production resumed post-WW2 — but I am not certain of that. Track that I am pretty sure was made post-WW2 (based on the boxes used and catalogue photos) still had pre-war type levers — so maybe the pre-war rail section too? It is very hard to tell the rail sections apart unless you have the two for direct comparison and I have inadvertently bought a few pieces with the deeper rails. I shall avoid using these or put them right at the end of sidings.

Martin

 

[John R Smith]

Like you, I assume the smaller section was introduced when production resumed post-WW2 — but I am not certain of that.

Hello Martin

My (very few) track sections which have the larger/higher profile rail also have the separate wooden keys in the chairs, so I assumed they were pre- WWII as I don't beleive B-L offered the keyed track post-war. I was very lucky, in that a while ago I was able to purchase five boxes of brand-new, never used post-war Scale Permanent Way straights and curves (six to a box). This was far more than I needed for Kingswell Street, of course, but I live in hope that I might one day be able to extend my present layout (!)

John

 

[40057]

Hello Martin

My (very few) track sections which have the larger/higher profile rail also have the separate wooden keys in the chairs, so I assumed they were pre- WWII as I don't beleive B-L offered the keyed track post-war. I was very lucky, in that a while ago I was able to purchase five boxes of brand-new, never used post-war Scale Permanent Way straights and curves (six to a box). This was far more than I needed for Kingswell Street, of course, but I live in hope that I might one day be able to extend my present layout (!)

John

Hi John

I agree, the keyed track will be earlier and pre-WW2. Not catalogued post-war, though I guess would have been made if ordered — at a price. B/L seem to have always been prepared to produce bespoke items not in the catalogue. I have some track that is identical in every way to the standard post-WW2 Scale Permanent Way EXCEPT for the heavier rail section. I do wonder if this might be immediately post-WW2 production.

Incidentally, you comment on the huge difference in the height of the rail section compared with Lowko Track. True, but including their respective battens, sleepers and rail chairs, Lowko Track and post-WW2 Scale Permanent Way are almost exactly the same height to top of rail. So matching up the running surface happened almost without trying.

I will be making two more transition pieces in due course — for the 180 degree curve at the south end of the main running circuit. I won’t use standard Lowko Track 3’ 2 1/4” radius curves as I don’t want such a tight radius on the main line. I could use 4’ radius Lowko Track if I could find it. But not listed in catalogues (in 0 gauge) post WW1. I have never seen even a single length of factory-made, 0-gauge, 4’ radius Lowko Track. I could build it from components — rails curved to 4’ radius were offered for home construction and used in factory-made curves in gauges 1 and 2. But a lot of work dismantling and remaking track. So, to save time and effort, I have a different solution. Milbro track — similar-ish to Scale Permanent Way. One of the standard radii offered by Milbro was 3’ 10” — which is perfect for the space available (4’ radius would require some sort of contrivance to squeeze it in). I have bought from a friend a half circle of Milbro 3’ 10” radius curves. They need cleaning and may be a bit of straightening at the ends of the rails, but they are generally in good order. I will have to make two transition lengths. But much less work than building ten Lowko Track lengths.

Of course, if ten lengths of 4’ radius Lowko Track do turn up before I lay the Milbro track, it’s the Lowko Track I will use.

Martin

 

[John R Smith]

I have a different solution. Milbro track — similar-ish to Scale Permanent Way.

Yes, I have a few lengths of Milbro which is stamped underneath so it is easy to ID. It seems fine - two things I notice about it. First, the battens underneath the curved sections are split to follow the curve, unlike B-L which are just straight. And secondly, the pins holding the chairs to the sleepers are steel, not brass like the B-L ones. But Milbro seem to have offered all sorts of exotic track formations in their catalogue, like double slips, which Northampton never did.

John

 

[40057]

A good find on a ‘well-known internet auction site’ a few days ago. Two rail-built buffer stops being sold as ‘Bassett-Lowke’. A very poor photograph in the listing (a helpful deterrent to other potential bidders!) but I was pretty sure one of the two was a genuine factory-made, post-WW2, Bassett-Lowke buffer stop. The other was clearly home-made. Certainly worth risking the £8 being asked for the lot.

The gamble has paid off. I have indeed acquired a Bassett-Lowke buffer stop. The home-made one has gone in the bin, but the Bassett-Lowke rail-built ‘stop is a nice find. I wouldn’t describe these as ‘rare’ but they don’t turn up often. As discussed previously in connection with the Lowko Track version, I’m sure sales were limited by the high price. Unless you were very well-to-do, the rail-built stops would be an accessory you could do without. Buy the much cheaper sleeper-built type of buffer stop, or make your own.

So here is the buffer-stop just purchased ‘as found’:



Absolutely filthy dirty. But looking past that, in excellent condition. It will clean up beautifully — a splendid piece of vintage equipment. It has been used, by the way. There are indentations on the buffer plank where ‘tinplate’ type couplings have hit during shunting.

A comparison photo with the pre-WW2 Lowko Track version:



The post-WW2 ‘stop has a smaller section buffer plank, as well as the smaller size sleepers and cast chairs used for post-WW2 Scale Permanent Way.

Here is the 1950s catalogue listing for the Bassett-Lowke range of buffer-stops:



The rail-built stop is by far the most expensive — not far off the price of a set of points. No wonder they are so scarce today. I now have four.

 

[40057]

A thorough clean with water and a soft toothbrush, and the buffer stop is ready for use:



It’s in excellent condition. Nothing wrong with it except seventy years of accumulated dirt.

Like much vintage equipment, it cost me far less in real terms than its price when new. For something that is individually hand-made in wood and brass.

These buffer stops are really super period pieces. To me, they really capture the character of the real railway of the time and add disproportionately to the overall vintage look of the model railway.

 

[John R Smith]

You did really well there, Martin. You even got a fishplate thrown in!

I saw it myself and havered about it, I'm glad it went to a deserving home . . .

By the way, I gave up on the Bonzone. I had it all apart and there was no way to alter the back-to-back to 27 mm. So the little engine has been sold on to a gentleman in Southampton.

John

 

[40057]

You did really well there, Martin. You even got a fishplate thrown in!

I saw it myself and havered about it, I'm glad it went to a deserving home . . .

By the way, I gave up on the Bonzone. I had it all apart and there was no way to alter the back-to-back to 27 mm. So the little engine has been sold on to a gentleman in Southampton.

John

In that case, John, thank you for not buying it! It was definitely a bargain at £7.99. I reckon the ‘going rate’ for these buffer stops is £25–£30. But that is not really the issue — the problem is finding them, at any price.

I wouldn’t say no to another one or two for Cavendish Goods. But I will use the four I have (plus any others I find) and the remaining sidings will get sleeper built ‘stops (of which I have more than enough).

Sorry to hear the Bonzone didn’t work out. The earliest ones might have 27.5 mm back-to-back wheels. I don’t know that they do, but dating from the 1920s it is quite likely.

Martin

 

[40057]

Another windows update. The Cairnie Junction yard office now has windows:



The glass is another of my father’s microscope slides — but cut in half to fit in the space. At present the windows are tacked in place with spots of glue at the corners. More glue will be applied and the visible gap between the the brick work and the window frame filled in.

Then a blanking plate inside the building so you can’t see right through it. Fix to the length of wall made previously. Add a second doorstep. Install on the layout.

 

[40057]

A ‘for the record’ picture — but not a very good one (sorry!) taken in poor light this evening. I have now completed the installation of the recently constructed section of retaining wall, including further repainting of the base-boards to cover the join:



As can be seen, I have laid an additional length of Scale Permanent Way — a 6” straight. I will stop at that meantime. I actually have the track cleaned/repaired to proceed to lay most or all of the yard at Cavendish Goods. Tempting though that is, I know it would make it much more difficult to install the track on the high-level base-boards behind. So I will concentrate next on making progress on the high-level boards behind Cavendish Goods.

 

[40057]

Yet another windows update. Since this thread acts as a ‘build diary’ for Rivermead Central, for the record, the windows in the Cairnie Junction yard office are fixed and the gaps around the frames filled in:



The building itself is now cosmetically finished. But still needs its blanking plate fixed inside behind the windows and to be attached to the adjoining section of wall.

 

[John R Smith]

Martin

One hesitates to say it, but this is almost too good for coarse scale!

A very nice piece of work.

John